Submissions OPPOSING the NZ Fluoridation of Drinking Water Amendment Bill 2017
See more submissions HERE
Why I oppose water fluoridation – Submission from Ian Gregson
There are only two countries in the world with compulsory water fluoridation. They are Ireland and Singapore. The total percentage globally of people being poisoned by fluoride being added to their water supply is approximately 4%.
Not only do regions with fluoridated water not have better dental heath, they have measurably worse heath statistics over a wide range of markers.
Fluoride is not really added to water supplies for dental health, as no benefits to dental heath have ever been proven. It is added because it makes the population more submissive, and because it has the secondary benefit of being an easy and profitable way to dispose of a toxic waste product.
For more information see our web page about fluoride:
Our own websites received more than 15 million page views last year and the traffic to our pages about fluoride are growing rapidly. The public is becoming more aware of the fluoride scam. Maybe that is why the NZ government is trying to force legislation through now.
From this point I could get into statistics, references, detailed arguments and evidence, but past experience has left me with the distinct impression that submissions are only read briefly to determine if they are pro fluoride (and there are not very many of those) or against fluoride (the big pile), and that no independent research is being done by any NZ government agencies.
So keeping this simple:
I AM OPPOSED TO the Fluoridation of Drinking Water Amendment Bill
(So put this submission in the big pile)
And in case anyone wants to do some research – here are some links to more information:
Written Submission re the proposed Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill – Deb Gully
This submission is primarily on behalf of myself, my family and friends, my clients, and the Wellington community. But I am also concerned about the health of the entire country.
There are two aspects to this proposed legislation:
- Is fluoridating our drinking water safe, healthy and cost effective?
- Who should decide whether it is those things?
Along with many thousands of other health professionals and scientists, I maintain that fluoridating our drinking water is neither safe nor healthy and, if ALL costs are taken into consideration, not even cost effective. I will go into my reasons for that below.
But the main purpose of this bill is to place that decision making in the hands of District Health Boards so I will address that first.
Why this decision making should not be in the hands of the DHBs
This bill would give the DHBs complete power to make decisions about fluoridation of the water supply. The DHBs would have no obligation to consult with communities but would be able to give directives. This is completely unacceptable in a supposedly democratic country, where we theoretically have the right to make our own decisions about our health.
As well as no community consultation, there would be:
No informed consent
No ability to make our own decisions
No way for people who are sensitive to fluoride to avoid it
No assessment of the impact on those sensitive populations e.g. the elderly or people with kidney, thyroid or arthritic conditions
No way for communities who want to be unfluoridated to remain so
No assessment of the health of the entire person – the only concern seems to be dental health
DHBs will not be obliged to look for non-fluoride options of reducing dental decay such as through ‘Water Only, No Sugar’ policies in schools or programs like the Scottish Childsmile
DHBs will only be required to assess financial impact on dental health costs. They won’t be required to also take into account the increased health care costs of increases in conditions such as hypothyroid, arthritis, kidney issues and diabetes.
There is not even any requirement to assess increases in these conditions over time, or to monitor accumulation of fluoride in teeth, bones and pineal gland in the population
The DHBs will be informed by the Ministry of Health, and there is no guarantee, or even likelihood (going on past performance) that this so-called information will to informed, up-to-date and unbiased
This goes completely against the previous legal precedent that we should be able to give informed consent about any medical treatment. Authorities have denied that fluoridation is a medical intervention, but there is plenty of evidence that it is.
The decision about whether to take fluoride should be in the hands of each individual. It is a medical intervention and no organisation of any kind should have any say in it.
This includes local or national government, health boards and the Ministry of Health.
The dangers of allowing fluoride in the water
The 13 reasons I oppose fluoride in the water supply:
- The form of fluoride being used is a toxic industry by product, not a natural nutritional element
- It doesn’t address the true causes of tooth decay, which are nutritional.
- It doesn’t work. Levels of tooth decay are very similar in non-fluoridated and fluoridated countries and the weight of genuine scientific evidence fails to show any benefit from fluoridation.
- It damages dental, physical and mental health. The health issues it’s implicated in include:
- Dental fluorosis
- Osteoporosis, especially hip fractures
- Joint & muscle pain, which may then be diagnosed as arthritis or fibromyalgia
- Endocrine system dysfunction, including hypothyroidism
- Many other physical diseases including cancer, diabetes and chronic fatigue
- Lowered IQ, depression and inability to concentrate.
