Dear Mayor and Councillors,

As many of you are probably aware, a US Federal Court issued a ruling yesterday that “fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk to human health”. (See Ruling here).

The US Environmental Protection Agency is now obligated by law to restrict or eliminate the risk. It appears that the only thing that can be done to meet this obligation is to stop fluoridation.

While this ruling is not from a New Zealand court the fact remains that a senior court of law has reviewed all the available current best evidence on neurotoxicity and concluded that fluoridation at 0.7ppm poses an unreasonable risk to human health.

This leaves New Zealand councils in the position of knowingly adding a neurotoxin to the drinking water at an amount that the top scientific toxicology agency in the United States and a US Federal court have found to be unsafe.

Note: there is more science, and of a higher quality, showing fluoridation causes the same harm that was caused by lead in paint and petrol than there was about that when it was banned in 1996.

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.

The only reasonable conclusion now is that that fluoridation is injurious to health. Therefore, the council is legally required to take steps to protect the public health by declining to implement the Directors-General’s directive, or suspending fluoridation if they have already begun. We do not believe any court in the land would impose the extreme fines, as threatened by the Director-General of Health, in this situation, that is, because a council is fulfilling its statutory duty. Section 23 overrides Part5 of the Act.

Regards

Mary Byrne National Coordinator

Mark Atkin Science and Legal Advisor

Fluoride Free New Zealand