Sean Plunket interviewed Dr Robin Whyman 13 February 2025
Dear Mayor and Councillors,
We are aware that you will be making a decision whether to reject the Director-General of Health’s (DGH) directive to start fluoridating your community or not.
We would therefore like to ensure that you are well aware of a High Court ruling in June 2024. The judge ruled that he was not going to invalidate the directives because he had been assured by the lawyer representing the DGH that there had been no indication that she would take enforcement action. Instead, the lawyer said, the DGH is taking an educative approach. On that assurance the judge ruled that it was unnecessary for him to invalidate the directives since the lawyer appeared to be telling him that the DGH would not enforce fines if a council was to not adhere to the directive.
The judge then added – but if enforcement was threatened, then the council could seek interim orders.
[11] Moreover, as has been said for the respondents, there has been no indication that the Director-General would take enforcement action and the Director-General has not taken any such action. Mr Varuhas put it on the basis that at this stage the Director-General is taking an educative approach. 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.
It is therefore extremely unlikely the DGH is going to take enforcement action since she committed to the court that she was taking an educative approach. It also needs to be noted that since the directives were first issued in July 2022 the following has occurred:
- The directives were found to be unlawful in November 2023 because a Bill of Rights analysis had not been completed. This has still not been completed a whole year later and is obviously not a “process error”
- The US Government’s National Toxicology Program found unequivocally that fluoride is a neurotoxin at only 1.5ppm, and that people in communities with lower levels will still reach this threshold depending on their total exposure including other sources
- The Cochrane Collaboration that the DGH relied on to claim that fluoridation provided benefit has published an updated review that stated that “Adding fluoride to water may slightly increase the number of children who have no tooth decay … However, these results also included the possibility of little or no difference in tooth decay.” [emphasis added]
- The US Federal Court has concluded “Plaintiffs have proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that water fluoridation at the level of 0.7 mg/L – the prescribed optimal level of fluoridation in the United States – presents an “unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment”.
- The soon to be head of the US Health and Human Services (the top health position in the US), Robert F Kennedy Jr, has stated that ending fluoridation is one of his top priorities to make the US healthy again
- Dr Joseph Ladapo, the Surgeon General for Florida, has issued an advisory to all communities in Florida to stop fluoridation stating fluoridation is “public health malpractice” and that adding a neurotoxin to the drinking water is not an answer to dental health.
- Members of New Zealand First at their conference in October, voted overwhelmingly to accept a remit to repeal the Amendment to the Health Act and put the decision making back in the hands of the councils.
All events to date support the view that 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.
We consider that s23 should take precedence as it reflects a core principle of the Act.
Given the above events of the past two and half years since the directives were first issued we do not believe any reasonable Court would refuse to issue, if applied for, interim orders staying the directive until the New Health NZ court case is determined, and that it is extremely unlikely the DGH would seek to impose fines, especially knowing a council could simply seek an interim order.
Once issued, an interim order fully protects councils and councillors from any possible legal action. Councillors would be putting the health of their community first, as they obliged to do.
Regards
Mary Byrne National Coordinator
Mark Atkin Science and Legal Advisor LLB (Hons)
Related posts