- Long term fluoride exposure on the skin is as dangerous, if not more so, than drinking it.
- Even if it was effective and safe, it’s dangerous to dispense any medication in such a way as to not be able to control the dosage
- It’s unethical to mass medicate the population without their consent
- For those members of the public who wish to avoid fluoride exposure, the current policy is expensive – in terms of both time and money. For bathing, the options are whole house filtration at an approximate cost of $4000 or putting in a rain water tank at a cost of about $1000. When we’re paying rates in order to have good quality water, we shouldn’t have to do either of those.
- It’s wasteful – Only 0.5% of the fluoridated water is ingested. The other 99.5% is used for washing or other uses, and literally goes straight down the drain. So even if fluoride was beneficial, at a cost of around $130k a year, this would be an expensive, wasteful way to use it. There are much cheaper options that could cater for those who want it.
- Potential contamination of the environment and damage to wildlife from the huge amount of it going into the sewage system.
- Most other countries have banned fluoride from their water supplies because they know it’s dangerous. NZ is one of only a handful of developed nations who fluoridate. Despite the US being one of those, even the American Dental Association has recommended that baby formula is made up with non fluoridated water, thus admitting the risks involved.
- Danger to NZ exports. The European Court of Justice has ruled that fluoridated water must be treated as a medicine, and cannot be used to prepare foods. The Court stated that even if a functional food product is legally marketed as a food in one member state, it cannot be exported to any other member state unless it has a medicinal licence. So EC countries could refuse to import food that’s been prepared with fluoridated water. Fluoride in our water supply is damaging NZ’s to clean, green image and could potentially have a very negative effect on our export markets.
- After looking at the benefits to some of our disadvantaged populations, plus the harmful effects to the total population, it is clear that water fluoridation is not beneficial for the greater good and there are other better ways of addressing the issue with our poorer populations.
I ask that you:
- Admit that there is overwhelming evidence for the dangers of fluoride, or at the very least admit that there are doubts about it’s safety
- Agree that until it’s proven safe (which it never has been), fluoride must not be put into our water
- Allow local communities to make there own decisions about fluoridation – or even better, allow individuals to make their own decisions by stopping fluoridation everywhere in New Zealand immediately.
As a citizen of this supposed democracy, I demand my democratic rights to determine my own health care. This means that bill must be consigned to the rubbish heap where it belongs.
Deb Gully – www.debgully.com
Nutrition consultant and Chartered Natural Health practitioner
Wellington chapter leader of the Weston A Price foundation
Submission on the NZ Fluoridation of Drinking Water Amendment Bill – Lynn Jordan
Submission to Select Committee on Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill 208-1
This submission is on behalf of the group New Zealand Health Professionals Opposing Fluoridation
Our NZ list now has 338 professionals, which include 94 Doctors, including 38 GPs and 74 other doctors, 20 Dentists, 10 current Dental Technicians and former School Dental Nurses, 28 Nurses and13 Ph.D Scientists. The international professionals opposing fluoridation list is over 4000 people, including a former Belgian Minister of Health, a former Federal Health Minister of Australia, and Nobel Prize Winner Dr. Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Prize in Medicine, 2000.
Our NZ professionals oppose this Amendment for many reasons, a few of which are here:
1) The Amendment applies to a policy based on out-dated myths, anti-scientific mis-information and an unwillingness to admit fluoridation’s failure
2) It will extend exposure of a harmful neurotoxin to 50% more New Zealanders
3) It will be expensive harm. Instead, money could be saved on CHILDSMILE, which is proven successful, giving non-fluoridated Scottish children better teeth than NZ children
4) DHBs will not be required to consult with anyone or examine ingested fluoride toxicity
5) This Bill will effectively force fluoridation on everyone
6) There are no provisions in this Bill for fluoride testing for anyone, including tens of thousands of fluoride-sensitive New Zealanders including people with Diabetes, Thyroid Disease, Kidney Disease and Bottle-Fed Babies
This written submission will focus on the statistics used in discussing water fluoridation. The aim is to show clearly how the “40% difference” claim advertised by the New Zealand Ministry of Health is false. It will also show how individuals at the MoH manipulated useless and inferior data to continually advertise a deceptive number that can also be reversed, using their own calculation methods, but better quality data, to show fluoridated areas have 40% OR MORE tooth decay than non-fluoridated areas.
