A federal judge ruled that the advocacy groups suing EPA to ban fluoride in drinking water will be allowed to use new information in the ongoing suit. On February 7, the United States District Court Northern District of California denied EPA’s petition for the court to limit its review to the administrative record only, instead of the broader de nova review. The plaintiffs argued in a January 26 hearing that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) gives them the ability to review new data and asked the district court to consider a new study published in September 2017 that links higher prenatal fluoride exposure to decreased IQ scores. The judge’s conclusion states, “The statutory text, structure, purpose, and legislative history all support the conclusion that TSCA Section 21 judicial review is not subject to APA-like limitations or principles.”
The original suit filed by the advocacy groups claims that EPA had wrongly dismissed their TSCA petition seeking to ban the fluoridation of drinking water. Previously, a federal judge for the Northern District of California denied EPA’s request to dismiss the suit. The judge’s December 21 decision determined that TSCA Section 21 allows citizens to petition EPA to regulate single uses of substances, disagreeing with the agency’s interpretation of the reformed law.