Sean Plunket interviewed Dr Robin Whyman 13 February 2025
Dear Mayor and Councillors,
As many of you are probably aware, a US Federal Court issued a ruling yesterday that “fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk to human health”. (See Ruling here).
The US Environmental Protection Agency is now obligated by law to restrict or eliminate the risk. It appears that the only thing that can be done to meet this obligation is to stop fluoridation.
While this ruling is not from a New Zealand court the fact remains that a senior court of law has reviewed all the available current best evidence on neurotoxicity and concluded that fluoridation at 0.7ppm poses an unreasonable risk to human health.
This leaves New Zealand councils in the position of knowingly adding a neurotoxin to the drinking water at an amount that the top scientific toxicology agency in the United States and a US Federal court have found to be unsafe.
Note: there is more science, and of a higher quality, showing fluoridation causes the same harm that was caused by lead in paint and petrol than there was about that when it was banned in 1996.
Every fluoridating council is now in the position of being legally required to add neurotoxic fluoridation chemicals to the water supply, while at the same time being legally bound by section 23 of the Health Act to protect the public health within its district.
S 23 General powers and duties of local authorities in respect of public health. Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of every local authority to improve, promote, and protect public health within its district, and for that purpose every local authority is hereby empowered and directed—
For councils that are already fluoridating their water supply section 23(c) also applies:
S 23(c) if satisfied that any nuisance, or any condition likely to be injurious to health or offensive, exists in the district, to cause all proper steps to be taken to secure the abatement of the nuisance or the removal of the condition.
The only reasonable conclusion now is that that fluoridation is injurious to health. Therefore, the council is legally required to take steps to protect the public health by declining to implement the Directors-General’s directive, or suspending fluoridation if they have already begun. We do not believe any court in the land would impose the extreme fines, as threatened by the Director-General of Health, in this situation, that is, because a council is fulfilling its statutory duty. Section 23 overrides Part5 of the Act.
Regards
Mary Byrne National Coordinator
Mark Atkin Science and Legal Advisor
Related posts
The following is a rebuttal to the outcome of the “evidence” update done by the office of the PMs chief science advisor that confirmed the conclusion that “there are no adverse health effects of any significance from fluoridation at the level used in NZ. https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2022-04/PMCSA-21-05-3_OPMCSA-Fluoridation-Webpage-11102021.pdf
In their “Evidence Summary the OPMCSA did not reference 16 of the 18 studies that the United States District Court, Northern District of California based its determination on.
Page 19 of 80 In summary, the high-quality studies (i.e., studies with low potential for bias) consistently demonstrate lower IQ scores with higher fluoride exposure [e.g., represented by populations whose total fluoride exposure approximates or exceeds the WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality of 1.5 mg/L of fluoride (WHO 2017)]. The consistency in association is observed among studies of varying study designs, exposure measures, and study populations. Although some studies that conducted multiple analyses observed within-study variations in results (e.g., differences between subsets of IQ tests), these variations were unique to individual studies and did not detract from the overall consistency in the findings that higher fluoride is associated with lower IQ scores.
35. To come to this conclusion: the NTP Monograph identified 19 studies as being high- quality (i.e., low risk-of-bias); all but one identified an association between fluoride and reduced IQ in children.
The studies referenced by the US District court but not referenced by the O.P.M.C.S.A are: Choi et al. 2015, Cui et al. 2018, Ding et al. 2011, Rocha-Amador et al. 2007, Saxena et al. 2012, Seraj et al. 2012, Sudhir et al. 2009, Till et al. 2020, Trivedi et al. 2012, Wang et al. 2012, Wang et al. 2020b, Xiang et al. 2003a, Xiang et al. 2011, Yu et al. 2018, Zhang et al. 2015b and NTP Monograph at 40, 29-39 (Table 6).
Of the 18 studies the US District Court based its determination on only 2 were referenced in the OPMCSA Evidence Summary as follows:
Bashash et al. 2017 and Green et al. 2019. Both of these studies are referenced, in the Evidence Summary as two of “Several studies published in other countries recently have found associations between higher prenatal or childhood fluoride exposure and cognitive outcomes”. (Page 21). On page 22 the following observations are made concerning the Green et al. 2019 study:
Pg 22: However, the Canadian study was of greater potential concern because the conditions in which it took place are more comparable to Aotearoa New Zealand. Similar to the study undertaken in Aotearoa New Zealand (Broadbent et al. 2015), the Canadian study also followed a birth cohort (taking a group of children born within a certain time period and following them as they age) and compared the IQ of children between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas.
The study undertaken in Canada (Green et al. 2019) found that the mother’s exposure to fluoride during pregnancy was associated with lower IQ scores in boys (but not girls), even at optimally fluoridated water levels (i.e. between 0.7-1.2 mg/L). If this finding were replicated in robust studies, it would potentially be concerning as Aotearoa New Zealand recommends fluoridation of water between 0.7 and 1.0 mg/L.
The US District Court based its findings on 16 high quality studies that replicated the Green et al 2019 study findings.