“40% better” is a false advertising MYTH
The below bar graphs shows how “40%” goes against the Ministry of Health claim and favours ENDING fluoridation. This shows how the Ministry of Health’s way of manipulating numbers can also be used in the reverse.
All of these areas are fluoridated, except non-fluoridated Christchurch and Canterbury. You can see that all of these fluoridated areas have more fillings than non-fluoridated Christchurch and Canterbury. One of them has exactly “40% more tooth decay” (its population size is the same as the Christchurch/Canterbury group and was chosen to use here for this reason). One of the areas has 52% more fillings than non-fluoridated Christchurch/Canterbury. The above table comes from the Ministry of Health’s own annual database of 45,000 Age Five Children (http://www.health.govt.nz/nz-health-statistics) across New Zealand, which is an appropriate and respectable sample size to use for fluoridation discussion.
Contrast the inferior data used by The Ministry of Health to advertise “40%” difference.
The Ministry of Health has advertised repeatedly on websites and publications the claim that fluoridated areas have “40% less” tooth decay than non-fluoridated areas. The above graph shows that this is not true. Their number was cherry-picked, inflated and is still falsely advertised.
The comparison below contrasts the cherry-picked small and obscure survey data used to advertise “40%” http://www.health.govt.nz/publication/our-oral-health-key-findings-2009-new-zealand-oral-health-survey with the MoH’s own high quality annual School Dental statistics which are not advertised.
The individuals who chose to advertise inferior data from the small survey in 2009 ignored their own other superior data which clearly show numbers against fluoridation. That false-advertising number is from a single, low-quality survey that states within its own text:
“It is important to note that it was not one of the objectives of the 2009 NZOHS to compare the oral health status of people by fluoridation status, and therefore the survey cannot be taken as a fluoridation study. The following results are a snapshot in time and constitute an ecological analysis based on current place of residence. As such they do not take into account lifetime exposure to fluoridated and non-fluoridated water supplies. Individuals who currently live in fluoridated areas may have spent time in non-fluoridated areas, and the reverse is also true. Furthermore, there may be other confounding factors that haven’t been taken into account.”
Crunching Tooth Decay Numbers: How is 40% Calculated?
The following table contains details on how these numbers can be completely misleading, for those who want to examine some fine print.
What does 40% less tooth decay mean? What does it look like?
Dental professionals know that the figures used above to calculate a “40% difference” in DMFT are statistically meaningless. But this figure is used to deceive lay people. Most people think that 40% refers to the number of children or the number of teeth, but this is not the case.
“40 % difference” actually looks like this
1.4 is 40% greater than 1, but it is only 0.4 surfaces out of 100, or 0.4% more decay, taken over the whole mouth. Non-fluoridated areas often have lower decay rates in New Zealand and around the world. If fluoridation worked, this would not be the case.
This is how a few individuals at the NZ Ministry of Health have cleverly and knowingly used false advertising to avoid admitting that fluoridation doesn’t work. Lowered IQ, thyroid disease and children that need real dental programmes like CHILDSMILE that work are more important than preserving the reputation of a few people who are willing to deceive the public in this way.
The Health Select Committee can easily fix this by not passing Peter Dunne’s fundamentally flawed Bill. One has to wonder what the professionals from the international list Former Belgian Health Minister Dr. Aelvoet, Former Federal Health Minister Everingham and Dr. Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Prize Winner in Medicine would think about Dunne’s unconscionable bullying and ignorant comments about people who oppose fluoridation.
The Health Select Committee can instead help everyone win by passing new legislation providing Central Government funding to begin the CHILDSMILE programme across NZ. Fluoridation doesn’t work and it’s causing harm.
The CHILDSMILE programme is saving Scotland more than5 million pounds per year and they have never had fluoridation. Scottish children used to have high levels of tooth decay, but now that they have CHILDSMILE, Scottish kids have better teeth than Kiwi kids. There are other successful programmes around the world now modeled after the CHILDSMILE programme.
