Food supplements
Court holds member states temporarily responsible
By Sophie Petitjean | Thursday 29 April 2010
As long as the European Commission has not laid down the maximum amounts of vitamins and minerals that may be used in the manufacture of food supplements, the member states have competence for adopting regulations to this effect. Thus ruled the Court of Justice of the European Union, on 29 April, in response to a request for a preliminary ruling by the French Council of State.
Food supplement manufacturers, among them Solgar Vitamins France and the Syndicat de la diététique et des compléments alimentaire initiated a number of actions in 2006 challenging a decree of 9 May 2006, which sets maximum daily doses of the vitamins and minerals that may be used in the manufacture of food supplements. In principle, it is for the European Commission, assisted by the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, to determine these amounts, according to Directive 2002/46. However, since the Commission has not yet adopted the necessary measure, the court leaves it to member states to lay down the maximum amounts. If the intake of a mineral from other food sources poses a risk of exceeding the upper safe limit established for that mineral, the member state may also set the maximum amount at zero without having to resort to the safety procedure.
In the instant case, France is indeed authorised to set the maximum amount of fluoride at 0 mg, since it considers that this chemical element belongs to a category of minerals that present a risk to certain segments of the population. The member states are nevertheless obliged to use elements of the directive as guidance, particularly the requirements of an evaluation of risks founded on generally acceptable scientific data, when setting maximum amounts.
30 Apr 2010
Daily Echo - 'Stress' caused by fluoride
I AGREE with Jennifer Godschall Johnson (Letters, April 5) that those responsible for wanting fluoride to be added to our water supply should be
brought before a court of law for the reasons stated in her letter. Also, for the prolonged anguish, stress, worry and ill health caused to many people, because of this ridiculous proposal.
Pure, uncontaminated water is what we pay for and it is the water board's responsibility to make sure that is what their customers get in return for their payments. There is no reason in the world that gives ANYONE the right to play around with our water supply. Leave it alone!
NAME & ADDRESS SUPPLIED
brought before a court of law for the reasons stated in her letter. Also, for the prolonged anguish, stress, worry and ill health caused to many people, because of this ridiculous proposal.
Pure, uncontaminated water is what we pay for and it is the water board's responsibility to make sure that is what their customers get in return for their payments. There is no reason in the world that gives ANYONE the right to play around with our water supply. Leave it alone!
NAME & ADDRESS SUPPLIED
29 Apr 2010
Alaska - Fluorination malfunction causes unsafe drinking water at Fort Richardson
Fluorination malfunction causes unsafe drinking water at Fort Richardson
By Andrew JensenAlaska
Journal of Commerce
A mechanical malfunction with the fluoride distribution system at the Fort Richardson water treatment plant rendered the water supply unsafe for drinking Wednesday morning.
Alarms at the plant alerted workers that fluoride levels were higher than normal. Messages were sent to people living and working at Fort Richardson to not drink the water, according to public affairs officer Bob Hall.
The water is safe for bathing and washing clothes, Hall said, and bottled water has been distributed to the two schools on the base, its daycare center, dining facilities and other points.
The fluorination system has been shut off and the water is being flushed through water mains and fire hydrants around the base, which hosts anywhere from 5,000 to 7,000 people.
Hall said officials will meet again Wednesday afternoon to monitor the repair progress and current estimates are for the problem to be fixed within 24 hours
By Andrew JensenAlaska
Journal of Commerce
A mechanical malfunction with the fluoride distribution system at the Fort Richardson water treatment plant rendered the water supply unsafe for drinking Wednesday morning.
Alarms at the plant alerted workers that fluoride levels were higher than normal. Messages were sent to people living and working at Fort Richardson to not drink the water, according to public affairs officer Bob Hall.
The water is safe for bathing and washing clothes, Hall said, and bottled water has been distributed to the two schools on the base, its daycare center, dining facilities and other points.
The fluorination system has been shut off and the water is being flushed through water mains and fire hydrants around the base, which hosts anywhere from 5,000 to 7,000 people.
Hall said officials will meet again Wednesday afternoon to monitor the repair progress and current estimates are for the problem to be fixed within 24 hours
USA - LA clinic begins giving free care to thousands
LA clinic begins giving free care to thousands
By JOHN ROGERS
They began arriving before dawn on a cold, misty morning, people of all ages lining up by the hundreds, some in wheelchairs, others hobbling on crutches, many of them missing teeth, all of them seeking the same thing: free medical care.
