COMPLAINT NUMBER 16/359
COMPLAINANT COMPLAINTANT 1
ADVERTISER Fluoride Free NZ
ADVERTISEMENT Fluoride Free NZ Givealittle Website
DATE OF MEETING 15 November 2016
OUTCOME Not Upheld

SUMMARY

The advertisement for Fluoride Free NZ headed “Stop Mandatory Nationwide Fluoridation in New Zealand: Fundraising for Media Campaign” was hosted on the Givealittle website.

The Advertiser said the statements in their advertisement were “absolutely the facts”, provided in support of their view that fluoridation of the water in New Zealand cease.

The Complainant said the advertisement was misleading because; Fluoride Free NZ has listed themselves as a charity, there is no plan from the government to implement mandatory nationwide fluoridation, only high levels of fluoride are harmful, and, saying that “The US National Toxicology Program is currently undertaking a review of all studies where fluoride has been shown to harm the brain to try to ascertain what dose this harm occurs” is likely to confuse the public.

The Complaints Board confirmed the advertisement was advocacy advertising and should therefore be considered in that context.

The Complaints Board agreed the advertisement had not breached any of the Principles or Codes of the Advertising Code of Ethics.

The Complaints Board ruled the complaint was Not Upheld.

[No further action required]

Please note this headnote does not form part of the Decision.

COMPLAINTS BOARD DECISION

The Chair directed the Complaints Board to consider the advertisement with reference to Basic Principle 4 and Rules 2, 6 and 11 of the Code of Ethics.

This required the Complaints Board to consider four questions:

• Did the advertisement contain anything which directly or by implication, omission, ambiguity or exaggerated claim is misleading or deceptive?

• Did the advertisement exploit the superstitious without justifiable reason or play on fear?

• Do the provisions of Rule 11 – Advocacy Advertising of the Code of Ethics apply?

Rule 11 provides for robust expression of belief or opinion to be expressed by the Advertiser and, therefore, such opinions may be robust. However, opinion should be clearly distinguishable from factual information. The identity of an Advertiser, in matters of public interest or political issues, should also be clear.

• Was the advertisement prepared with a due sense of social responsibility to consumers and society?

The Advocacy Principles are also relevant. These were developed by the Complaints Board in previous Decisions for the application of Rule 11. These say:
1 That Section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990, in granting the right of freedom of expression, allows advertisers to impart information and opinions but that in exercising that right what was factual information and what was opinion, should be clearly distinguishable.
2. That the right of freedom of expression as stated in Section 14 is not absolute as there could be an infringement of other people’s rights. Care should be taken to ensure that this does not occur.
3. That the Codes fetter the right granted by Section 14 to ensure there is fair play between all parties on controversial issues. Therefore, in advocacy advertising and particularly on political matters the spirit of the Code is more important than technical breaches. People have the right to express their views and this right should not be unduly or unreasonably restricted by Rules.

4. That robust debate in a democratic society is to be encouraged by the media and advertisers and that the Codes should be interpreted liberally to ensure fair play by the contestants.

5. That it is essential in all advocacy advertisements that the identity of the advertiser is clear.
The Complaints Board ruled the complaint was Not Upheld The Complaint
The Complaints Board noted the concerns of the Complainant that the advertisement was
misleading because; Fluoride Free NZ has listed themselves as a charity, there is no plan from the government to implement mandatory nationwide fluoridation, only high levels of fluoride are harmful, and, saying that “The US National Toxicology Program is currently undertaking a review of all studies where fluoride has been shown to harm the brain to try to ascertain what dose this harm occurs“ is likely to confuse the public.

The Advertiser’s Response
The Complaints Board acknowledged the response of the Advertiser that the statements in their advertisement were “absolutely the facts”, provided in support of their view that fluoridation of the water in New Zealand should cease.

The Advertiser said they were raising funds to support their education campaign which was formed as a response to the Government’s decision to introduce legislation to move the power to make decisions about whether or not to fluoridate the water from local Councils to District Health Boards.