CHILDSMILE improves health overall with life-long education about brushing and sugar consumption. The Health Select Committee needs to take the broader view when considering this bill and take this opportunity to abandon the costly out-of-date fluoridation programme in NZ and make the switch to funding for the NZ Childsmile programme: Saving teeth, Saving Pain and Saving Money. This is a win for everyone
Information and statistics on CHILDSMILE: http://www.child-smile.org.uk/
Scottish National Dental Inspection Programme statistics: http://www.scottishdental.org/?s=NDIP
New Zealand MoH school dental statistics: http://www.health.govt.nz/nz-health-statistics
Submission on the NZ Fluoridation of Drinking Water Amendment Bill – Wellington Chapter of the Weston A Price Foundation
As the Wellington Chapter of the Weston A Price Foundation, an organisation that aims to restore nutrient-dense foods to the human diet through education, research and activism, one of our main goals is to to alert the public to the dangers of government approved toxins such as fluoride.
Fluoride actually causes a slight increase in tooth decay (for studies see this article), and possibly the only reason it remains in the water supplies of a handful of American influenced countries (less than 4% of the population globally) is because the officials who have been pushing this mass medication program don’t want to admit it has been thoroughly discredited.
We are stongly opposed to all water fluoridation, and this bill is a blatent attempt by the government to make it easier to force this mass poisoning on an increasingly unwilling and better educated public.
Ian Gregson & Deb Gully
Wellington Chapter – Weston A Price Foundation
Submission on the NZ Fluoridation of Drinking Water Amendment Bill – NATURE FOODS NZ
We are a Wellington based business supplying Whole Food, GAPS, Paleo, and WAPF foods and supplements.
Ironically we also sell water filtration products, mainly to customers who want to get the fluoride out of their water. And many of the supplements we sell are to help reduce health problems that have been caused or worsened by fluoride in the water supply.
So if we had the ethics of a pharmaceutical company we could just keep quiet about this mass poisoning and continue to profit from it.
But we are appalled that the NZ government, instead of backing off when they are completely out of line (with all independent research, and 96% of the rest of the world) is trying to ramp up this mass poisoning with even more oppressive legislation.
We strongly oppose the NZ Fluoridation of Drinking Water Amendment Bill
Deb Gully and Ian Gregson
Owners – Nature Foods NZ
Submission on the NZ Fluoridation of Drinking Water Amendment Bill – Cory Gully
Every month I travel out to the Dowse Art museum fountains to refill my water containers with clean drinking water.
This is because my home water supply is poisoned with fluoride, which I have no desire to drink.
Tap water in NZ is toxic because it contains fluoride, chlorine, and aluminium, but it is the fluoride I am firstly trying to avoid drinking because it is the most dangerous.
It’s not just drinking the tap water that’s a problem – bathing and showering in it leads to fluoride absorption too, but I do not have a household fluoride filter in my flat (they cost well over $4000 and require quite a lot of plumbing fittings).
In Wellington, clean drinking water is available from the Petone fountain, (but there are usually large queues there) and the Dowse Art Museum taps in Lower Hutt.
This new bill is clearly an attempt by the government to stifle opposition to this mass medication and force fluoridation on areas that are currently lucky enough not to be poisoned by it.
