Staudenmaier gears up for renewed fluoride dispute

NORTHEAST WIS. – The arrival of 2026 brought the 10th anniversary of Peshtigo native Brenda Staudenmaier’s battle with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for lower fluoride limits in public drinking water.

The new year also ushered in the 20th anniversary of landmark 2006 scientific research linking fluoride consumption with risks of bone disease, dental fluorosis and other health issues. This research and new studies linking fluoride consumption with lower Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and other neurological issues in children is expected to be discussed this year in the U.S. Appellate Court for the 9th Circuit following the EPA’s July 2025 appeal of a U.S. District Court judgment in the Food and Water Watch v EPA lawsuit over the agency’s fluoride limits.

In ordering the EPA to review its maximum contaminant levels for fluoride, U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen said, “One thing the EPA cannot do is to ignore that risk.”

But instead of complying, the EPA appealed.

In a response, Michael Connett, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said, “The agency’s failure to act, despite evidence of harm, is the kind of ‘bureaucratic lethargy’ that led Congress to enact the citizen petition provision of the Toxic Substances Control Act [TSCA].”

Section 21 of the act provides “any person may petition EPA to initiate a proceeding for the issuance, amendment or repeal of a rule or order.”

Staudenmaier relied on this provision when she filed a petition in 2016, asking the EPA to lower its fluoride limits for community drinking water following new research on the contaminant’s health effects.

“I don’t anticipate they win the appeal, but if they do, then we’re going to appeal that appeal or take it to the Supreme Court,” Staudenmaier said on Jan. 5. Staudenmaier is a plaintiff in the Food and Water Watch v EPA lawsuit.
“I hope the EPA appeal is resolved in favor of public health and scientific integrity so we don’t have to go to the Supreme Court,” she said.

After a challenging year where Staudenmaier felt she was under attack for being proactive in communicating how fluoride consumption is linked to learning and behavior issues in children, she said, “I hope to see a generational shift within institutions, where long-entrenched decision-makers who have protected outdated fluoride policy step aside, making room for leadership willing to engage honestly with current science, apply precaution and prioritize health over legacy positions or institutional inertia.”

How long it will take for real change to occur in fluoridation and children’s health is anyone’s guess.

“After seven years and two bench trials, the district court held that the plaintiffs had shown that adding fluoride to drinking water presents an unreasonable risk to human health and ordered [the] EPA to manage that risk in accordance with the [TSCA],” the EPA said in its appeal.

But the EPA said the district court erred by allowing the plaintiffs to introduce research that didn’t exist when the original petition was filed in 2016.

“If new evidence arises that is relevant, persons may always file a new petition, triggering a new 90-day review window by EPA,” the appeal said.

Asked why the EPA would want to start the process over, Staudenmaier said, “They’re just delaying.”

“We won this lawsuit, but it’s not the same as winning public opinion or public policy. We know we’re right; we have the science, but there’s such a huge delay between what we know today and what everybody else knows,” she said.

“A lot of people just dig their heels in deeper to protect this harmful chemical. It’s unfortunate policy isn’t driven by precaution. I wish it was.”

The longer the case goes on, the more money the attorneys stand to gain, though Staudenmaier said the case wasn’t about the legal fees.

She said she isn’t paying Connett’s full hourly rate, which has increased from $663 in 2016 to $1,033 in 2025, according to Law360, which cited the plaintiffs’ filings. Attorneys for the plaintiffs have petitioned the court for $9.5 million in fees for the 2024 victory in U.S. District Court, Law360 said.

About the same time the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, a new set of fluoride research was published for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ National Toxicology Program called “NTP Monograph on the State of the Science Concerning Fluoride Exposure and Neurodevelopment and Cognition: A Systematic Review.” It confirmed to many experts what they had been saying for years: fluoride was a contaminant and a health risk, especially to children.

Despite the new research, the EPA’s maximum contaminant level (MCL) for fluoride in drinking water remains at 4 mg/liter and it “MCL goal” continues to be 2 mg/liter. Other agencies have lowered their fluoride guidance over the years to 0.7 mg/liter as new research on health effects became available, but many fluoridation opponents say the limits are still too high.

On Oct. 31, U.S. Food and Drug Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary informed the nation’s health care professionals not to give fluoride tablets and drops to children under age three because of a possible link between fluoride consumption and dental fluorosis, lower IQ, thyroid issues and changes to the gut microbiome.

While progress in reducing fluoride levels in drinking water hasn’t come quickly enough for the likes of Staudenmaier and other plaintiffs, their persistent communications with state and local leaders for reduced fluoride levels in community water systems was rewarded in 2025 when more U.S. communities agreed to halt the use of fluoride in their public drinking water.

The City of Peshtigo was among the Wisconsin municipalities to reduce the amount of fluoride it added to the community water supply when it stopped putting fluoride in a community deep well that had some naturally occurring fluoride.

Given the amount of new research, the EPA contends the plaintiffs should file a new petition. It said the U.S. District Court had “abused its discretion” through a takeover of the case when it allowed new research to be considered that wasn’t available when the original petition was filed in 2016.

As a de novo proceeding, however, Chen had said the plaintiffs were allowed to introduce new evidence, Connett said. The legal term “de novo” indicates a fresh start to the litigation.

Connett said the EPA is skirting the primary issue of fluoride’s health risks, adding that the agency’s appeal is more about government bureaucracy upholding the agency’s MCL for fluoride.

The EPA’s appeal also undermines the TSCA’s citizen petition rule, Connett said in the Nov. 17 answer to the EPA’s appeal.

“EPA’s appeal aims not to apply the law, but to change it, and in so doing, to eliminate the vitality of the citizen petition process that Congress deemed critical to TSCA’s success. The court should affirm the district court’s judgment,” Connett said.

The plaintiffs prevailed in U.S. District Court by arguing the TSCA aims to prevent harm before it occurs. If the appellate court grants a request for oral arguments, they could start in March. Connett will be arguing for the EPA to respect Chen’s order, based on scientific research, to lower its fluoride MCL and MCL goal.