> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.foodconsumer.org/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Another community stops fluoridation - URL: https://www.foodconsumer.org/another_community_stops_fluoridation_0710110455/ - Published: 2011-07-11T17:47:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-09-22T16:08:20.000Z - Description: A Fluoride Action Network bulletin on New Zealand's Ruapehu District Council voting to end fluoridation of the Taumarunui water supply, quoting its reasons: no real consultation when it began in the 1960s, the council's limited role in health, and residents' lack of choice. - Author: Food Consumer - Tags: Politics, #vivvo-import **Dear Readers:** **Another community stops fluoridation** We have a lot to talk about in this bulletin but we will start with what we always like to start with: news of another town halting fluoridation. This victory comes from New Zealand, which unlike its Australian neighbor, still retains a vestige of democracy on this issue. On July 4, the Ruapehu District Council for the town of Taumarunui had this to say about their decision: Council has decided to remove fluoridation from the Taumarunui Water Supply. There was considerable debate over the issue and council heard from speakers of both perspectives. Factors in the decision included (but it's not an exhaustive record); \- The introduction of fluoridation into Taumarunui without a significant consultation process in the 1960s. \-The role of a Council in health outcomes when it does not fully understand the science, nor is able to, or willing to, monitor health outcomes. Council is not primarily a provider of health or dental products. \-The lack of choice possible by a blanket treatment amongst population today, many of whom desire choice. \-The lack of unequivocal statements of safety of fluoride to all people who do not have the choice not to ingest it. This echoes the rationale for the decision by Calgary City Council earlier this year. They too looked at both sides (due diligence); did not feel it was their right to force medicine on the community members in uncontrollable doses and without their informed consent. **Health Canada report: a self-fulfilling prophecy.** Title: [Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality. Guideline Technical Document. Fluoride ](http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=n8flt5dab&et=1106517679460&s=45&e=001IeIHsScutMT8UN08qx5ZkZcg3z62uhKgE8eJEfrjD0GSBmc2H6yzx4FQqfcgi7KvG5USGH5IYRhN%5F4Bzr3iuA0M7LXCJzuqzU6CI%5FDosM3hvYXCkt1V9q%5Fl04GLzM2XzVQYm1mI8aSO9YhdjexCOJrX7vfliHvCoGGx%5FeR9b-EA=&ref=foodconsumer.org) After Health Canada had appointed a panel of six experts\*, of which four were dentists, and three were so obviously biased in favor of fluoridation, we held little hope that Health Canada would produce an objective enquiry into water fluoridation. Their [preliminary report](http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=n8flt5dab&et=1106517679460&s=45&e=001IeIHsScutMQ-vzGNBtycjCOGltF9aGJ5YXdhHZTctVUGhHTv2lD%5F5zLfVgN%5FfR6ScAojwAfozx9FaI08rMNM57tjHWeAXC0LBVRfSsE0ERgwZ3SEu%5FDDOIRxDPgGFQaHmZyj481-qT0=&ref=foodconsumer.org) made available for public comment in 2009 looked very much like the self-fulfilling prophecy that we had expected. In this, their dismissal of concerns on fluoride's impact on the brain, which was both superficial and incomplete, was based largely on the conclusion of the "panel of six" which imperiously had declared that the "weight of evidence" indicated that fluoride did not lower IQ. What "weight of evidence"? By 2009 there had been 23 studies published in China, India, Iran and Mexico that had found an association between lowered IQ and moderate exposure to fluoride and only one small study from NZ published in 1986 that had reported no association! Not to mention over 100 animal studies indicating fluoride can enter and damage the brain, and three human fetal brain studies and two human behavioral studies. The same expert panel cautioned Health Canada not to rush to judgment on Bassin's study that found young boys exposed to fluoridated water in their 6th to 8th years had a fivefold increase risk of succumbing to osteosarcoma by the age of 20\. The Canadian "expert panel" chose to rely on a published