FAN Newsletter
Last week we told you about the victory in Philomath, Oregon, where the city council voted 6-1 to end fluoridation after holding several public hearings and being criticized by members of the dental and medical community.
Well, the momentum continues to build as another North American community has ended the fluoridation of its drinking water. On Monday, the city council of Spring Hill, Tennessee unanimously rejected fluoridation due to the cost and concerns raised about the health risks associated with ingesting fluoride.
Lets keep the momentum building! Start an infant warning campaign in your community, or use this guide to begin organizing your own local campaign to end fluoridation.
Three Lawsuits in the Works
Three lawsuits have been filed recently in the U.S. that could have a major impact on the fluoridation debate.
The first lawsuit is in Clallam County, Washington. On April 28, Protect the Peninsula's Future, Clallam County Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, and Eloise Kailin filed suit in superior court against the cities of Forks and Port Angeles, Washington, noting that the fluoride chemicals being used matched the definition for prescription drugs. The suit alleges that the cities lacked the necessary permits for dispensing these drugs. Plaintiffs requested that the practice be halted under search and seizure statutes until permits were obtained. The request was denied by the superior court, but a review by the State Supreme Court was requested and the court's review decision is currently pending.
The second lawsuit was filed by an individual, Patrick Reeners, of Gallatin, Tennessee on July 19, 2011 in the general sessions court of Sumner County. The suit is against the American Dental Association (ADA), and the complaint was served on the organization's President, Dr. Raymond Gist, DDS. The charge is fraud, false advertising and willful harm. Reeners believes the promotion of water fluoridation as "safe and effective" was never approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). He believes the ADA makes this claim while failing to recognize and fairly report on harmful cumulative contributions of fluoride from multiple non-water sources of fluoride.
Reeners believes that fluoride is portrayed on the Association's website as a totally desirable and harmless means of preventing tooth decay. In particular, Reeners believes that the fluoride additive is promoted as if drinking water provided an appropriate dosage, which might be true if you could control total water consumption. However, people also ingest significant doses of fluoride from many other sources such as food, beverages, dental products, and medication. The suit alleges that the general public is ill-informed of the amounts of fluoride on or in most of these products. For example, brewed black tea reportedly tested at more than three parts per million (ppm) fluoride, three times the one ppm of fluoridated drinking water. White grape juice was reported at 2.7 ppm (EPA report #820-R-10-015 Dec. 2010, page 26).
The third lawsuit was filed on August 9th, 2011 by multiple individual plaintiffs on behalf of the general public interest. The suit was filed in the federal District Court, Southern District of California, against the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), which serves some 17 million consumers. The suit alleges willful misrepresentation, deceptive business practices, and infringements on the consumer's constitutional right to be free of bodily intrusion without their consent. This lawsuit challenges the MWD's claims of safely and effectively reducing tooth decay while delivering a drug that has not been approved for MWD's claims for intended use. It alleges that MWD knowingly failed to inform the public and water recipients of the drug's unapproved status or give notice of evidence of significant potential harms from hydrofluorsilicic acid, which would require a full FDA review, approval process, and notice of any contraindications.
Plaintiffs point to the unique health effects of hydrofluorosilicic acid, which when compared to sodium fluoride, have a disproportionate toxic effect on children, and the fact that consumers are unable to prevent absorption of the chemical through their skin during baths and showers.
These three lawsuits insist on better protection of the public health by application of existing laws.
Well, the momentum continues to build as another North American community has ended the fluoridation of its drinking water. On Monday, the city council of Spring Hill, Tennessee unanimously rejected fluoridation due to the cost and concerns raised about the health risks associated with ingesting fluoride.
Lets keep the momentum building! Start an infant warning campaign in your community, or use this guide to begin organizing your own local campaign to end fluoridation.
Three Lawsuits in the Works
Three lawsuits have been filed recently in the U.S. that could have a major impact on the fluoridation debate.
The first lawsuit is in Clallam County, Washington. On April 28, Protect the Peninsula's Future, Clallam County Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, and Eloise Kailin filed suit in superior court against the cities of Forks and Port Angeles, Washington, noting that the fluoride chemicals being used matched the definition for prescription drugs. The suit alleges that the cities lacked the necessary permits for dispensing these drugs. Plaintiffs requested that the practice be halted under search and seizure statutes until permits were obtained. The request was denied by the superior court, but a review by the State Supreme Court was requested and the court's review decision is currently pending.
The second lawsuit was filed by an individual, Patrick Reeners, of Gallatin, Tennessee on July 19, 2011 in the general sessions court of Sumner County. The suit is against the American Dental Association (ADA), and the complaint was served on the organization's President, Dr. Raymond Gist, DDS. The charge is fraud, false advertising and willful harm. Reeners believes the promotion of water fluoridation as "safe and effective" was never approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). He believes the ADA makes this claim while failing to recognize and fairly report on harmful cumulative contributions of fluoride from multiple non-water sources of fluoride.
Reeners believes that fluoride is portrayed on the Association's website as a totally desirable and harmless means of preventing tooth decay. In particular, Reeners believes that the fluoride additive is promoted as if drinking water provided an appropriate dosage, which might be true if you could control total water consumption. However, people also ingest significant doses of fluoride from many other sources such as food, beverages, dental products, and medication. The suit alleges that the general public is ill-informed of the amounts of fluoride on or in most of these products. For example, brewed black tea reportedly tested at more than three parts per million (ppm) fluoride, three times the one ppm of fluoridated drinking water. White grape juice was reported at 2.7 ppm (EPA report #820-R-10-015 Dec. 2010, page 26).
The third lawsuit was filed on August 9th, 2011 by multiple individual plaintiffs on behalf of the general public interest. The suit was filed in the federal District Court, Southern District of California, against the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), which serves some 17 million consumers. The suit alleges willful misrepresentation, deceptive business practices, and infringements on the consumer's constitutional right to be free of bodily intrusion without their consent. This lawsuit challenges the MWD's claims of safely and effectively reducing tooth decay while delivering a drug that has not been approved for MWD's claims for intended use. It alleges that MWD knowingly failed to inform the public and water recipients of the drug's unapproved status or give notice of evidence of significant potential harms from hydrofluorsilicic acid, which would require a full FDA review, approval process, and notice of any contraindications.
Plaintiffs point to the unique health effects of hydrofluorosilicic acid, which when compared to sodium fluoride, have a disproportionate toxic effect on children, and the fact that consumers are unable to prevent absorption of the chemical through their skin during baths and showers.
These three lawsuits insist on better protection of the public health by application of existing laws.
posted by Bill at
9:37 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home