Federal judge dismisses Calif. fluoridation lawsuit By DrBicuspid Staff
April 16, 2012 -- A federal judge has ruled that a Southern California water district can legally add hydrofluosilicic acid to public drinking water even though it has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of disease or dental caries.
In a ruling issued April 10, Janis Sammartino of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California's motion to dismiss a lawsuit seeking to stop the water district from adding non-FDA-approved drugs to public drinking water.
The 2011 lawsuit, filed by four Southern California residents "on behalf of themselves and the general public," alleged that MWD was engaging in "the unlawful and unconstitutional medication" of the plaintiffs.
Fluoridation is typically accomplished by adding one of three compounds to the water: sodium fluoride, fluorosilicic acid, or sodium fluorosilicate -- none of which are FDA-approved, either, according to Jeff Green, national director for Citizens for Safe Drinking Water and a spokeman for the plaintiffs.
The suit did not challenge the policy of fluoridation. Instead, it accused the water district of "bait-and-switch tactics of orchestrating statements by them and their down-line distributors of water to individual consumers when MWD knew that the actual drug product that they deliver had never had a toxicological study performed on the health and behavioral effects of its continued use until 2010, much less approval for MWD's perpetuation of absolute health claims," according to the complaint.
But Judge Samartino disagreed, ruling that private lawsuits cannot be based on the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and dismissed it.
The law firm that filed the lawsuit plans to appeal the decision, claiming that adding the chemical to drinking water for medical purposes without first obtaining FDA approval of this drug for such purposes "is illegal and needs to be stopped."
Related Reading
Calif. water district sued over fluoridation program, August 12, 2011 Ga. civil rights leaders want to end water fluoridation, April 15, 2011 Tenn. lawmakers: Stop promoting water fluoridation, February 18, 2011 Fluoridation debate nowhere near resolution, October 15, 2010 Calif. town approves water fluoridation, September 29, 2010
Copyright © 2012 DrBicuspid.com
Last Updated cp 4/16/2012 2:24:47 PM
Forum Comments
4 comments so far ...
4/19/2012 8:54:03 AM
TonyWin |
I think this is a very interesting ruling. On the one hand, the city has a reasonable desire to reduce the incidence of caries in children by fluoridating the water. On the other hand, the treatment is not approved by the FDA. However, it would seem to me that if the treatment is not approved by the FDA or any other organization given the responsibility to protect the public's health, the plaintiffs have a reasonable case. What would prevent a city, town or village adding, say, an antibiotic or any other medication or even a food nutrient, e.g. vitamin, to the water with a view to preventing a disease that the council decided was a serious potential health hazard without first having FDA assess the benefits and risks and rule on the permissibility of the treatment.
Meanwhile a manufacturer, of say, a toothpaste is prevented from adding a "drug" ingredient to a toothpaste for the treatment of, for example, gingivitis, without FDA approval. This is despite the Manufacturer having irrefutable proof that the drug being added to the toothpaste is both safe and effective and the toothpaste package is clearly labeled with the drug content and its intended activity. Municipal water is, of course, not so labeled! (I should note just for the record that I believe that water fluoridation at appropriate levels is safe and effective).
|
|
4/30/2012 7:56:37 AM
jwozni2 |
There are many medications that are approved by the FDA that have been proven to be safe and effective, which end up causing adverse side effects.
Have we lost our focus? Instead of adding chemicals to our food supply to prevent a disease, why not take care of it the proven way. Not having enough information on potential side effects (especially systemic) of fluoridating water can prove to be more harmful than good. Education should be the number one way to prevent caries. If you teach individuals what not brushing and flossing can do to your teeth more than likely they will respond. I have had many patients that grew up with water fluoridation and still get cavities.
If you floss, brush and eat healthy you will not have issues with decay. There should be major emphasis placed on education to reduce ignorance.
|
|
4/30/2012 9:04:37 AM
TonyWin |
I agree with most of what you have to say especially about proof of safety and effectiveness. I do disagree, however, that brushing and flossing is necessarily sufficient to prevent cavities in all cases. Cavities are, of course, caused by an infectious bacterial disease. It is impossible, even with excellent brushing and flossing to remove all the bacteria from the mouth. Any bacteria left in the mouth after brushing and flossing can rapidly bounce back. In addition there are some patients who just do not comply. Hence I believe that fluoride, as an ingredient in toothpaste, and in some cases as a an ingredient in a professionally applied treatment, is an important weapon in preventing cavities. As an ingredient in toothpastes, fluoride has been proven effective in reducing the incidence of cavities in numerous studies. Those studies have been reviewed by independent panels convened by the FDA. Based on their conclusions, the FDA ruled fluoride to be a safe and effective anti-caries ingredient when applied from a toothpaste at an appropriate concentration. It seems to me that, at the very least, the same kind of rules should be applied to fluoridation of drinking water. In the case of toothpastes, the consumer has a choice whether or not to use a fluoride toothpaste. In the case of fluoridated water, the municipal resident is stuck with whatever come out of the faucet.
|
|
4/30/2012 10:22:25 AM
jwozni2 |
I do agree with you that the population should have a choice about whether to use fluoridated products or not. I do not think that it is the governments role to set guidelines to how much fluoride should be placed in our drinking water. It's like saying if you lower the speed limit to 30 mph fatalities during car crashes will go down 95%. So why doesn't our government do that. There is some responsibility that we take for our actions, whether it's driving or brushing. That is why proper oral hygiene is so important.
You cannot get rid of all bacteria in the mouth and why would you want to. The majority of bacteria present in the mouth live in symbiosis. Yes you do have a handful that can cause issues when they thrive. Ultimately, proper flossing and brushing will keep the mouth healthy and the bacteria count low. Even if disease causing bacteria is present in low numbers doesn't mean that disease will be present. Three factors are needed for development of a cavity: bacteria, sugar and host. Eliminate or decrease one and chances of getting a cavity become slim to none. Proper oral hygiene and a balanced diet will keep things healthy. If you don't brush properly and drink lots of soda, you will get cavities. Exceptions would be issues with tooth structure formation.
We could have the same discussion about the use of amalgams. The ADA indicates that it is safe. The EPA actually indicates that it can be harmful. Who can we trust?
|
|
|
|
|