The Media’s Response
The Media, Givealittle, said the Fluoride Free NZ Givealittle page was closed on 1 September and they believe this removes the issue at the centre of the complaint.

Precedent
To assist in coming to its decision the Complaints Board reviewed a precedent decision.

The precedent concerned was the complaint about a Fluoride Free NZ television advertisement where Complainants said the advertisement contained misleading information and played on fear to get its message across; Complaint 16/297.

In its decision the Complaints Board agreed the advertisement was an advocacy advertisement which clearly identified the advertiser and its position. It found all of the comments made in the advertisement were fact-based statements backed-up with evidence provided by the Advertiser.

The complaint was therefore not upheld.

The Complaints Board’s Discussion
Having considered all the information provided, the Complaints Board turned to consider whether the advertisement had breached any of the Principles or Codes of the Advertising Code of Ethics.

Do the provisions of Rule 11 – Advocacy Advertising of the Code of Ethics apply? First of all the Complaints Board considered whether the provisions of Rule 11 – Advocacy Advertising applied in this case.

The Complaints Board discussed whether the identity of the Advertiser was clear and whether opinion was clearly distinguishable from factual information.

The Complaints Board agreed that both the identity and the position of the Advertiser were clear, in compliance with Rule 11, and therefore the advertisement should be reviewed in the context of advocacy advertising, which is advertising designed to express an opinion. As such, and in the interests of freedom of expression under Section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990, a more liberal interpretation of the Code was appropriate.

Did the advertisement contain anything which directly or by implication, omission, ambiguity or exaggerated claim is misleading or deceptive?

The Complaints Board then turned to consider the content of the advertisement and whether it was misleading under Rule 2 of the Code of Ethics, Truthful Presentation.

The Complaints Board agreed that the opinions expressed were backed up with evidence provided by the Advertiser.

The Complaints Board noted the average consumer would realise this advertisement was designed as a fundraiser and they could exercise free choice about whether or not they wished to donate to Fluoride Free NZ.

Did the advertisement exploit the superstitious without justifiable reason or play on fear?
The Complaints Board acknowledged that while mentioning fluoride is a neurotoxin may prompt an emotional response from some viewers the Complaints Board was required to consider this statement in the context of an advocacy advertisement .

The Complaints Board agreed that the advertisement did not meet the threshold to breach Rule 6 of the Code of Ethics, and the advertisement did not exploit the superstitious or play on fear.

Was the advertisement prepared with a due sense of social responsibility to consumers and society?
The Complaints Board agreed, in light of the findings above, the advertisement had been prepared with a due sense of social responsibility to consumers and society.

Accordingly, the Complaints Board ruled to Not Uphold the complaint.

Decision: Complaint Not Upheld

DESCRIPTION OF ADVERTISEMENT

The advertisement for Fluoride Free NZ headed “Stop Mandatory Nationwide Fluoridation in New Zealand: Fundraising for Media Campaign” was hosted on the Givealittle website.

COMPLAINT FROM D. RYAN

Complaint Details: Advertising for Fluoride Free NZ’s Givealittle campaign (https://givealittle.co.nz/cause/fluoridemediacampaign) breaches the following rules of the Advertising Code of Ethics: Rule 2. Truthful Presentation; Rule 6. Fear and Rule 11. Advocacy Advertising.

Context: There is a new bill proposing a law change for water fluoridation, which would pass decision making from DHBs to local councils. Fluoride Free NZ have announced that they will be opposing this bill, and this is the reason for the Givealittle campaign – to fund TV adverts opposing fluoridation.

