Letter to Tauranga Councillors

Dear Mayor and councillors

BACKGROUND

We note that the Executive Summary states that the Ministry of Health and the World Health Organization support fluoridation and that some individuals and groups oppose it. This downplays the current world-wide situation, where leading scientific bodies have found that there is no valid science supporting fluoridation, yet there is sound science confirming that fluoridation causes toxic harm comparable to lead (Pb).

1.    Most of the world does not fluoridate

2.    All of the respective health ministries of continental Europe oppose fluoridation – having never started it, or stopped it many years ago

3.    Only 10% of the UK is fluoridated

4.    Worldwide only 5% of the population is subjected to water fluoridation, half of whom are in the USA

5.    The World Health Organisation advises that fluoride intake by residents in a community should be checked before any fluoridation programme is started

6.    Over 50% of the Tauranga community voted to stop fluoridation in 1992 – this should not be described as “some individuals and groups”. It is the majority of the population.

HARMS FROM FLUORIDATION – NOT DISCUSSED

Despite promoters’ claims that fluoridation is one of the most well studied medical interventions ever, it is only in recent years that the US Government has funded studies looking into the harmful effects of fluoridation.

·         There are now 10 US Government funded studies since 2017, all of which have found that fluoride, at the levels lower than what we are exposed to via water fluoridation, are causing damage to developing brains of children, resulting in loss of IQ or behavioural issues

·         Another three studies from Canada (2019,2021,2023) have also found fluoridation to cause loss of IQ or ADHD

·         The US National Toxicology Program (NTP) has just released its final version of a major review that finds a “large body” of evidence that fluoride exposure is “consistently associated with lower IQ in children”. This is being reported in mainstream news overseas (see review here). The NTP represents the highest quality science on this topic in the world. 

It needs to be noted that the maximum allowable level for fluoridation in the US and Canada is 0.7ppm whereas the New Zealand Ministry of Health recommends a range from 0.7 to 1ppm with the suggestion to target 0.85ppm. In an Official Information Act request the Tauranga City Council reported that fluoridation of Tauranga would be at 1ppm. This is 43% higher than the US and Canada.

LEGALITY

The directives have not been found substantively lawful, even though they are considered “valid”, because the Director-General of Health (DGH) has still not completed a section 5 Bill of Rights (BORA) analysis. However, even when the DGH’s section 5 BORA analysis has been done, it will only mean that there is no longer a procedural defect. It will not make the directives lawful in the substantive sense.

Since fluoridation causes harm, it is in breach of sections 3A and 23 of the Health Act, section 200 of the Crimes Act (once harm is reasonably known, which it now is) and Article 12(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (The State Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health).

Section 3A of the Health Act is a purpose section, hence is a “superior” section to all others in that Act, on a “hierarchy of laws” basis. Since the directives are breaching this section (the requirement to promote and protect the public health) they are unlawful.

Councils have a separate and direct statutory duty (under s23) to also “promote and protect” the public health. This overrides their obligation to follow the DGH’s directives.

However, we believe that simply quoting section 23 would not be enough, even though Government lawyers have told the High Court that the DGH is not pursuing fines.

Instead, the Council could tell the DGH they will complete their infrastructure but will not add fluoride until the substantive issue (New Health New Zealand vs Director-General of Health) is decided by the Courts as they consider they would potentially be breaching the above Acts and international convention. This may make them liable for doing so as the DGH’s directives do not provide legal indemnity. They could advise the DGH that if that is a problem they are happy to be joined to NHNZ’s action and seek an interim injunction on that basis. We are concerned that the report prepared by Council officers does not include this obvious option.

Some councils have a false impression that joining the action might cost $100K. This is untrue. There is no cost in joining, and we can provide the basis for an injunction so that Council’s lawyers do not have to reinvent the wheel at $500 per hour.

LITTLE TO NO BENEFIT

The latest UK Government studies (2022, 2024) find little, if any, benefit. The Cochrane Review (2015) that the DGH relies on as evidence of effectiveness, in fact found no modern reliable evidence that water fluoridation reduces tooth decay.

SUMMARY

Fluoride is now well established to be a neurotoxin with the highest quality studies showing it causes this harm at levels experienced in fluoridated communities.

It is illegal, as well as immoral, to knowingly harm other people.

Harming people cannot be weighed up against any belief in reduction of dental decay.

The council could choose to request an extension until the New Health New Zealand case is heard next year.