Submission on the NZ Fluoridation of Drinking Water Amendment Bill – Margaret Gregson
I am opposed to water fluoridation because I object to the government forcing the public to drink this toxic industrial waste product that has no health benefits and has been linked to a huge range of health problems including all of the following:
Blind Spots; Body temperature disturbances; Breast Cancer; Cachexia (wasting away); Candidasis; Carpal Tunnel Syndrome; Cataracts; Change in blood pressure(=/-); Chest pain; Chronic Fatigue Syndrome; Collagen breakdown; Cold Shivers; Coma; Concentration Inability; Constipation; Convulsions; Crying easily for no apparent reason; Death; Decrease in Testosterone; Dementia; Demyelinizing Diseases; Dental Abnormalities; Dental Arch smaller; Dental Crowding; Dental enamel more porous; Dental Fluorosis (Mottling of teeth); Delayed Eruption of teeth; Depression; Diabetes Insipidus; Diabetes Mellitus; Diarrhea; Dizziness; Down Syndrome; Dry Mouth; Dyspepsia; Dystrophy; Early/Delayed Onset of Puberty; Eczema; Edema; Epilepsy; Eosinophilia; Excessive Sleepiness; Eye, ear and nose disorders; Fatigue; Fearfulness; Fever; Fibromyalgia; Fibrosarcoma; Fibrosis; Fingernails:Lines/Grooves; Fingernails:Brittle; Forgetfulness; Gallstones; Gastro-disturbances; Gastric Ulcers; Giant Cell Formation; Gingivitis; Goiter; Growth Disturbances; Headache; Hearing Loss; Heart Disorders; Heart Failure; Heart Palpitations; Hepatitis; Hemorrhage; Hives; Hoarseness; Hyperparathyroidism; Hypertension; Hypoplasia; Immunosuppression; Impotence; Incoherence; Infertility; Inflammatory Bowel Disease; Inner Ear Disorders; Irritability; Joint Pains; Kidney Failure; Lack of Energy; Lack of Co-ordination; Loss of Appetite; Loss of Consciousness; Loss of IQ; Loss of Spermatogenesis; Low Birth Weight; Lung Cancer; Lupus; Magnesium Deficiency; Memory Loss; Mental Confusion; Migraine; Mouth Sores; Multiple Sclerosis; Muscle Pain, Wasting, Cramps, Stiffness, Weakness; Muscoskeletal Disease; Nausea; Osteoarthritis; Osteoporosis; Osteosarcoma; Optic Neuritis; Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma; Otosclerosis; Parkinson’s Disease; Pins & Needles; Polydipsia; Polyneuropathy; Polyurea; Pyelocystitis; Premature Delivery; Pruritis (Itchy Skin); Pulminary Edema; Recurring Colds; Respiratory Complications; Restlessness; Retinitis; Rhinitis; Schizophrenia; Sceroderma; Skin Pigmentation; Secondary teeth erupt later; Sensitive to light; Seizures; Shortness of Breath; SIDS; Sinus Infections; Skeletal Changes; Sleep Disorders; Slipped Epiphysis; Sluggishness; Skin Irritations; Spondylitis, ankylosing; Stillbirths; Swallowing Difficulties; Swelling in Face; Telangiectasia; Testicular Growth/Alteration; Thirst; Thrombosis; Thyroid Cancer; Tinnitus; Tingling Sensations; Visual disturbances; Ulcerative Colitis; Urticaria; Uterine Bleeding; Uterine Cancer; Vaginal Bleeding; Vas Deferens Alterations; Vertigo; Vitiligo; Weak Pulse; Weight Disturbances; Zinc Deficiency.
What right does the government have to force the population to drink a known neurotoxin?
Please register my strong opposition to this new bill.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE PROPOSED BILL
Legislation on Fluoridation 2017
Legislation was introduced to Parliament on the 17th November 2016. This Legislation will shift responsibility from the local councils and give it to the District Health Boards. 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 they have 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.
This Legislation does not allow for DHBs to consult with the community and it only allows a very narrow range for the DHBs to evaluate the subject as they will only be allowed to consider dental health in the community against the cost of fluoridation. They are being steered to only consider the 2009 Oral Health Survey rather than much more comprehensive data. They are not given any leeway to consider overall health effects.
Submissions close 2nd of February
As you will see from the transcript and related documents and the video footage of the MPs that spoke at the first Reading (5th of December 2016) – National, Labour and the Greens support the Bill. The Labour Party even want to strengthen the legislation by making it mandated by Central Government just in case a DHB tries to wriggle out of it. In a press release in December 2016, Labour also condemned the Maori Party for running a poll to find out what people think.
You will also see that none of the speakers know very much about the subject. Health Select Committee Chair Simon O’Connor mistakenly credits his good teeth on taking fluoride tablets as a child. Unbeknownst to him, the Ministry of Health no longer recommends fluoride tablets because we now know fluoride doesn’t work by swallowing and fluoride tablets cause dental fluorosis!
Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne, who introduced the Bill, has called us “tin-foil hat wearing, UFO-abducted pseudo-scientists.” He mustn’t realise that he is insulting around half of the NZ population. Results from all referenda held in NZ show that people tend to vote status quo. As only half of the country is fluoridated (23 councils out of 67, not “27 councils have rejected fluoridation” as Peter Dunne incorrectly stated) which means that roughly half the population is opposed to fluoridation (or maybe more than half) and if a nationwide referendum was held tomorrow, we would have a good chance of winning.