Givealittle Campaign

I have been in contact with Givealittle about Fluoride Free NZ’s campaign page on their site. They said that they do not consider their campaigns to be adverts, and therefore do not believe that they come under the ASA’s jurisdiction. However, their campaigns appear to be advertisements, going by the definition on the ASA’s website:

“The word “advertisement” is to be taken in its broadest sense to embrace any form of advertising and includes advertising which promotes the interest of any person, product or service, imparts information, educates, or advocates an idea, belief, political viewpoint or opportunity. The definition includes advertising in all traditional media and new media such as online advertising, including websites and social media platforms when used for commercial purposes. Emails and SMS messaging that are selling or promoting a product, service, idea or opportunity are also covered by the codes, as are neck labels and promotions attached to a product Other examples include posters, pamphlets and billboards (whether stationary or mobile) and addressed or unaddressed mail.”

http://www.asa.co.nz/complaints/our-jurisdiction/

Although the Givealittle campaign is ending soon (unless it is extended by Fluoride Free NZ again), I feel that this shouldn’t be sufficient grounds for the complaint to be settled if it is successful.

On the Fluoride Free NZ campaign page, there are breaches of the ASA’s Code of Ethics Rule 2, regarding truthful presentation:

-Fluoride Free NZ has listed themselves a charity, which they are not (https://www.register.charities.govt.nz/CharitiesRegister/Search).
Clicking on their profile (https://givealittle.co.nz/profile/charity/fluoridefreenz) also lists them as a charity.

-The premise in the title of the campaign – “Stop Mandatory Nationwide Fluoridation in New Zealand…” – is false. There is no plan from the government to implement mandatory nationwide fluoridation.

-Fluoride Free NZ says, “Fluoride is now known to be neurotoxic and can be harmful at certain levels”. This is misinformation, as only high levels of fluoride are harmful; the level used in drinking water is considered safe.

-Fluoride Free NZ says, “The US National Toxicology Program is currently undertaking a review of all studies where fluoride has been shown to harm the brain to try to ascertain what dose this harm occurs. They are also embarking on their own animal studies. For this reason, among others, we believe fluoridation chemicals have no place in our water.” This is likely to confuse the public into thinking that the fluoride in our water causes harm. I have attached a letter from the United States Department of Health & Human Services which clarifies this.

-The link to Fluoride Free NZ’s petition (https://www.change.org/p/government-of-nz-stop- mandatory-fluoridation-for-all-of-new-zealand) takes people to another website containing misinformation and scaremongering about fluoride.

Breaches of ASA’s Ethics Code Rule 6, Fear:

-Mentioning that fluoride is a neurotoxin is likely to receive an emotional response. Only high levels of fluoride are harmful; the level used in drinking water is considered safe.
Breaches of Ethics Code 11, Advocacy Advertising:

-Given the factual errors listed above, opinion has not been clearly distinguished from fact on this page.

A quick read of the Donations tab makes it obvious that people are being deceived or having their existing misconceptions reinforced by Fluoride Free NZ’s advertising. Example comments are:

-“good luck, we have had enough of enforced poisoning”

-“If we can maintain control of our water supplies we can surely be in control of them completely, including keeping fluoride out.”

-“Much cheaper to just leave it out – much healthier kiwis for much less cost. It’s a no- brainer!”

-“All MPs have had my many comments on this insane anti-health crime against people and environment. MANDATE FOR NO FLUORIDATION!”

-“Don’t force the entire population to drink water defiled with toxic fluoride…”

-“We wholeheartedly support you in the fight to free us from involuntary medication using a toxic poison!”

-“Unfortunately the very children whose teeth the government seeks to protect are the very ones most at risk from the toxic effects of fluride as they are likely to be poorly nourished…”

-“Fluoride is a neurotoxin!”

-“Fluoride is a neurotoxin. It has no place being added to the shared public water supply” Givealittle Campaign Advertising

The advertising around the Givealittle campaign on Fluoride Free NZ’s Facebook page repeatedly breaks the ASA’s Ethics Code Rule 6, Fear with statements such as:

-“Stop mandatory nationwide fluoridation”

-“Hazardous waste should never be added into our drinking water deliberately”

-“HFA is a toxic waste product of the corporate phosphate fertilizer industry”

-“Uranium” [added into drinking water]

-“Over 23 tonnes of hydrofluorosilicic acid (*HFA) has flowed into Lake Taupo over the last 47 years”

-“putting it the power into the hands of the District Health Boards (DHB), who are under the direct control of Central Government”

-“The local DHBs will be forced to add fluoridation chemicals to the drinking water of every community in the country, and councils and the public will be powerless.”

