Orange County's Water Supplier Target of Fluoridation Lawsuit

A lawsuit alleges that the Metropolitan Water District, which supplies water to , has engaged in willful misrepresentation and deceptive business practices by fluoridating its water with a chemical that the lawsuit claims has never been approved to prevent or treat tooth decay.

In 2005, a similar lawsuit filed against the city of Escondido by the same attorney was thrown out of court. The California Supreme Court upheld the decision to dismiss that case.

The new lawsuit, filed by TK TK GROUP on Aug. 9, does not challenge the actual policy of fluoridation—a policy which the American Dental Association cites as being one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20^th century. According to the ADA's website, “drinking optimally fluoridated water is unquestionably one of the safest and most beneficial, cost-effective public health measures for preventing, controlling, and in some cases reversing, tooth decay.”

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control also endorses fluoridation, saying its safety has been "thoroughly documented by scientific and public health organizations" in the United States and other countries.

The lawsuit does not seek monetary damages. Rather, it asks whether the FDA should regulate water fluoridation—since it is a means of drug delivery meant to cure or prevent a disease—and if so, accuses MWD of using a chemical that has never been approved by the FDA to treat or prevent tooth decay.

The suit further charges that MWD misrepresents oversight of fluoridation policy by implying in its public statements that the U.S. EPA and CDC oversee the use of fluoride in municipal water supplies.

While the EPA does set standards for the amount of fluoride that is acceptable in public drinking water, it no longer controls public policy regarding municipal water fluoridation. In 1988, the federal government terminated EPA's oversight over public water fluoridation, and instead gave control over all water additives to the states.

The EPA standards recommend less than 4.0 parts per million of fluoride as a maximum contaminant level, and less than 2.0 ppm fluoride to prevent cosmetic harm such as skin and tooth discoloration—which can result from excessive exposure to fluoride.

In light of the decision to to pass fluoridation responsibilities to local states, then-Gov. Pete Wilson signed a law in 1995 requiring all water districts with more than 10,000 customers to fluoridate their water if government funding was available. MWD did not start fluoridating its water until 2007, but some of its member agencies began much earlier.

Proponents of the lawsuit also allege that the fluoridation product MWD uses—hydrofluosilicic acid—wasn't subjected to toxicological studies to determine long-term health and behavioral effects until February 2010, yet MWD stated the product was safe and effective before these studies were done.

A statement from MWD's fact sheet on fluoridation says, “Metropolitan uses fluorosilicic acid (another name for hydrofluosilicic acid) because of the safety and reliability this treatment chemical offers.”

Officials at Moulton Niguel Water District declined to comment on the lawsuit. Metropolitan Water District of Orange County also declined comment.

Click here to read Centers for Disease Control fact sheets on the history, safety and regulation of fluoridation.

Jeff Green, spokesman for the plaintiffs, and National Director of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, an anti-fluoridation group, spoke with Patch to provide the details of the suit.

Laguna Niguel Patch: The lawsuit is not seeking actual damages. What is its goal?

Jeff Green: This lawsuit 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.

Patch: Will this be an actual trial or will it proceed in a different manner?

Green: If we are successful through the first phase—which is to determine the legal questions—it should proceed to trial. The plaintiffs have asked for a jury. If the plaintiffs win at trial, MWD will certainly appeal. If the plaintiffs are rejected for the legal issues posed before trial occurs, they will also go to the appeals court.

Patch: What has the response from the water district been?

Green: MWD will eventually file a legal reply.

A hearing date has not been set for the lawsuit.