Letter – Council should pause Fluoridation plans

Dear Mayor and Councillors

On Thursday last week (7/3/24), the Nelson City Council received agreement from the Director General of Health that fluoridation implementation could be delayed until 31 December 2024 (was due to start 31 April 2024).

In a letter to the Minister on 15 February, Mayor Nick Smith requested an extension to the implementation date saying “We are proceeding with the engineering work but we cannot be expected to proceed when the latest advice from the Ministry is “the implications of the judgment are being considered”.”

As you are most probably aware, the High Court ruled on 10 November 2023 that the directives from the Director-General of Health (DGoH) were unlawful as fluoridation is compulsory medical treatment that breaches s 11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights (BORA).

On 16 February 2024 the judge ruled that the DGoH was required to do a BORA analysis and to take into consideration the views of the plaintiff, New Health New Zealand.

Even though the directives still stand, this puts all councils considering starting fluoridation in the position that if they do start fluoridation, they will be implementing an unlawful directive and will be open to legal ramifications.

The High Court judgment says that all decision makers are required to consider BORA. Since the directive given does not include this, it means that it is now incumbent on any decision maker (i.e. the council) that chooses to start fluoridation to do this BORA analysis.

Further, the directive was already in contention as it places council in the position of illegally ignoring some laws to be able to comply. For example:

Section 200 of the Crimes Act 1961 states:

Poisoning with intent

(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who, with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to any one, administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or other noxious substance.

(2) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years who, with intent to cause inconvenience or annoyance to any one, or for any unlawful purpose, administers to, or causes to be taken by, any person any poison or other noxious substance.

The US National Toxicology Program, the “Gold Standard” of Toxic substance reviewers, has found that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin with no lower threshold for harm. A US Federal Court is soon to release a ruling on whether or not fluoridation poses “an unreasonable risk”. If so, it is likely fluoridation will end in the US.

The Council cannot rely on the Director-General’s directive to breach this law.

Further, section 23 of the Health Act 1956 requires councils to protect the public health. Adding a known neurotoxin to the public water supply is also a breach of this law.

Under Decision Making in the Local Government Act 2002 councils are required to consult with their community on matters of importance. Fluoridation has always been considered a matter of importance.

New Health New Zealand will be taking a substantive case against the DGoH once the DGoH’s BORA analysis has been completed. It is extremely unlikely that any council would be fined for not complying with a directive where the legality was being seriously challenged and especially not an unlawful directive.

According to RNZ (13/02/24) Rotorua and Horowhenua councils have put plans on hold, and Waitaki and Whangarei councils are continuing with equipment implementation but will not be adding fluoridation chemicals until there is more legal clarity.

We therefore request that the council write to the Ministry of Health and request that all plans to implement fluoridation can be put on hold until the New Health New Zealand case has been completed, or at very least until 31 December this year when the situation could then be reviewed.

Mary Byrne
Mark Atkin
on behalf of Fluoride Free New Zealand
www.fluoridefree.org.nz