letter by Bassin's thesis adviser Chester Douglass (known to be pro-fluoridation) claiming that his study to be published in the Summer 2006 would refute her thesis. Following the advice of the expert panel of six, Health Canada continued to use this ploy in 2009, three years after Douglass had made the promise. With huge reservations FAN along with other citizens and scientists dutifully submitted our comments to Health Canada pointing out the scientific inadequacies of their 2009 draft review. On June 20, 2011, Health Canada released its final report (even though it is dated Dec 2010).Virtually all our concerns, and the references we submitted to support those concerns, were ignored. Health Canada continues to delay judgment on osteosarcoma and is still waiting for the Douglass study, which is now 5 years overdue! It added none of the other references we submitted on this topic. It still claimed that a "weight of evidence" analysis supports the claim that there is no relationship between moderate fluoride exposure and a lowering of IQ. It did not add a single reference on the IQ studies that we indicated they had missed in 2009, nor the ones that have appeared since. Nor did they acknowledge the human fetal studies nor the human behavioral studies, nor the fact that there has been no attempt in Canada to repeat any of these studies. Or the fact that virtually no efforts have been made to conduct any human health studies in any fluoridated community in Canada. Canadian citizens and scientists are very much aware that local health officers in Canadian towns will be offering this Health Canada report in support of their claims that fluoridation is instead of relying on the biased interpretations of Health Canada. The key question remains: why are civil servants at Health Canada (and the health agencies in other fluoridated countries) determined to keep this practice going at all costs, including forsaking honest science and the public's health? \* **The Expert Panel of Six:** Steven M. Levy, Iowa College of Dentistry; Christopher Clark, University of British Columbia; Robert Tardiff, University of Montreal; Michael Levy, Institut National de Santé Publique du Quebec; Jayanth Kumar, New York State Department of Health; Albert Nantel, Institut National de Sante Publique du Quebec. **The SCHER report - a big disappointment.** Title: [Critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water](http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=n8flt5dab&et=1106517679460&s=45&e=001IeIHsScutMTaRR9PsjT3V2hbXWhaZ9Je5XTb4lai7%5FWNxOX3r3UOWb4BP5U2uVBbVxwGqEze2QpkyDMAAdxi9DnIAliJYv%5FeokC%5FTtP96VGLdZAWpryk1aekSz9h1KxHjDzMHnDGS8BtwOPqOdUSPAeg6lM4MwQ1&ref=foodconsumer.org) Ellen and I traveled to Brussels on Sept 17, 2010 (we were already in Europe at the time) and joined several other opponents of fluoridation including Professor Vyvyan Howard, Jennifer Luke DDS, PhD, John Graham, Elizabeth McDonagh, Stephen Peckham, Robert Pocock and Rudolf Ziegelbecker, Jr, at a meeting called by SCHER (EU'sScientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risk) to gather public input to their report on fluoride. We all had high hopes that this European scientific body (unlike the health agencies in fluoridated countries) would listen to our concerns. We hoped that they would strengthen their findings on the dangers posed by fluoridation by improving the thoroughness of their database used in their preliminary report. But just like Health Canada discussed above, they did not do so. They ignored practically all of our input. They did this in a quite an extraordinary fashion: refusing to change statements that were clearly incorrect. This is what Professor Spedding Micklem (co-author of *The Case Against Fluoride*) wrote about the SCHER dismissal of our scientific input: "I wasn't at the Brussels meeting, but all my written comments, both specific and general, appear to have been disregarded. Unfortunately I'm in good company. What a waste of everyone's time. There seem to be few changes or additions to the preliminary version, and those mostly for the worse." Professor Vyvyan Howard summed up all our feelings very well when he said, "The SCHER document is political. There has clearly been political pressure to soften the message and thus support the