The NZ First Party thinks the issue should be decided by local referendum. The Greens supported the Bill “at first Reading stage” as they, too, have concerns about local decision-making – but the Greens as a party do think fluoridation is safe and effective. It shows that most of them must only have read the Ministry of Health propaganda.
How to stop the Legislation
The Government is now giving until the 2nd of February for us to send in written feedback on the issue. The law allows everyone who gives feedback to have 10 minutes speaking time for individuals, and 15 minutes for organisations. At the Hamilton Tribunal in 2013, 1557 people put in a submission, 1385 opposed fluoridation and 130 people spoke at the hearing to support their submission. That required the councillors to sit through 3.5 days of oral submissions and the result was a 7 to 1 vote to stop fluoridation. Unfortunately, some Hamilton councillors who had excused themselves from the Tribunal Hearing because of a conflict of interest, and did not bother to attend the Hearing as part of the audience, subsequently worked to overthrow that decision. (See Hamilton page if you would like more information on that).
Therefore, we urge everyone to give written feedback, and do their utmost to speak to that submission in person. We have been advised that It is best to keep feedback to a page or two with around half a dozen really salient points. The Hearing will be in Wellington, which is likely to be in February or perhaps March next year..
Ways to give Feedback:
Use this Online Form If you don’t know what to say, a personal testimony is good, or attach an article already written (suggestions here) or list a few points as suggested above. Send hard copy to Health Select Committee, Parliament Buildings, Wellington. It is really good if you can also say you will speak to your submission. This can be done by Skype if you cannot make it to Wellington.
Fluoride Free New Zealand will be providing a comprehensive written submission where we will explain the ineffectiveness and dangers of fluoridation and details of public dental health programmes operating overseas that actually do reduce dental decay.
Please encourage your friends and family to help us now by sending feedback to the Committee and by informing everyone they know on the facts about fluoridation. The number of people that do this makes a difference! You can also help by posting respectful and informative comments on Facebook, liking posts and comments and joining the discussions, particularly on the Facebook pages of the Health Select Committee Members. See the list below.
Remember, this is election year. We need to let politicians know we will not vote for them if they introduce this draconian legislation.
Annette King, Member, Labour Party, Rongotai
Local Government New Zealand’s response to amendments to the Act
Ministry of Health’s position statement on current proposed Legislation
Legislative Disclosure Statement from the Ministry of Health.
New Health New Zealand Alert from Dave Sloan
This Bill proposes to give District Health Boards (DHBs) the power to direct local authorities to add fluoride to their drinking water supplies. Currently decisions on fluoridation are taken by local authorities after an extensive consultation process with their communities.
The Bill has had its first reading and submissions are being sought to the Health Select Committee.
This is a draconian Bill that is designed to bring about mandatory fluoridation. It should be opposed.
Under the Bill a DHB is not required to consult with the community. It is merely required to consider the scientific evidence of the effectiveness of fluoride to reduce tooth decay, and whether the benefits outweigh the financial costs taking into account the local oral health status, population numbers and likely financial cost and saving of adding fluoride.
A local authority who disobeyed a direction to fluoridate would be committing an offence, and would face penalties of up to $200,000 plus $10,000 per day that the offence continues.
The Bill is conspicuous in what it doesn’t require a DHB to take into account. Fluoride is a recognised neurotoxin. However, under the Bill a DHB is not required to consider the growing body of cogent scientific evidence linking excessive fluoride ingestion to harms such as IQ reduction, endocrine disorders, dental fluorosis, and skeletal fluorosis. There is no requirement that a DHB considers alternative methods of treating tooth decay, such as tooth brushing programmes. There is no requirement that if a local authority is directed to add fluoride, that the local authority must also provide non fluoridated water to those who want to avoid fluoridated water.
Fluoridation is mass medication without consent. Every citizen has the right to decide what they put in their body. It is heinous that water, which is essential to life, is being used as a vehicle to force people to consume a medicine.
Tooth decay is easily prevented through diet and good oral hygiene, and easily treated with a filling. It is not a communicable disease and poses no risk to anyone else. Those who want extra fluoride can easily buy fluoride tablets.