-“It is senseless to pour a toxic waste product into clean water at the expense of the environment, and our own bodies”

CODE OF ETHICS

Basic Principle 4: All advertisements should be prepared with a due sense of social responsibility to consumers and to society.

Rule 2: Truthful Presentation – Advertisements should not contain any statement or visual presentation or create an overall impression which directly or by implication, omission, ambiguity or exaggerated claim is misleading or deceptive, is likely to deceive or mislead the consumer, makes false and misleading representation, abuses the trust of the consumer or exploits his/her lack of experience or knowledge. (Obvious hyperbole, identifiable as such, is not considered to be misleading).

Rule 6: Fear – Advertisements should not exploit the superstitious, nor without justifiable reason, play on fear.

Rule 11: Advocacy Advertising – Expression of opinion in advocacy advertising is an essential and desirable part of the functioning of a democratic society. Therefore such opinions may be robust. However, opinion should be clearly distinguishable from factual information. The identity of an advertiser in matters of public interest or political issue should be clear.
RESPONSE FROM ADVERTISER, FLUORIDE FREE NZ RESPONSE

We have been asked to respond to this complaint under the following codes: Code of Ethics – Basic Principle 4
Code of Ethics – Rule 2 Code of Ethics – Rule 6 Code of Ethics – Rule 11

Code of Ethics

Basic Principle 4: All advertisements should be prepared with a due sense of social responsibility to consumers and to society.

Rule 2: Truthful Presentation Advertisements should not contain any statement or visual presentation or create an overall impression which directly or by implication, omission, ambiguity or exaggerated claim is misleading or deceptive, is likely to deceive or mislead the consumer, makes false and misleading representation, abuses the trust of the consumer or exploits his/her lack of experience or knowledge. (Obvious hyperbole, identifiable as such, is not considered to be misleading).

Rule 6: Fear Advertisements should not exploit the superstitious, nor without justifiable reason, play on fear.

Rule 11: Advocacy Advertising Expression of opinion in advocacy advertising is an essential and desirable part of the functioning of a democratic society. Therefore, such opinions may be robust. However, opinion should be clearly distinguishable from factual information. The identity of an advertiser in matters of public interest or political issue should be clear.

Basic Principle 4
As stated in our explanation of why we were raising funds for an education campaign, we believe firmly that fluoridation is harmful to the health of consumers and harmful to our environment. Having researched this topic for many, many years, we feel we have a social responsibility to alert our fellow citizens to this harm. We believe people have a right to this information so that they can take steps to avoid fluoridated water if they wish, and to join us in educating others if they also wish.

It is with this sense of social responsibility that we are campaigning to end fluoridation in New Zealand.

Rule 2: Truthful Presentation

Complaint:
Fluoride Free New Zealand have listed themselves as a charity which they are not.
Fluoride Free New Zealand is a non-profit Incorporated Society. No one within Fluoride Free New Zealand is paid a salary or any type of reimbursement for labour. We listed ourselves on Give a Little as a Charity as that was the closest definition we could find on their site to describe our activity.

Complaint:
The premise of the title “Stop Mandatory Nationwide Fluoridation” is false. There is no plan to implement mandatory fluoridation.
The complaint states that the premise of our title is false. However, the admonition ‘stop mandatory fluoridation’ is just that – an admonition. It is not a statement about which it can sensibly be asked, “Is it true or false”. As such, truth or falsity is not applicable. The question is whether it implies something that is misleading. It does not.
The Government is introducing legislation to remove power from local communities via their Councils to decide about water fluoridation. This legislation will put the power to fluoridate communities into the hands of the DHBs.
District Health Boards must follow the Minister of health’s directives under section 32 of the Public Health and Disability Act 2000. DHBs must also, under their Crown funding agreements, promote specified Ministry policies, which include water fluoridation. As the Ministry of Health would like to extend fluoridation, local Councils will be compelled (i.e. mandated) to fluoridate.
Complaint:
“Fluoride is now known to be neurotoxic and can be harmful at certain levels” This is misinformation as only high levels of fluoride are harmful; the level used in drinking water is considered safe.
The information we provided on the Give A Little site were absolutely the facts. The US Government sponsored National Toxicology Program (NTP) is currently conducting animal studies in an attempt to discover what dose of fluoride causes harm to the brain1.
When we first set up the Give A Little page, in April 2016, we reported that NTP were also conducting a review of animal studies. This review was completed in August so we provided an update on the page to let people know the outcome.