It was a scene that could have been playing out in a Third World country or perhaps some place like post-hurricane New Orleans, except that it wasn't. It was unfolding in downtown Los Angeles on Tuesday, and the hundreds who showed up weren't refugees of a disaster or a civil war, just mainly working people without health insurance.
One of them, Kenny Gillett hadn't seen a doctor in two years, not since the 47-year-old welder lost his job and insurance when his employer went broke.
Adriana Valenzuela, a self-employed and uninsured cosmetologist, brought an 8-year-old son with a mouthful of cavities.
Los Angeles is fluoridated: NYSCOF
By JOHN ROGERS
They began arriving before dawn on a cold, misty morning, people of all ages lining up by the hundreds, some in wheelchairs, others hobbling on crutches, many of them missing teeth, all of them seeking the same thing: free medical care.
It was a scene that could have been playing out in a Third World country or perhaps some place like post-hurricane New Orleans, except that it wasn't. It was unfolding in downtown Los Angeles on Tuesday, and the hundreds who showed up weren't refugees of a disaster or a civil war, just mainly working people without health insurance.
One of them, Kenny Gillett hadn't seen a doctor in two years, not since the 47-year-old welder lost his job and insurance when his employer went broke.
Adriana Valenzuela, a self-employed and uninsured cosmetologist, brought an 8-year-old son with a mouthful of cavities.
Los Angeles is fluoridated: NYSCOF
28 Apr 2010
Daily Echo - Strong opposition to use of fluoride
Strong opposition to use of fluoride
OPEN letter on the British Dental Association manifesto.
I received the British Dental Association letter to candidates for the general election, forwarded from Green Party headquarters. I need to make it clear to you that I cannot support your manifesto, particularly point five on the promotion of fluoride. In fact I very strongly oppose the use of fluoride as it is:
• Ineffective (the supposed benefits are more than outweighed by the disbenefits, even if the flawed and biased data for five-year-olds is to be accepted).
• Unethical (it is wrong to force everyone to take 'medication' via their tap water).
• Unsafe (there is a mass of peer-reviewed and published scientific data giving grave concerns over the health effects of fluoride).
• Uneconomic (the supposed savings from fewer fillings is more than outweighed by the costs of delivery and the 'externality' costs of dental fluorosis. Even assuming no more serious side effects for which there is a mass of evidence).
The addition of fluoride to the water supply has been a massive local issue in Southampton and after a thoroughly disgraceful and biased public consultation the population were not fooled and have voted repeatedly against adding fluoride. Every serious candidate in the parliamentary elections in Southampton now opposes the introduction of fluoride against the wishes of the population.
The BDA needs to look at the science with a properly open mind and realise that fluoride affects much more than the teeth. Introducing it to the water supply leads to systemic fluoride poisoning. The data on benefits to five-year-old children's teeth is biased, as in fact that result comes from the systemic poisoning of our children, as those in fluoridated areas have their teeth erupt around a year later (more than 50 studies have shown
this). With teeth erupting later it means that the teeth have been exposed for less time, meaning fewer cavities. If you look at the difference later in life there is no statistically significant difference in cavities (if you want to quote to me the recent meta-study please read it properly before misinterpreting the findings).
So I call on the BDA to do some proper scientific homework and stop promoting fluoride. I will certainly oppose water fluoridation at this election and wherever I can.
JOHN SPOTTISWOODE,
BSc, BA, PMP
Green Party candidate for Southampton lichen.
OPEN letter on the British Dental Association manifesto.
I received the British Dental Association letter to candidates for the general election, forwarded from Green Party headquarters. I need to make it clear to you that I cannot support your manifesto, particularly point five on the promotion of fluoride. In fact I very strongly oppose the use of fluoride as it is:
• Ineffective (the supposed benefits are more than outweighed by the disbenefits, even if the flawed and biased data for five-year-olds is to be accepted).
• Unethical (it is wrong to force everyone to take 'medication' via their tap water).
• Unsafe (there is a mass of peer-reviewed and published scientific data giving grave concerns over the health effects of fluoride).
• Uneconomic (the supposed savings from fewer fillings is more than outweighed by the costs of delivery and the 'externality' costs of dental fluorosis. Even assuming no more serious side effects for which there is a mass of evidence).
The addition of fluoride to the water supply has been a massive local issue in Southampton and after a thoroughly disgraceful and biased public consultation the population were not fooled and have voted repeatedly against adding fluoride. Every serious candidate in the parliamentary elections in Southampton now opposes the introduction of fluoride against the wishes of the population.
