“… a decision maker must, as a part of its decision-making process, address the restriction and consider whether it is demonstrably justified under s 5 of the Act, quite apart from a substantive assessment by the Court of whether any restriction is so justified.”
Meta-analysis found that 52 out of 55 studies showed fluoride lowered IQ. 18 of the 19 high quality studies found fluoride lowered IQ. Concluded that “prenatal and early life exposures can reduce IQ.”
Mark Atkin – “It is designed to make it virtually impossible to stop fluoridation in currently fluoridated areas, or to keep it out of places that do not have it – even if that community has said “no” to it in the past. Local Councils will be required to do as the DHB dictates or face a fine of $200,000 and a further $10,000 per day of non-compliance.”
2019 The US National Toxicology Program released its draft review of fluoride exposure.
“Fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans”.
On neurotoxicity they said “The new emerging studies in this domain need to be tracked very closely, and carefully evaluated as they appear. We expect that health agencies at local, national, and international levels will confer and compare notes as they iteratively review, and re-review, this evidence”.
2018 Professionals’ Statement Calling for an End to Water Fluoridation (over 4,000 signers)
“It is time for the US, and the few remaining fluoridating countries, to recognize that fluoridation is outdated, has serious risks that far outweigh any minor benefits, violates sound medical ethics and denies freedom of choice. Fluoridation must be ended now.”
“We, the undersigned representatives of a majority (eleven) of EPA’s employee unions, are requesting… setting the maximum contaminant level goal for fluoride at zero, in accordance with Agency policy for all likely or known human carcinogens.”
2018 NZ Supreme Court rules fluoridation is compulsory medical treatment without informed consent.
New Health New Zealand Incorporated v South Taranaki District Council. (99) “…we find that fluoridation of drinking water is the provision of medical treatment. It involves the provision of a pharmacologically active substance for the purpose of treating those who ingest it for dental decay. We agree with the Courts below that people who live or work in areas where fluoridation occurs have no practical option but to ingest the fluoride added to the water. So the treatment is compulsory.”
World leading expert on lead warns of fluoride’s neurotoxicity. “A large number of basic neuroscience studies raise concern, however, about the potential effects of excess exposure in developing animals.”
“For these community water systems that add fluoride, PHS now recommends an optimal fluoride concentration of 0.7 milligrams/liter (mg/L).”
2014: The New Zealand Royal Society and the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor produced a report on fluoridation.
Report contains major erroneous conclusion regarding 2012 Harvard review. The Harvard review found a loss of 7 IQ points with higher fluoride levels but the NZ Report described this as “less than one standard deviation that is likely to be a measurement or statistical artefact of no functional significance.”. It is completely false to describe a 7 IQ point drop as “of no functional significance.
2012: Harvard Study Finds Fluoride Lowers IQ – Published in Federal Gov’t Journal
“The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment. Future research should include detailed individual-level information on prenatal exposure, neurobehavioral performance, and covariates for adjustment.”
2010: Time Magazine lists fluoride as #3 on the list of “Top 10 Common Household Toxins”
“Health Hazards: Neurotoxic and potentially tumorigenic if swallowed.”
“In my opinion, the evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming and policy makers who avoid thoroughly reviewing recent data do so at risk of future litigation.”
2008: Canadian Physicians for the Environment – Position Statement
“On the basis of this “weight of evidence” we believe that fluoridation of drinking water is scientifically untenable, and should not be part of a public health initiative or program.”
2008: Scientific Consensus Statement names fluoride as a substance of major concern
“The central question, which is still unresolved, is what level of exposure results in harmful health effects to children. Children’s small size means that, pound-for-pound of body weight, they receive a greater dose of fluoride than adults.”
“…emerging science suggests we need to further study the dose at which fluoridation may increase risks of neurodevelopment disorders, cancer and skeletal or dental fluorosis, particularly for sensitive individuals.”
“Intentionally fluoridating community drinking water is no longer justified. Adding fluoride to drinking water for the purpose of preventing tooth decay provides virtually no population-wide margin of safety. Under current circumstances, people should not be essentially forced to drink water treated with fluoride when dental benefits can be achieved through topical application and other means.”
“…the Department of Health’s objectivity is questionable—it funded the British Fluoridation Society, and along with many other supporters of fluoridation it used the York review’s findings selectively to give an overoptimistic assessment of the evidence in favour of fluoridation.”
2006: The Lancet lists fluoride as an “emerging neurotoxic substance”
“…three obvious candidate substances deserve particular attention, including two that have not seemed to cause neurotoxicity in adults.”
“The reason fluoridation continues today is due to forces other than the support of good science behind it.”
2006: The US National Research Council publishes comprehensive review of fluoride toxicity
“On the basis of information largely derived from histological, chemical, and molecular studies, it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means.”
“We strongly reject the notion that placing a chronic poison in our water supplies is clever preventive medicine.”
2004: Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association – Position Statement
“Fluoride is a potentially toxic chemical and the difference between safe and toxic levels of fluoride is small, even for healthy people.””No other medication is dispensed on the basis of thirst. Dispensing fluoride via drinking water means that the actual daily intake of any individual is unknown.”
2003: International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology – Position Statement
“This current policy position by IAOMT confirms those earlier assessments and asserts that there is no discernible health benefit derived from ingested fluoride and that the preponderance of evidence shows that ingested fluoride in dosages now prevalent in public exposures aggravates existing illnesses, and causes a greater incidence of adverse health effects. Ingested fluoride is hereby recognized as unsafe, and ineffective for the purposes of reducing tooth decay.”
“Studies in animals and human populations suggest that fluoride exposure, at levels that are experienced by a significant proportion of the population whose drinking water is fluoridated, may have adverse impacts on the developing brain. Though no final conclusions may be reached from available data, the findings are provocative and of significant public health concern. Perhaps most surprising is the relative sparseness of data addressing the central question of whether or not this chemical, which is intentionally added to drinking water, may interfere with normal brain development and function. Focused research should address this important matter urgently.”
“A lifetime of excessive fluoride ingestion will undoubtedly have detrimental effects on a number of biological systems in the body and it is illogical to assume that tooth enamel is the only tissue affected by low daily doses of fluoride ingestion.”
“Even if there were a systemic benefit from ingestion of fluoride, it would be miniscule and clinically irrelevant