EPA Approves Analytical Methods, TSCA Fluoridation Lawsuit

EPA Approves Alternative Analytical Methods
In the January 30, 2024 Federal Register, (Federal Register_Analytical Methods Approval_2024-01-30), EPA is publishing the approval of 93 alternative analytical methods for determining compliance with drinking water regulations. The methods cover general physical and microbiological constituents, disinfectants, inorganic and organic chemicals and radionuclides. These methods are in effect as of publication in today’s Federal Register.

TSCA Fluoridation Lawsuit
The trial of the lawsuit filed under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to ban the addition of fluoride to drinking water restarts January 31, 2024. Bloomberg Law published an article about the trial:

Background on TSCA Lawsuit
A simplified highlight of some key dates in the case is presented below :
1. November 2016 – a petition was submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban the addition of fluoride to drinking water under TSCA. The stated objective of the petition was to “protect the public and susceptible subpopulations from the neurotoxic risks of fluoride by banning the addition of fluoridation chemicals to water.”
2. The petition was submitted by the following organizations: Fluoride Action Network, Food & Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, and several individuals.
3. February 2017 – EPA denied the petition.
4. April 2017 – petitioners filed lawsuit against EPA.
5. EPA asked court to dismiss lawsuit.
6. December 2017 – court ruled against EPA and allows lawsuit to proceed.
7. EPA asks court to limit the scope of the lawsuit to only the information included in the original November 2016 petition.
8. The court denied EPA’s request to limit the scope of review.
9. Seven-day trial held in June 2020.
10. Since the June 2020 trial, there has been additional activity between the parties and the court, one key item was the judge’s decision to wait for additional information on fluoride’s potential neurotoxic effects.