The government will tell you that fluoridation significantly reduces tooth decay. It doesn’t.
The government will tell you that fluoridation reduces social health inequalities. This is false.
The government will tell you that fluoridation is safe. They are wrong.
What the government won’t tell you is that the fluoride used in water fluoridation is unquantified and unprocessed industrial waste usually containing arsenic, mercury and lead, as well as other dangerous contaminants.
Ultimately the issue is the freedom of an individual to control their own body. If fluoride can be mandated by stealth what else can the government put into our water without our knowledge?
Send a submission opposing the Bill. We also suggest you ask to be heard on the submission. This would allow you to present your submission to the Select Committee in person.
Submissions are due by 5pm on 2 February 2017.
Click the link below to access a copy of the Bill.
Click the link below for information about making a submission.
Please send this email on to other interested industry members and or consumers.
If you are not the correct recipient in your organisation, please forward this email to the appropriate person.
If anyone hasn’t received this email directly from us and would like to be added to the list, please email me at email@example.com.
Fluoridation Bill passes First Reading
A new Bill that gives District Health Boards (DHBs) the responsibility of managing the fluoridation of local government water supplies has had its first reading in Parliament. The Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill has been referred to the Health Select Committee for consideration, and the public will be invited to make submissions.
“Moving the decision-making process from councils to DHBs recognises that water fluoridation is a significant public health issue.
“Although New Zealand’s oral health has improved over the last 40 years, we still have high rates of preventable tooth decay”, says Associate Minister of Health, Hon Peter Dunne.
In 2014, more than 40 percent of all five year olds and more than 60 percent of Māori and Pacific five year olds already had tooth decay. These same children, and children in high deprivation areas, are also significantly less likely to be enrolled with primary care services at birth.
“That is why, when I assumed responsibility for the oral health portfolio in 2015, progress on fluoridation was at the top of my list. We know from international evidence and from our own experience that fluoridation is a safe and effective treatment that offers the most gain in improving oral health, particularly amongst children.
“Moving this responsibility to DHBs reflects the Government’s view that population health issues are best addressed through the elected DHBs, which ensures not only engagement of health professionals but also retains a degree of democratic community involvement”, Mr Dunne said.
Once the Bill is enacted, DHBs could start making decisions about community water fluoridation in 2018. Currently around 54 percent of public water supplies are fluoridated.
More information can be found on the Government’s website www.fluoridefacts.govt.nz, which provides comprehensive information and responses on community water fluoridation
Peter Dunne – 6 December, 2016
What is wrong with the Health Amendment Bill (fluoride in drinking water)?
This Bill gives District Health Boards total power to make decisions and give directives for fluoridation to local Councils without consultation, without population monitoring and without individualised assessment or informed consent, and behind closed doors.
NO community consultation;
NO opt out provisions for people who are sensitive to fluoride;
NO informed consent from people required;
NO provisions for communities like Napier to continue to be non-fluoridated;
NO assessment of WHOLE health of individuals or populations required, only DENTAL health;
NO full assessment of fluoridation information, only what the Ministry of Health wants the DHBs to see: misinformation, statistical myths, incorrect science;
NO assessment of impact on subsets of sensitive populations e.g. kidney, thyroid, arthritic, elderly patients;
NO mention that hospitals CAN opt out by having their own non-fluoridated water supply to support the recovery of their patients. Patients are not required to give informed consent to drink non-fluoridated water;
NO requirement for population monitoring to assess accumulation of fluoride in teeth, bones and pineal gland over time;
NO requirement for DHBs to look at non-fluoride options of reducing dental decay such as through ‘Water Only No Sugar’ policies in schools;
NO provision for the DHB to consider the financial costs of fluoridation against the financial costs of kidney, diabetes, thyroid, obesity and other population health costs. Only required to look at financial costs against dental health costs.
THIS IS A MEDICAL INTERVENTION FORCED ON THE PEOPLE OF NEW ZEALAND BY GOVERNMENTS OVER 50 YEARS WITHOUT ANY MONITORING OR INDIVIDUALISED ASSESSMENT OR INFORMED CONSENT. THIS BILL MAKES IT MUCH HARDER TO SAY NO TO FLUORIDATION.
Fluoride is not a nutrient needed for health and never has been.