The BDA needs to look at the science with a properly open mind and realise that fluoride affects much more than the teeth. Introducing it to the water supply leads to systemic fluoride poisoning. The data on benefits to five-year-old children's teeth is biased, as in fact that result comes from the systemic poisoning of our children, as those in fluoridated areas have their teeth erupt around a year later (more than 50 studies have shown
this). With teeth erupting later it means that the teeth have been exposed for less time, meaning fewer cavities. If you look at the difference later in life there is no statistically significant difference in cavities (if you want to quote to me the recent meta-study please read it properly before misinterpreting the findings).
So I call on the BDA to do some proper scientific homework and stop promoting fluoride. I will certainly oppose water fluoridation at this election and wherever I can.
JOHN SPOTTISWOODE,
BSc, BA, PMP
Green Party candidate for Southampton lichen.
27 Apr 2010
Daily Echo - Fluoride fears
Fluoride fears
I've been following the Southampton debate on the issue of water fluoridation. I'm writing from the West Midlands which has been wrongly heralded by health authorities as being particularly successful in preventing dental decay due to water fluoridation.
It is anything but successful. Not only do 34 per cent of fluoridated children in some parts of the West Midlands have dental fluorosis but there is concern about the effect of fluoridated water on infants, especially premature babies. These little ones should not drink and absorb fluoride because it infiltrates the brain in the first six weeks of life (more if premature). Because of an accident in the summer of 2008 at Dimmingsdale Water Treatment Works, two new-borns in Wolverhampton and Bridgnorth were, for eight weeks, getting 400 times more fluoride in their baby formula than is found in breast milk. Babies in fluoridated areas would normally get 200 times more fluoride than is found in breast milk. Fluoride's effect on the brain is to reduce intelligence as has been demonstrated by numerous studies conducted in other countries.
The American Dental Association has warned American parents of newborns not to give their infants fluoridated water, while the American National Kidney Foundation withdrew its support for water fluoridation in June 2008.
It's highly unlikely that anyone is monitoring the progress of the Wolverhampton and Bridgnorth babies. Is this because health authorities are fearful of discovering that water fluoridation damages children's intelligence?
JOY WARREN, BSc (Hons) Environmental Science
Co-prdinator, West Midlands Against Fluoridation, wmaf.org.uk.
I've been following the Southampton debate on the issue of water fluoridation. I'm writing from the West Midlands which has been wrongly heralded by health authorities as being particularly successful in preventing dental decay due to water fluoridation.
It is anything but successful. Not only do 34 per cent of fluoridated children in some parts of the West Midlands have dental fluorosis but there is concern about the effect of fluoridated water on infants, especially premature babies. These little ones should not drink and absorb fluoride because it infiltrates the brain in the first six weeks of life (more if premature). Because of an accident in the summer of 2008 at Dimmingsdale Water Treatment Works, two new-borns in Wolverhampton and Bridgnorth were, for eight weeks, getting 400 times more fluoride in their baby formula than is found in breast milk. Babies in fluoridated areas would normally get 200 times more fluoride than is found in breast milk. Fluoride's effect on the brain is to reduce intelligence as has been demonstrated by numerous studies conducted in other countries.
The American Dental Association has warned American parents of newborns not to give their infants fluoridated water, while the American National Kidney Foundation withdrew its support for water fluoridation in June 2008.
It's highly unlikely that anyone is monitoring the progress of the Wolverhampton and Bridgnorth babies. Is this because health authorities are fearful of discovering that water fluoridation damages children's intelligence?
JOY WARREN, BSc (Hons) Environmental Science
Co-prdinator, West Midlands Against Fluoridation, wmaf.org.uk.
USA - HHS Launches Oral Health Initiative
HHS Launches Oral Health Initiative
Monday, 26 April 2010 14:15 Press Release Health and Fitness
Washington, D.C.--(ENEWSPF)--April 26, 2010. Dr. Howard Koh, assistant secretary for health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, today announced an initiative to expand oral health services, education and research in America. Through the initiative, the department is increasing support for and expanding its emphasis on access to oral health care and the effective delivery of services to underserved populations.
Speaking at the National Oral Health Conference in St. Louis, Dr. Koh told oral health professionals that eight HHS agencies had collaborated to launch initiatives and spread public awareness under the message Oral Health Is Integral to Overall Health. “In the U.S., 53 million children and adults have untreated tooth decay in their permanent teeth,” said Dr. Koh. “There is a silent epidemic of dental and oral health diseases that burden millions of children and adults across the states. With this initiative, we plan to improve oral health by removing barriers to care.’’
