Fluoridegate Legal Action NZ

Home Legality SymptomsNotices New Plymouth Expertise International action Contact Us

International Action and News

2 October 2012

"The Girl Agaisnt Fluoride", Ireland, is planning a court action against the Irish Government. This has arisen from her complete healing from depression after she stopped drinking fluoridated water, having suffered from deprression for some time. Ireland has the highest suicide rate in Europe. The action is planned for 2013.

12 July 2012

Mayo County, Ireland. This is directly relevant to New Zealand pursuant to section 23 of the Health Act 1956, which requires councils to abate or remove any condition "likely to" pose a risk to public health. "Likely to" has been ruled by the High Court to mean merely that there is a "real possibility"; there is no requirement for proof of even a 50% probability, let alone absolute proof as insisted on by the Ministry of Health. All fluoridating councils in N Z have been put on notice of potential llegal liability.

Mayo County Council has been warned they face possible court cases being brought against them if they continue to add fluoride to drinking water despite recent studies showing perceived health risks.

Ireland started adding fluoride to its drinking water in the 1960’s for dental hygiene reasons and remains one of very few countries in Europe which continues with the practice. Last week’s Strategic Policy Committee meeting on Water Supply and Sewerage were told that local authorities could not keep "their heads in the sand" any longer on the health risks associated with the fluoridation of water.

Stephen Kerr of Fluoride Awareness Mayo gave a presentation to the committee where he called on them to make recommendations to stop the practice of adding fluoride to the water. He cited a report by Cork-based scientist Declan Waugh, whose study on water fluoridation resulted in four major Canadian cities deciding to end the practice.

Mr Kerr said the ingestion of fluoride to treat teeth was the wrong method and explained that health studies have found that conditions such as neurological disease and cardiovascular disease which are linked to water fluoridation are higher in areas with fluoridated water.

"In January 2012, medical researchers published new evidence in the journal of Nuclear Medicine Communications demonstrating that fluoride is a major contributor factor to coronary heart disease, by far the single largest fatal illness prevalent in Ireland today," he said.

Following similar talks by Declan Waugh to local authorities in the south of Ireland, Kerry County Council and Bantry Town Council have sent letters to the HSE asking for the health risk assessments to be undertaken on the chemicals used for fluoridation of drinking water. Mr Kerr called for Mayo County Council to send similar letters to safeguard themselves.

"Any water or local authority who in light of these findings continue to allow such a product to be discriminately added to public water are likely to require indemnity insurance. The fact that Councils have been made aware of these risks they are obliged under EU law to protect the interests of consumers first. To continue adding this chemical when having the power and authority to seek evidence as to whether it is safe first but never doing so is professional negligence," he said.

SOURCE Mayo News URL: http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15648:council-warned-of-fluoridation-risks-in-water&catid=23:news&Itemid=46

7 July 2012

The largest water wholesaler in Southern California, Metro Water, sued for illegal use of an unapproved drug to fulfill fluoridation program

by Jeff Green
National Director
Citizens for Safe Drinking Water
Case: Foli v. MWD of SoCal

Who is being sued?

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the largest wholesaler of water in Southern California, servicing some 18 million consumers through retail water districts.

What are they being sued for?

Deceptive business practices and infringements on consumers’ Constitution rights by MWD claiming to treat and prevent tooth decay while delivering a substance through five of their facilities that has never been approved for such claims for either topical applications through oral exposure, systemic effects through ingestion, or trans-dermal exposures through the skin while bathing and showering.

What Constitutional rights?

Plaintiffs’ rights to be free from bodily intrusion by MWD’s delivery of an unapproved drug without their consent.

What do the Plaintiffs expect the Court to decide (laymen’s terms)?

  1. Is MWD adding hydrofluosilicic acid to consumers’ water supply for the purpose of treating or preventing dental disease?
  2. Does Congress and federal law require that FDA regulate and perform processes for determining approval of substances intended to and claimed to treat or prevent disease?
  3. Has the hydrofluosilicic acid product used to treat or prevent dental disease been approved by the FDA for such intent or claims?
  4. Has MWD deceptively acted in concert with their retailers to conceal from the public that the product they have chosen and administer has not been approved for its intended use, or that at the time of their initiating the injection into the consumers water supply there were no toxicological studies on the health and behavioral effects of continued use?
  5. Did MWD’s deceptive business practices conceal evidence of significant differences in hydrofluosilicic acid’s health effects and interactions with other elements than other forms of fluoride, which would be revealed as contraindications, especially for susceptible populations, through the FDA review process?

What action do the Plaintiffs expect the court to take (in brief)?

How does this case differ from other attempts to halt fluoridation?

This case does not seek to halt fluoridation, nor challenge the public policy of water fluoridation. The issues addressed are just as important for those persons who support water fluoridation as those who don’t. This case addresses the bait and switch activities of MWD to conceal pertinent information and use a drug not approved for any of the manners of administration that consumers are exposed to. Plaintiffs do not make any claim for award for physical harm. The harm is denial of their Constitutional rights.

What impact will this case have on other water suppliers?

To the extent that other water suppliers have similarly selected an unapproved drug for their purposes and concealed information that is pertinent to an informed consumer protecting themselves or giving informed consent, the water supplier may be encouraged to elect to revisit their decision to act in such a manner.