1 https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/pubhealth/hat/noms/fluoride/neuro-index.html

Fluoride has been classified as a neurotoxin by Philippe Grandjean et al, joining a list of only 10 other toxins, and published in the Lancet in 2014. Grandjean3 is one of the world’s leading environmental scientists. He has been recognised world-wide for “his long career conducting and promoting environmental health research, especially his groundbreaking work on the effects of methylmercury and other environmental toxins affecting children, and for his tireless advocacy of the need to protect future generations from the devastating effects of neuro and developmental toxins.

There have now been 57 studies on fluoride and the human brain, 50 of them finding that fluoride damages the brain. There are also hundreds of animal studies showing fluoride damages the brain4.

Our statement “Fluoride is now known to be neurotoxic and can be harmful at certain levels” is therefore completely true and unexaggerated. The complainant’s claim that “only high levels of fluoride are neurotoxic” is a statement of belief rather than fact. The fact that the US Government’s NTP is carrying out studies to determine the dose that causes harm – is verification that scientists, health authorities and governments do NOT know the harmful toxic dose and, therefore, it cannot be assumed that “only high levels” are neurotoxic. Our statement, “it can be harmful at certain levels” is correct, and is even confirmed by the complainant as he acknowledges high levels are neurotoxic. We did not exaggerate or mislead people in any way, as we were clear that it is at “certain levels” and that these levels are yet to be established.

Complaint:
“The US National Toxicology Program is undertaking a review of all studies where fluoride has been shown to harm the brain and ascertain what dose this harm occurs. They are also embarking on their own animal studies. For this reason, among others,

2 http://fluoridealert.org/news/fluoride-newly-identified-as-dangerous-to-brains/

3 https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/philippe-grandjean/

4 http://fluoridealert.org/issues/health/brain/

we believe fluoridation chemicals have no place in our water.” This is likely to confuse the public into thinking that fluoride in our water causes harm.

It needs to be remembered that the complainant himself is just a member of the public. D Ryan is a computer programmer and has no qualifications in medicine, science or public health, unlike many people within Fluoride Free New Zealand. The information we have provided is straight-forward and we see no reason why this would confuse people. Many people agree with our view about a chemical that is known to be a neurotoxin – and because the dose that neurotoxicity occurs is unknown (and even under investigation by a US Government program) – it should not be added to our water. D Ryan’s assertions that people will be confused is distasteful, patronising and arrogant. It seems he has a very low opinion of his fellow members of the public.

Rule 6: Fear

Complaint:
Mentioning that fluoride is neurotoxic is likely to receive an emotional response. Only high levels of fluoride are harmful; the level used in drinking water is safe.

D Ryan is complaining that we are telling people the truth and that we shouldn’t tell people the truth because it is likely to invoke an emotional response. We find this charge astounding. If the ASA was to rule that people could not be told the facts about things, and especially something as important as what is added to their drinking water, because it might make people feel something, would mean we have reached a level of unprecedented censorship that we do not expect to face in this country.

Some young people such as D Ryan perhaps do not have the benefit of experiencing first- hand the numerous health issues that were once deemed safe by health authorities but have been later found to be unsafe. For example – smoking, lead in petrol and paint and New Zealand’s own disastrous experience with 245T. These were stopped because of concerted campaigns by activists.

From the 1950s through to 1987, Ivan Watkins Dow manufactured dioxin-containing 245T which was allowed to be sprayed over the whole country as a herbicide. The general public started to raise the alarm bells when it was noticed that there was a higher incidence of cancer and birth defects (especially spina bifida) being reported around the country, and particularly around the New Plymouth suburb of Paritutu.

