The toxic legacy of the EPA and FDA and why we should not trust the “experts.”

This ruling highlights the danger of leaving health decisions to bureaucratic agencies that are slow to react to new evidence. The EPA must now address the cognitive risks posed by fluoride, and the court has made it clear that continuing to ignore the science is no longer an option. For those concerned about the well-being of children and vulnerable populations, the court’s findings are a long-overdue wake-up call to eliminate fluoride from our water supply altogether.

This case brings to light a larger issue that has permeated American public health policy: the reliance on so-called “experts” in federal agencies like the EPA and FDA. Time and again, these agencies have implemented regulations based on outdated or incomplete science, while dismissing emerging evidence. In this case, the EPA defended its fluoride regulations for years, despite mounting research that raised red flags about the substance’s effect on developing brains.

Why should we trust these agencies to act in the public’s best interest when history proves them wrong? Just like the FDA’s slow response to the dangers of trans fats or tobacco, the EPA has continued to allow the fluoridation of water despite clear health risks. How many more Americans need to suffer the consequences of bureaucratic inertia before the government takes action?

This reluctance to respond to emerging scientific evidence is not limited to the EPA. The FDA, another federal agency tasked with safeguarding public health, has a troubling track record of allowing dangerous chemicals into the American food supply. Food dyes, artificial sweeteners, and preservatives that are banned in Europe and other parts of the world are still present in American food products.

Recently, public figures like RFK Jr., with his #MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) movement, have highlighted the FDA’s failure to protect consumers from harmful additives. Many of these substances, such as Red 40 and Yellow 5, have been linked to hyperactivity in children and even cancer, but the FDA has refused to follow the example of countries that prioritize public health over corporate profit. Congress is now debating whether to restrict these additives, but the FDA’s cozy relationship with the food industry continues to undermine efforts to remove harmful chemicals from the food we eat.

See this testimony below from Dr. Casey Means as part of Sen. Ron Johnson’s Roundtable on “American Health and Nutrition: A Second Opinion.”

In an interview with Tucker Carlson, Calley Means, coauthor of Good Energy, exposed how the FDA has historically favored large corporations that were acquired by cigarette companies, playing a pivotal role in the creation of the ultra-processed food epidemic. Means pointed out that these corporations, many of which were formerly tobacco giants, shifted their focus to food production, using their marketing expertise and government influence to promote highly addictive, unhealthy foods. He highlighted how these companies leveraged their financial power to shape FDA policies, which in turn allowed the proliferation of ultra-processed foods laden with chemicals and unhealthy additives. This shift, according to Means, has contributed to the explosion of chronic health issues like obesity, diabetes, and heart disease in the U.S., all while the FDA continues to turn a blind eye to the long-term consequences on public health.

The fluoride case and the fight against harmful food additives reveal a disturbing truth: Americans are being poisoned by their food and water supplies, and the government agencies tasked with protecting us have failed in their duty. These agencies prioritize corporate interests over public health, allowing dangerous chemicals in our water and food despite overwhelming evidence of harm.

It’s time for Americans to demand better. Whether banning fluoride in drinking water or eliminating toxic chemicals from our food, we must take action to ensure that government policies prioritize the health and safety of people, not corporate profits. The recent ruling against the EPA’s fluoride regulations is a critical first step, but the fight for a healthier America is far from over.

The court’s ruling against the EPA should be a catalyst for broader reforms, both in our drinking water and in our food supply. We must stop trusting the experts when their advice contradicts the science and take control of our health by demanding transparency and accountability from our regulatory agencies.