What about claims by the CDC, EPA and health departments that fluoridation is a water issue regulated by the EPA?

EPA gave up all authority over direct water additives, including fluorides, in 1988. EPA does not have any authority over a substance intended to alter the physical structure or bodily functions to treat or prevent disease. Only the FDA has the authority from Congress to approve a health claim of safety and effectiveness. Neither rhetoric, nor endorsements, are adequate substitutes for FDA approval.

What about all the claims of safety and effectiveness?

"Don’t tell us, or the media, or even the courts. Tell the FDA through the approval process and don’t deliver hydrofluosilicic acid to us without our consent until you do."

The law suit was originally filed on Wednesday, August 18th, 2011

Jeff Green, Plaintiff Spokesperson, Citizens for Safe Drinking Water

(800) 728-3833

23 March 2012 - notice of liability filed on Seattle, Everett. Federal Court suits filed in California and Maryland.

Specifically quoted is the fact that the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal for Lead and Arsenic is zero, yet these are contaminants of the silicofluorides added to drinking water.

30 October 2011 - Notice filed in Quebec, Canada

This news item was recently posted

As at 12 October 2011, four US law suits had been lodged:

August 19, 2011

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.

Water Fluoridation Injury Lawsuit Filed in Federal Court.

Wednesday Sep 21st, 2011 1:38 PM

A 13-year-old's fluoride-discolored teeth was allegedly caused by drinking fluoridated bottled water since infancy. Her Mom is suing the bottlers for the cost to cover up the unsightly teeth.

Attempting to reduce tooth decay in tap water drinkers, most US public water supplies include added fluoride chemicals. And, some corporations sell fluoridated bottled water for the same reason. However, ingesting fluoride can lead to dental fluorosis – white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth, now afflicting 41% of adolescents, according to the CDC. But according to a newly-filed lawsuit, suppliers of fluoridated water fail to effectively warn customers that ingesting fluoride can discolor teeth.

Nidel Law, P.L.L.C., in conjunction with Paulson and Nace, P.L.L.C., filed a case against Nestle U.S.A., Nestle Waters North America, Inc., and the Gerber Products Company, for damage caused by fluoride contained in their products marketed and sold for consumption by children under the age of eight. The Plaintiff, a 13-year old girl, suffers from dental fluorosis. Her mother wants compensation for the costs associated with covering up her daughter’s unsightly teeth, estimated to be over $100,000 over her lifetime. See: http://www.nidellaw.com/blog/?p=66

According to Nidel’s website, "The defendants in this case knew that their products contained fluoride and actively marketed these products to children and to parents for the use in their children. The defendants’ failure to warn of the risk of harm from these products is unacceptable."

According to a News Release from Georgia-based Lilli Center, “Dental industry representatives have long fretted in their professional journals that fluoride providers could one day face legal actions for harm caused by ingested fluorides...Now, after this year’s admission by federal officials that fluorides are causing increasing amounts of fluorosis, an era of fluoride personal injury and toxic tort litigation appears poised to begin with the recent filing of [this] precedent-setting case in the Federal District Court in Maryland.”

The complaint notes that as a baby and young child, around 90% of the water the girl consumed was fluoridated bottled water sold by the Nestle defendants. The girl’s parents had purchased the water based on its advertised dental benefit for children. According to lead attorney, Washington D.C.-based Chris Nidel, the young woman’s family now faces significant costs for damage-covering dental veneers. The veneers will need to be replaced four or five times, resulting in a lifetime potential cost of more than $100,000 in dental expenses.

Attorney Nidel points to a photo of his client’s teeth. “In this case, a photo really is worth a thousand words,” he states. "The water providers had a responsibility to warn their customers about fluorosis, but they did not."

Canadian Legal Action

Quebec councils warned of their liability under their duty of care

UK Councils Against Fluoridation
10 October 2011

Opponents of fluoridation in Quebec, Canada, are issuing a "Notice of Liability" to the 16 municipalities in Quebec supplied by 11 water plants that add fluoride to their water.

At this stage the challenge is a low-key approach, offering help to the Councils because Gilles Parent, of the Antifluoridation Committee of Friends of the Earth Quebec, reports, "they are the victims of a fraud that they aren't aware of."

But behind this initial gentle approach will be an implied iron fist - Gilles says that they will be ?very explicit though on the legal implications in future legal procedure of not acting and not taking their responsibility now."

Montreal lawyer Jean Dury is assistIng the group to prepare a pro bono action against fluoridating Councils, that could spread to others if more municipalities are fluoridated.

At the root of the dispute is the charge that the Quebec Councils and the Canadian National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) have failed to act with due diligence.

The NSF in particular is accused of neglecting to ensure the protection of their population and the environment, and to respect the laws and regulations related to drinking water and environment protection.

Just as here in the UK, the Canadian Government "has not clearly defined the legal nature of the fluoridation chemicals, and no one seems to be legally responsible."

This is one of the first of many legal challenges to fluoridation, and as in the UK, the Quebec Local Authorities are learning of the implications of using an unlicensed medicinal product to medicate their populations.

Gilles says that "the certification of fluoridation chemicals is a fraud and this is what we need not only to make this understood to the authorities but also to the media. If we get media on this with some lawyers, then we are equipped to end fluoridation."

See the website of Le comité Sans fluor des ATQ and Le Front Commun pour une Eau Saine (FCES)