Mixed results from trials have been found regarding the alleged link between water fluoridation and cancer.

Decades ‌of legal wrangling and‍ scientific debate have shrouded‍ the practice of water fluoridation in controversy.

Over 40 ‍years ago, veteran ⁣judges in three states ⁤made historic rulings⁢ against water fluoridation, finding it ‍contributed⁤ to cancer and other ⁣diseases. Despite the landmark‌ verdicts, appellate courts⁢ swiftly intervened, overturning the decisions and allowing fluoridation​ to continue, raising ‌critical concerns ⁤about unresolved potential risks.

Now, as ⁢a current lawsuit brought against the U.S. Environmental‍ Protection Agency‌ (EPA) by the Fluoride Action Network seeks to ban fluoride from water‍ supplies nationwide, the key question ‍lingers: Will history repeat itself?

Historic Judicial⁤ Findings

The‍ trials‍ unfolded, ⁤beginning in⁢ Pennsylvania in 1978, then Illinois in 1980, and ‍ending in Texas in 1982.

At the forefront of these cases ‌stood lawyer John Remington Graham, who has decades of experience‌ in constitutional, environmental, and criminal law. He was the plaintiffs’ counsel.

A chronicle of these‍ monumental courtroom‍ clashes was documented in a 1999 article ⁢ published in⁣ the‌ Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law, penned by ‌Mr. Graham ⁤and Pierre-Jean Morin, who holds a doctorate in experimental medicine and was the scientific advisor in the Texas litigation. The trials⁤ are also detailed in the ​chapter on forensic medicine in their book “Fluoridation: Autopsy of a Scientific Error.”

The lawsuits aimed to secure judicial recognition of the adverse repercussions stemming from water fluoridation.​ Among the alleged effects were concerns such‍ as cancer ⁤proliferation, genetic harm, intolerant reactions, chronic toxicity, ⁤and perceived⁢ violations​ of constitutional rights.

Despite winning ​each case at trial, the ‍final result was inevitable, Mr. Graham told​ The Epoch ​Times.

“Looking back on it now, I can​ see that ​the reason why we couldn’t go ‌any further‌ was because we were​ saying something that was politically impossible,” he said. “We were⁣ saying and proved that ⁤fluoridation causes cancer.”

Pennsylvania 1978: Aitkenhead v. ⁣Borough of West View

In 1978, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking to‍ block the planned fluoridation of ⁢the water‌ supply in ⁤West View, Pennsylvania, arguing it posed⁣ a public health​ risk.

Dean Burk, who retired in ‍1974 as the head of the cytochemistry section of the ​National Cancer Institute​ and whose career there ​spanned ‍35 years, presented the scientific work.

His study compared cancer rates over 30 years⁤ in 10​ of‌ the largest fluoridated cities versus 10 of the ⁤largest unfluoridated cities.

“Artificial fluoridation appears to‍ cause or induce ​about 20–30 excess cancer deaths for every 100,000 persons exposed per‌ year after‍ about 15–20 years,” according to the findings.

Extrapolating to ​130 million Americans‌ drinking fluoridated water means that ⁤over 40,000 excess cancer deaths per year can be ‍attributed to fluoridation, the 1999 ‍law review article noted.

Burk’s findings were later challenged, which muddied the ⁤waters over fluoride’s link⁣ to cancer. However, during the trial, even a key expert for the‌ defense was hesitant about water fluoridation.

That witness, ‌Daniel Taves, declined to ‍recommend fluoridation based on the presented data, noting he needed more information.

After extensive expert testimony over five months, Judge John ⁣Flaherty issued a preliminary injunction to ‌halt fluoridation due to evidence linking it to ⁣increased cancer mortality.

However, his jurisdiction was limited on appeal, denying‍ further judicial ‍review since⁢ the court deemed‍ the case ⁣an administrative agency matter to be handled‍ by ⁢the Department of Environmental Resources.

“While the ⁢ appellate court acknowledged the validity of the judge’s conclusion that fluoride was responsible for causing cancer, it also concluded that the ⁣judge lacked jurisdiction to proceed further and that exclusive jurisdiction rested with the administrative agency,” Mr. Graham said.

Illinois 1980: Illinois ‌Pure Water Committee, Inc. ‌v. Director⁣ of ‌Public Health

The case was tried from April to June 1980 before Judge Ronald Niemann.

The ⁣defense brought in a state epidemiologist who argued that the work of the⁤ plaintiffs’ expert, Burk, linking ‍fluoridation and ‌cancer, was invalid.

The epidemiologist claimed adjustments for⁤ demographic⁢ factors, which would eliminate the cancer⁣ association, needed to be‍ added ⁣but provided no figures to support his projections, according to ⁤the‌ 1999 article ‍in the Journal of Land‍ Use and Environmental Law.

After the three-month trial, Judge ‍Niemann ruled the mandatory fluoridation law exposed the public to​ uncertain health risks, was unreasonable, and violated due ⁤process.

“This record is barren of any ⁣credible and reputable scientific epidemiological ⁤studies and/or analysis of statistical data which would support the Illinois Legislature’s determination that fluoridation of the water supplies ⁣is both a safe and effective means of promoting public ‌health,” he⁤ said​ at the time.

Judge Niemann entered‌ a permanent injunction against fluoridation in⁤ Illinois ⁢in ​February 1982.

However, upon appeal, the Illinois Supreme ​Court reversed his judgment by citing broad interpretations ⁢of police power—the⁣ state government’s authority to regulate for public⁣ welfare, including safety and health.

Unlike ⁤the prior case in Pennsylvania, where the appellate court‍ upheld the findings, here, the ⁣higher court disagreed.

Judge Niemann found enough initial evidence suggesting⁤ a fluoridation risk, even if uncertain, according to the 1999 article.⁢ But the Illinois Supreme Court said he⁣ only showed the question of the safety of fluoridation ‍was “debatable,” not an unreasonable government