.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

UK Against Fluoridation

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Chance To Stop Fluoridation Nationwide

"Fluoride Free Hamilton" <fluoridefree@actrix.co.nz>
 Subject: Our Chance To Stop Fluoridation Nationwide

 Dear friends

 This is an URGENT call to ACTION. If there was ever a time we needed your help - it is now.

 As you probably are aware, legislation was introduced to NZ Parliament on the 17th November 2016.

 This Legislation will shift responsibility for fluoridation 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 Govt. dictates (through the DHBs) or face an initial fine of $200,000 and a further $10,000 per day of non-compliance.


 Make your submission to object the bill:

 This Legislation does not allow for DHBs to consult with the community and it only allows the DHBs a very narrow scope of evaluation of 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 AT ALL.


 As you will see from the transcript and related documents https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20161206_20161206_16, and the video footage of the MPs that spoke at the first Reading https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwjkzaxNPP0 (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 of fluoridation.

 You will also see that none of the speakers know very much about the subject (All 12 speakers can be found on this link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwjkzaxNPP0). 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 it is now known that fluoride doesn��t work by swallowing and that fluoride tablets cause dental fluorosis!

 Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne, who introduced the Bill, in Parliament actually called us QUOTE “tin-foil hat wearing, UFO-abducted pseudo-scientists” END OF QUOTE. He can’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), so 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.


 The Government is 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 listen to 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.

 Therefore, we urge everyone to give written feedback now, and to do their utmost to speak to that submission in person. Skype sessions can be arranged. We have been advised that It is best to keep feedback to only 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 2017.


 If you don’t know what to say, a personal testimony is good, or attach an article already written (suggestions here http://fluoridefree.org.nz/information/resources/articles/), or list a few points, as suggested above.

   a.. Use the Online Form https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/make-a-submission/document/51SCHE_SCF_00DBHOH_BILL71741_1/health-fluoridation-of-drinking-water-amendment-bill
   b.. Or send a 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.


 Simon O’Connor, Chairperson, National Party, Tāmaki
 email: simon.oconnor@parliament.govt.nz
 facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SimonOConnorMP/

 Barbara Kuriger, Deputy-Chairperson, National Party, Taranaki-King Country
 email: barbara.kuriger@national.org.nz
 facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BarbaraKurigerMP/

 Jacqui Dean, Member, National Party, Waitaki
 email: waitaki.mp@parliament.govt.nz
 facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JacquiDeanMP/

 Julie Anne Genter, Member, Green Party, List
 email: julieanne.genter@parliament.govt.nz
 facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JulieAnneGenterMP/

 Annette King, Member, Labour Party, Rongotai
 email: a.king@parliament.govt.nz
 facebook: https://www.facebook.com/annette.king.127

 Shane Reti, Member, National Party, Whangarei
 email: shane.reti@parliament.govt.nz
 facebook: https://www.facebook.com/drshanereti/

 Scott Simpson, Member, National Party, Coromandel
 email: mpcoromandel@parliament.govt.nz
 facebook: https://www.facebook.com/scottsimpsonmp/

 Barbara Stewart, Member, NZ First, List
 email: barbara.stewart@parliament.govt.nz
 facebook: https://www.facebook.com/barbarastewartmp/

 Poto Williams, Member, Labour Party, Christchurch East
 email: poto.williams@parliament.govt.nz
 facebook: https://www.facebook.com/poto.williams.7/



  • Thanks for posting this, Bill. However the short URL at the bottom is incorrect as it goes to a California website. The link in the body of the post is the correct one: https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/make-a-submission/document/51SCHE_SCF_00DBHOH_BILL71741_1/health-fluoridation-of-drinking-water-amendment-bill

    Pat from Fluoride Free NZ

    By Blogger Pat McNair, at 18 January, 2017  

  • If anyone is thinking of sending a written submission to the NZ Government, we would urge you concentrate on arguing against the changes in the decision-making responsibilities RATHER than just arguing against fluoridation.

    The reason for this is that the Select Committee will be deciding on this ALONE. So we need to convince them NOT to give the responsibility to the DHBs - and they need to hear why that is not a good idea. This is not a time to be educating them about fluoridation. If your submission only covers your concerns about fluoridation you will be wasting your time as it is not the issue here at the moment.

    Some background: the proposed legislation does not allow for DHBs to consult with the community and it only allows a very narrow scope for the DHBs to evaluate the subject - as they will only be ALLOWED to compare the dental health in the community against the cost of fluoridation.

    They are being advised to only consider the 2009 Oral Health Survey rather than to study much more comprehensive data. They are not given ANY leeway to consider the overall health effects.

    So basically they are only allowed to look at COST and not at HEALTH.

    The DHBs will be hamstrung. This is what most people don't realise. Under the law the DHBs will not be able to advise against fluoridation - even if 90% or more of the population does not want it - or even if they did evaluate other health effects (neurotoxicity for example) - and deemed the risks not worth the benefits.

    They will only be able to add up the dental decay in the area, calculate how much saving would be created by a 40% reduction (a totally incorrect but much quoted statistic) and compare that against the cost of fluoridation equipment and on-going cost of the chemicals.

    The information given to the Select Committee to backup their claim of a 40% reduction comes from the Sapere Report which rests on the 2009 Oral Health Survey. This survey is the most unreliable piece of data they could use to ascertain the effectiveness of fluoridation - but it suits their agenda.

    The two studies prior to that survey which looked at life-time exposure and compared children of the same age in the same area, found no difference in decay rates - but they did find a doubling of dental fluorosis.

    Or they could use the NZ study published last year which showed no difference in decay rates for all non-Maori children. Even if fluoridation did reduce dental decay by a small amount for Maori children - that would still not be cost effective against the cost of fluoridation.

    Or they could use the NZ School Dental Statistics which also shows no difference. Non-fluoridated areas often have better dental health than fluoridated ones because, really, the biggest predictor of dental health is socio economic.

    So - we need to argue that the proposed legislation removes community input, does not allow for consideration of other adverse health effects, and does not steer the Select Committee or the DHBs towards looking at all the available data.

    Pat McNair from Fluoride Free NZ

    By Blogger Pat McNair, at 18 January, 2017  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home