The following information is from Children’s Health Defense.

Months after a federal judge ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate fluoride over risks to children’s brains, industry-backed lawmakers are pushing legislation that would weaken the nation’s primary law governing toxic chemicals.

The proposed changes would overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a law first passed in 1976. Legal experts say the effort would block future citizen petitions, shield the EPA from court scrutiny, and dismantle the legal tools that made the fluoride case possible.

Citizen petitions allow the public to ask the EPA to regulate chemicals it has failed to address and to sue the agency if those petitions are denied. It was a citizen petition filed in 2016 that led to a landmark federal court ruling in September 2025, when a judge found that current levels of fluoride in drinking water pose an “unreasonable risk” to children’s health.

The judge ordered the EPA to take regulatory action. The agency is appealing the ruling.

Former EPA deputy administrator Robert Sussman said the proposed TSCA changes appear designed to prevent courts from intervening as they did in the fluoride case.

“The proposed changes are basically intended to prevent courts from doing exactly what the court did in the fluoride case.”
— Robert Sussman, former EPA deputy administrator

Michael Connett, the attorney who represented plaintiffs in the fluoride lawsuit, said the case would never have reached court under the proposed rules.

“If these changes had been law in 2016, we would never have been able to access the court to challenge water fluoridation.”
— Michael Connett, attorney

Connett said the changes would prevent future plaintiffs from forcing the EPA to act on chemicals it is ignoring or overlooking. He added that industry opposition to the fluoride ruling was immediate.

“Our case has been viewed with great displeasure by the regulated community – which is another way of saying industry.”
— Michael Connett

Legal briefs in the fluoride case described TSCA as one of the most powerful tools citizens have to hold the EPA accountable, noting that it allows courts to review evidence independently rather than deferring to the agency.

During the fluoride trial, TSCA allowed plaintiffs to depose government officials under oath, including representatives from the EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Testimony revealed gaps in the government’s understanding of fluoride’s safety, including admissions that safe levels for children’s brains were unknown.

Connett said the EPA has long resisted such scrutiny.

“It has been clear throughout our litigation that EPA does not want its scientists to have to undergo the scrutiny of depositions and cross-examination.”
— Michael Connett

The proposed overhaul would also make it significantly harder for the EPA to restrict unsafe chemicals and would roll back provisions strengthened in 2016 to regulate new chemicals entering the market.

Industry groups argue the changes are needed to promote innovation. Environmental and public health advocates strongly disagree, warning the legislation would leave the public more exposed to chemicals linked to cancer, infertility, and neurological disease.

Critics say the effort reflects a broader pattern of regulatory capture, where industry influence erodes public protections under the guise of reform.

For more information, read the full article here.