Fluoride Lawsuit Sues Southern California Water District for Illegal Use of Unauthorized Drug
A fluoride lawsuit filed August 9 by attorneys on behalf of citizens of three Southern California counties alleges 'willful misrepresentation and deceptive business practices by Metropolitan Water District of Southern California,' which delivers fluoridated water to millions of California consumers.
This innovative fluoride lawsuit focuses on MWD's "claims of safely and effectively treating and preventing dental disease in recipient consumers, while selecting and delivering a hydrofluosilicic acid drug [commonly called fluoride] through their water system that has never been approved for safety and effectiveness, nor in the expected dosages delivered by MWD through retail water districts, either topically, systemically through ingestion, or trans-dermal exposures through baths and showers."
Fluoride's lack of safety approval is one of the key approaches of this legal action, as is the fact that its effectiveness in doing what it's claimed to do--improve dental health when ingested systemically--has also not been substantiated.
The emphasis on the fact that all consumers (and virtually all citizens) are subjected to this drug without their consent is worth noting, as is the fact that drinking the water is not their only exposure. The skin is our largest organ and is very effective at absorbing what comes into contact with it, whether those substances are helpful or harmful. Exposure through baths, showers, and cleaning and washing in general is very hard to avoid!
All this means that people of all ages are being dosed daily with an unapproved drug without their consent! (And, we add, a very dangerous one that isn't even effective at what it's 'supposed' to do, especially when ingested.)
This particular fluoride lawsuit does not challenge the public policy of fluoridation nor does it focus on the overwhelming evidence on the damaging effects of fluoride on the bones, the brain, the thyroid gland, and yes, even the teeth. (However, it does mention "evidence concerning safety/harm and effectiveness that by law and for consumers' protection requires that the product be thoroughly evaluated, and approval given, for any claims and MWD's intended health impact, before exposing consumers without their consent.")
Rather, it uses a different approach:
"'It does challenge MWD's 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,' explains Kyle Nordrehaug, attorney for the plaintiffs."
"'This lawsuit pushes past the rhetoric and reliance on unaccountable endorsements or opinions that usually accompany this subject, and focuses on whether MWD of SoCal adds hydrofluosilicic acid to public drinking water in order to treat or prevent dental disease, and whether FDA regulates products intended to treat disease, or not,' said Jeff Green, National Director of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water and spokesperson for the Plaintiffs."
"'In essence,' continued Green, 'the Plaintiffs are saying, Don't tell us, or the media, or the court how safe it is. Go tell it to the FDA through the evaluation process and get approval for the claims for the specific product you deliver, and don't administer it to us topically, systemically through our ingestion, or through our skin from our baths and showers, without our consent until you do.'"
Excellently expressed! It's important to remember that fluoride is the only drug that is delivered across the board to virtually all the population (in areas with fluoridated water), with no thought for freedom of individual choice, need, dosage, contraindications, people at even greater risk than normal, etc. It goes without saying here that no drug, whether approved by the FDA or not, should be put into the water supply, which is not an ethical or logical route for administering a drug, and which makes said drug extremely difficult to avoid.
The outcome of this lawsuit could impact fluoridating water districts across the country. We hope this legal action prospers and does have a nationwide effect!