The Ministry of Health defended the use of 245T and argued that the level of dioxin, 2 – 20ppm) was so low it could not possibly cause harm. In 1971, the US stopped manufacturing 245T and New Zealand became the last remaining country in the world still manufacturing it.

1971: First dioxin limit set at 1ppm, prior to that 2 – 20ppm were used 1983: A tenfold drop to 0.1ppm was set
1987: A final tenfold drop to 0.01ppm was set, causing the closure of the dioxin manufacturing plant without any admission from MoH of links to adverse health effects.

The MoH maintain that stance even to this day.
In 2006, TV3 produced a documentary Let Us Spray. “The questions over the Ivon Watkins Dow plant were suddenly reasonable, when for so many years campaigners in the Dioxin Information Network group had been labelled – among other things – “apocalyptic radicals” in the local newspaper. “ – David Fisher, NZ Herald5.

5 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10410351

If opponents of 245T had not been allowed to share their concerns with the public, 245T spraying would have continued for far longer than it did. Even though the opponents did not have absolute proof that 245T was causing birth defects, still births and cancer, these people had the good sense to know that spraying herbicide to kill gorse was not worth risking serious, life-threatening and life-debilitating diseases.

Fluoridation is also following the same trend as dioxin in 245T:
1950s: Limit set at 1.2ppm
1990s: Limit reduced to 1ppm with recommended target of 0.85ppm
2015: The US Government has reduced the limit to 0.7ppm. Some Councils in New Zealand have followed suit, although the NZ MoH have still not changed their recommendation, at least not publicly.

We believe people would take from the information we provided, that fluoride is neurotoxic, that the dose where neurotoxicity occurs has not yet been determined, and that FFNZ believes for that reason (and others) that fluoride should not be added to the drinking water. People can then choose to agree with our conclusion or not. We are not presenting the information in any way that makes it more concerning than what it is. People, such as D Ryan, are free to continue to be not concerned but people should also be free to be concerned if they view the information the way we do.

We also believe it is of utmost importance to a functioning democracy that we be allowed to share these concerns. The fact that the limits on the level of fluoride allowed to be added to water has steadily reduced proves that the levels were too high in the past and that the people in charge of setting the levels are not always right.

Rule 11: Advocacy Advertising

Complainant:
Given the factual errors listed above, opinion has not been clearly distinguished from fact on this page.

As stated above, we do not believe there are any factual errors. The only statement that is not an absolute fact is, “we believe fluoridation chemicals should have no place in our water”. It cannot be stated anymore clearly that this is our belief/opinion – so it is false for D Ryan to claim that fact has not been distinguished from opinion.

The page makes it clear what our policy position is, why we are seeking donations, and that we are an advocacy organization. The public will therefore know from the outset that these are our advocacy positions. As the whole page is a Donations Page for Fluoride Free New Zealand, it is obvious that the information is from our perspective.
Complainant:

A quick read of the Donations tab makes it obvious that people are being deceived or having their existing misconceptions reinforced by Fluoride Free New Zealand.

We find D Ryan’s comments insulting, not only to us, but also to the people that commented on our page. Again, as stated above, we did not include any information that we do not consider to be the truth. Therefore, we were not “deceiving” people. It is also absurd to suggest that everyone that commented on our page has been solely influenced by the information we provided on the Give A Little page. It is far more likely these people have researched the subject of fluoridation themselves, probably for several years, and from many different sources, and simply agree with our view.

If D Ryan’s view was to be accepted, then Stuff and The Herald would be also be responsible for all the comments on their pages.

We are astonished at D Ryan’s hubris and lack of respect for others who have a different opinion than him. He obviously has a problem with anyone holding a view contrary to his own. Allowing people to comment on our page is not a breach of the code

RESPONSE FROM MEDIA, GIVEALITTLE

Please find attached a screenshot of the Fluoride Free New Zealand page on Givealittle. This proved the page was closed on 1 September.

We believe that the closure of the page on 1 September 2016 removes the issue at the centre of the complaint.