Should a politically timed review be the 'gold standard' for fluoride safety?
Just one of the questions we asked Tauranga City Council.
August 26, 2024: Jodie Bruning presented to Tauranga City Council, along with 2 other presenters, Dr Alanna Ratna and Robert Coe on the subject of the safety of fluoridation of municipal water. (PSGRNZ version of Bruning presentation here).
Powerpoint PDF. Presentation notes sent to elected members & provided to media.
Topic: TCC Ordinary Council Meeting. Presentation of Report: Fluoridation of Tauranga city's water supply. File Number: A16415420.
Following council discussion, acceptance of the Report, Fluoridation of Tauranga’s Water Supply, and the redrafting of the motion, elected members voted to seek an extension to defer the fluoridation of Tauranga’s water supply.
It is noteworthy that In the discussions between elected members and attending staff, the only legal consideration by staff, appeared to be the Director-General orders to fluoridate and the potential burden of a extensive fine that are threatened by the Health Act s116 legislation.
Fluoride – SAFETY not drafted into s116.
PSGRNZ’s presentation followed the following themes:
Is it appropriate that NZ’s ‘gold standard’ for the safety of fluoride established by a politically-timed review from the OPMCSA?
Is it appropriate that risk assessment to judge pre-existing exposures in infants and children & risk from fluoride dosed into water, by developmental stage & bodyweight has not occurred in New Zealand?
Does the Ministry of Health and the D-G’s s116 undermine the Local Government Act 2002?
Does the Ministry of Health and the D-G’s s116 undermine the Water Services Act?
The D-G charges you to put fluoride in municipal water –
(a) s116 does not grant permission to put HFA in municipal water.
(b) Evidence bar – scientific evidence ‘reducing prevalence & severity tooth decay’.
PSGRNZ drew attention to the absence of risk assessment, asking, should a politically timed review (see our Fluoride Timeline) be the ‘gold standard’ for the safety of fluoride in municipal water?
Our presentation raised the issue of an important CPHR report that shows children have higher levels than adults.
This report has not been considered by the Ministry of Health - nor it seems, by territorial authorities under the Local Government Act (LGA) 2002 (LGA) which requires that when local authorities are assessing drinking water services they must
‘identify and assess any other public health risks relating to the drinking water services supplied to the community’ s125(f).
The LGA states that a bylaw may be made for the purpose of
‘protecting, promoting, and maintaining public health and safety’ (s245(a)) and that ‘the Crown is bound by any bylaw if non-compliance with that bylaw by the Crown would be likely to have an adverse effect on public health or safety’ (s153(3)).
(Papers reveal urinary fluoride in pregnant mothers may be associated with cognitive problems - Bashash et al (2018), Malin et al (2021)).
The Water Services Act 2021 requires to officials consider
‘other causes together with the consumption or use of drinking water’.
Key talking points attached in notes to PSGRNZ’s address to TCC.
Communities of colour have very bad histories associated with compulsory medicalisation, all too often dressed in the language of addressing inequalities.
Fluoridation of drinking water removes choice for Māori and non-Māori alike.
The Ministry of Health and local health authorities can supply fluoridated tablets, toothpaste and toothbrushes into marae, kindergartens and schools at extremely low cost. Byte Charity is stepping in where the government is absent.
This would ensure choice of medical treatment.