Sean Plunket interviewed Dr Robin Whyman 13 February 2025
Fluoridation is your choice – some councils starting to push back on directive
Dear Mayor and councillors
We are aware that you are planning on starting fluoridation on the 30th of November.
Please be informed:
- You do have a choice
- Why Tauranga City Council started fluoridation
- Community Board in Waipa is pushing back
- Whangarei councillor has Notice of Motion for November to reject the directive.
- USA Federal Court rules “fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk to human health”
You do have a choice
The Council could choose to reject the directive from the Director-General of Health and seek an Interim Injunction suspending the directive until the New Health New Zealand case against the Director-General is finally ruled on, which is likely to be in about 5 years’ time.
Why Tauranga City Council started fluoridation
The Tauranga City Council recently decided to implement fluoridation after a tense debate where the mayor and two other councillors voted NOT to implement fluoridation, but the other councillors were swayed by what we understand to be incorrect legal advice they were given on the day. They were told they could be liable for penalties if the New Health New Zealand case failed, even if the council had an Interim Injunction in place, and the penalties could be applied retrospectively and councillors held personally liable.
That is patently not true. The judge in his High court ruling in June this year, left the directives as “valid” because he said “there has been no indication
that the Director-General would take enforcement action …. Any decision on enforcement action would need to be informed by the Solicitor-General’s guidelines. In the event that enforcement action was threatened, then the most appropriate course would be for any council affected to seek interim orders.” See point 11 of Ruling.
The judge would not issue such a statement if it meant the council was breaking the law.
Community Board in Waipa is pushing back
See this article today in the Cambridge News reporting on a decision on Tuesday night by the Te Awamutu Kihkihi Community Board to request Waipa Council reject the directive.
Whangarei councillor has Notice of Motion for November to reject the directive
Councillor Gavin Benney will be proposing at the 28 November 2024 council meeting for the council to reject the Director-General of Health’s (Dr Diana Sarfati) directive to fluoridate Whangarei.
Cr Benney is calling on other councils to also reject the directives. It is hard to fathom how forcing councils to add an undisputed neurotoxin to their community’s water supply can be happening. Councillors must stand up to this tyranny as they have a legal obligation to protect the public health under section 23 of the Health Act. (See full press release and the actual notice of motion).
We recognise councillors are “between a rock and a hard place” in that they have conflicting laws to follow – their section 23 obligation to protect the public health and their s116 obligation to follow the Director-General’s (unlawful) directives.
However, it is well established in international law that to do something unlawful and cause harm is not protected by a defence of “just following orders”. We recommend you advise the Director-General of your legal obligations and that accordingly you will not follow her unlawful order and, if necessary, seek an interim injunction from the High Court to that effect.
USA Federal Court rules “fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk to human health”
See below email that was originally sent to you on the 9th September 2024
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