status quo." **There are a few saving graces from SCHER:** "Scientific evidence for the protective effect of topical fluoride application is strong, while the respective data for systemic application via drinking water are less convincing. No obvious advantage appears in favor of water fluoridation as compared with topical application of fluoride." "Systemic exposure to fluoride through drinking water is associated with an increased risk of dental and bone fluorosis in a dose-response manner without a detectable threshold." "For younger children (1-6 years of age) the UL (The upper tolerable intake level) was exceeded when consuming more than 1 L of water at 0.8 mg fluoride/L (mandatory fluoridation level in Ireland) and assuming the worst case scenario for other sources. For infants up to 6 months old receiving infant formula, if the water fluoride level is higher than 0.8 mg/L, the intake of fluoride exceeds 0.1 mg/kg/day, and this level is 100 times higher than the level found in breast milk (less than 0.001 mg/kg/day)." See [FAN's detailed response to SCHER's final report](http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=n8flt5dab&et=1106517679460&s=45&e=001IeIHsScutMSdisv-plAdVsePBy3vE2FQopuaw0HI36JJnKtMke4EEh9sY6YVcxa7sA-TDD7CCYApuVvpnY8OQIe5viO%5F1T%5Fg%5Fpy1oaFkAVoHgmJBrwL8al-VbyWO3z8b2YuG4bC8n8%5FxMFVpUafdpg==&ref=foodconsumer.org). **Good riddance to Dow's Sulfuryl fluoride** Sometimes a regulatory agency can dish up a surprise. For over 8 years FAN was given the run around from the US EPA Offices of Pesticides & Prevention (OPP) on our efforts to halt the use of Dow AgroSciences' sulfuryl fluoride as a fumigant on food in warehouses, mills and processing plants. Then on Jan 11, 2011, we got an unexpected and complete victory, when the OPP agreed to all our objections and agreed to phase out of this horrible pesticide over the next three years. July 5 was the last day that people had to respond to this decision. See [FANs comments](http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=n8flt5dab&et=1106517679460&s=45&e=001IeIHsScutMS3W-Rmt4LoXca7A1I7yRRMv1bCzh84lzTQHjk9gWt4OZmYa44aQVn2Mc9WX1MCgqEbPk2dbHfnFoNLki3rjjUYcFPbihY5CtUbBt9y4ynMTC4BJ-LSnE8drP%5FuU50YX4%5FrnM2gm8i-rQ==&ref=foodconsumer.org). **Will Cryolite follow?** The US EPA OPP had also asked for comments on its re-registration of the pesticide cryolite. The due date for these was the same as for sulfuryl fluoride, July 5\. See [FANs comments](http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=n8flt5dab&et=1106517679460&s=45&e=001IeIHsScutMSw1Qhf7PUPNv%5F5VZNTdwiAgln21TOf%5FLb3g2BX7fa1dzpXxSjNPIpjFMp6Ne9O%5FDxcIOOPRyGY47MIoHHYPAA55KVOiMV2OOhpj6WstSzl1nrKFkVjNaPqN0n9zABf8US6dlcN1p6AI%5FGp1YOu%5FCZ6lbbkFh6Yov0=&ref=foodconsumer.org). Cryolite like sulfuryl fluoride leaves fluoride residues on food, and after water fluoridation is one of the largest sources of fluoride going into the diet of the average American. If OPP uses exactly the same arguments as used to support the phase out of sulfuryl fluoride, cryolite should suffer the same fate. The only possible rescue for cryolite will be the elimination of water fluoridation. But will the US Department of Health and Human Services let its pet program go? Stay tuned. **Happy Birthday Albert Burgstahler** On July 10, Professor Albert Burgstahler celebrated his 83rd birthday. Albert is a retired professor of chemistry from Kansas University in Lawrence, a colleague of the late Dr. George Waldbott, co-author of the book *Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma*, the current science editor of the journal *Fluoride*, and the first recipient of FAN's scientific integrity award, which was named in his honor. If you wish to send a belated Happy Birthday message, email [Albert](mailto:awburg@ku.edu). FAN thanks Albert for his dedicated effort since the 1960s to end the foolish and dangerous practice of fluoridation, while sticking steadfastly to honest science and rational discourse. Paul Connett Director, Fluoride Action Network [http://www.fluoridealert.org/](http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=n8flt5dab&et=1106517679460&s=45&e=001IeIHsScutMTM3oQgTMLwWbvmkOsp0cxTxAmDn6OqQHXjDTaD7M2bpA3LdQFpMzJNftmz93LDa1f10xwSw0hZSsJrTpWA2%5FZZjfh8WAgNLBjP26%5F4KeZdKA==&ref=foodconsumer.org)