NEWS RELEASE: For Immediate Release
Fluorides Under Fire:
Legal Community Awakens as Federal Fluoride Harm Case Proceeds to Oral Arguments and Fluoride Harm Newspaper Advertising Appears
March 12, 2014: Legal community interest in the long-smoldering controversy over use of fluorides is growing as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has agreed to hear oral arguments in the fluoride harm case of Nemphos versus Nestle Waters North America, Inc., et al.
The case centers around “dental fluorosis” disfigurement of teeth caused by childhood ingestion of
fluorides in water and other products. The Washington D.C.-based law firm Public Justice has joined other plaintiff firms to help argue the case. Public Justice has more than 3,000 affiliated attorneys.
In another development, advertisements seeking students with dental fluorosis are beginning to appear in newspapers at universities, such as The Hoya newspaper at Georgetown University.
The advertisements show photos of dental fluorosis teeth staining and inform students that those with fluoride teeth harm may be entitled to monetary damages.
“There are a lot
of harmed people out there that were not told the facts about fluorides, nor have they seen
documentation of what dental leaders knew and admitted amongst themselves about fluorosis,” says
attorney Chris Nidel.
“Fluoride providers and promoters are now under the microscope as the Fluoridegate scandal unfolds,” he says. “In their own publications, dentists warned of a day when fluoride litigation would arrive.” Nidel’s law firm and the firm of Paulson and Nace
have been with the case from the beginning. Public Justice is adding its expertise to argue that defendants in the case cannot use federal laws to preempt state legal actions on fluoride harm.
The plaintiff in the Nemphos case is a mother who purchased fluoride-containing products for her daughter, believing she was helping her child avoid cavities. The mother claims she was not warned about the possibility of costly-to-
repair disfiguring fluorosis that later manifested in her daughter’s teeth.
Major dental organizations continue to promote use of fluorides, claiming the fluorosis stains are mostly
barely visible and fit in a designation of “mild” or “very mild.” “The so
called ‘mild’ fluorosis of the Nemphos girl is certainly not barely visible,” says Da
niel Stockin, a career public health professional opposed to water fluoridation who now speaks regularly with law firms about fluoride issues.
“The fluorosis classification system used by dentists hides the severity of it,” Stockin says. “The system
ically tells dentists to ignore an individual’s worst fluoride
stained tooth in classifying a person’s
fluorosis severity, and the system does not take into account the total number of teeth affected. Twelve teeth or two teeth with stains, both are allowed
to be called ‘very mild’ or ‘mild’ fluorosis. This revelation will be deeply disturbing to citizens and elected leaders who were misled about fluorosis.”