August 22, 2002
Nine individuals receiving public drinking water from the City of Escondido have filed a Constitutional complaint against the City of Escondido for its plan to implement fluoridation.
The plaintiffs, who are participants with Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, have alleged that the practice of fluoridation violates their Constitutional rights:
"The facts and evidence in this case will establish that, in light of current medical and scientific knowledge, artificial fluoridation of the public water supply of the municipality will be harmful to the health of the residents of the City of Escondido, including the Plaintiffs. The facts and evidence in this case will further establish that there has been a change in the underlying medical and scientific understanding of fluoridation, which now reveals that the plan of fluoridation to be implemented by the City does not prevent tooth decay, and therefore will not serve any legitimate government purpose.
"It can now be shown with competent and peer reviewed medical and scientific evidence that artificial fluoridation of public water does not reduce tooth decay and that oral ingestion of fluoride compounds has no effect on the incidence of dental caries. Further, it can now be proved with reasonable certainty, beyond speculation and guess, and by preponderance of the evidence, including the testimony of experts learned in the field, that artificial fluoridation of public water supplies causes or contributes to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, chronic toxicity, dental fluorosis, bone pathology and neurological injury in humans, and that artificial fluoridation of public water supplies aggravates malnutrition, iodine deficiencies, and other existing illnesses."
The plaintiffs provided Court rulings from 3 different states that concluded that fluoride at 1 ppm in the public drinking water aggravates existing illnesses, causes known adverse health effects, with two Courts concluding that there is a higher incidence of cancer deaths.
This ruling is important because the Court has recognized that the Constitutional right of an individual to not be harmed merits a hearing to determine under what circumstances a legislative body can impose such harm.
Superior Court San Diego County, State of California The following is a TELEPHONIC, ruling for 8/22/02,
Department 24, the Honorable DANA M. SABRAW presiding.
Case Number GIN015280 MACY vs CITY OF ESCONDIDO