After 65 years of water fluoridation:NYSCOF
Monday, 26 April 2010 14:15 Press Release Health and Fitness
Washington, D.C.--(ENEWSPF)--April 26, 2010. Dr. Howard Koh, assistant secretary for health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, today announced an initiative to expand oral health services, education and research in America. Through the initiative, the department is increasing support for and expanding its emphasis on access to oral health care and the effective delivery of services to underserved populations.
Speaking at the National Oral Health Conference in St. Louis, Dr. Koh told oral health professionals that eight HHS agencies had collaborated to launch initiatives and spread public awareness under the message Oral Health Is Integral to Overall Health. “In the U.S., 53 million children and adults have untreated tooth decay in their permanent teeth,” said Dr. Koh. “There is a silent epidemic of dental and oral health diseases that burden millions of children and adults across the states. With this initiative, we plan to improve oral health by removing barriers to care.’’
After 65 years of water fluoridation:NYSCOF
24 Apr 2010
ASH CLOUD A THREAT TO FOOD CHAIN
By Daily Express Reporter Have your say(0)
SAFETY experts are investigating to see if a toxic substance in volcanic ash has contaminated any foods, posing a health risk.
The chemical fluorine, a corrosive yellow gas, could damage livestock if it gets into the water supply or feed.
Now the European Food Safety Authority is examining the risks of fluorine entering the food chain via the fallout from the Icelandic volcano............
Won't stop the SHA in its intent to dump tonnes of the stuff each year into our drinking water though.
SAFETY experts are investigating to see if a toxic substance in volcanic ash has contaminated any foods, posing a health risk.
The chemical fluorine, a corrosive yellow gas, could damage livestock if it gets into the water supply or feed.
Now the European Food Safety Authority is examining the risks of fluorine entering the food chain via the fallout from the Icelandic volcano............
Won't stop the SHA in its intent to dump tonnes of the stuff each year into our drinking water though.
23 Apr 2010
Is there anywhere fluoride isn’t going to be found?
Is there anywhere fluoride isn’t going to be found?
3:53pm Thursday 22nd April 2010
THE government’s proposed addition of folic acid to all bread has been abandoned because there would be no way to check the total daily intake.
So what about the fluorides, now coming at us from all directions, from womb to tomb?
The government’s recommended Medical Research Report on fluoridation says ‘Fluoride crosses the placenta and is incorporated into the developing concepts . . . could plausibly be teratogenic’ (ie can cause malformation).
That would be only a part of the chemical load children are now inheriting through the 300 quarts of blood pumped through them every day in their last month in the womb.
A recent US Environmental Working Group study found an average of 200 industrial chemicals and pollutants in umbilical cord blood from babies born in 2004.
The industrial chemicals, pollutants and pesticides included eight perfluorochemicals, used as stain and oil repellents, in fast food packaging, clothes, textiles, carpets etc, including the Teflon and Scotchguard chemical, PFOA, recently categorised as a likely human carcinogen, by the EPA’s advisory board.
Professor David Meltzer, and epidemiological and public health researcher said, “There have long be suspicions that PFOA concentrations may be linked to changes in thyroid hormone levels.”
Samples taken from almost 4,000 adults between 1999 and 2006, reports the journal ‘Environmental Health Perspectives’, found those with the highest 25 per cent of PFOS were more than twice as likely to have thyroid disease than individuals with the lowest 50 per cent. (Samples from the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, for study by Exeter University and the Peninsula Medical School).
Professor Galloway, of Exeter University said, “Our results highlight a real need for further research into the health effect of low-level exposure to environmental chemicals like PFOA that are the ubiquitous in the environment and in peoples’ homes.”
The home is rich in fluorides in dental products, as we all know.
There are now 17 pages of fluoride pesticides on the PSD lists. Fluoride is now a corn fumigant. And the government wants to add it to our drinking and bath water. Just how ubiquitous can it get?
Margaret Reichlin, MacCallum Road, Upper Enham.
3:53pm Thursday 22nd April 2010
THE government’s proposed addition of folic acid to all bread has been abandoned because there would be no way to check the total daily intake.
So what about the fluorides, now coming at us from all directions, from womb to tomb?
The government’s recommended Medical Research Report on fluoridation says ‘Fluoride crosses the placenta and is incorporated into the developing concepts . . . could plausibly be teratogenic’ (ie can cause malformation).
That would be only a part of the chemical load children are now inheriting through the 300 quarts of blood pumped through them every day in their last month in the womb.
A recent US Environmental Working Group study found an average of 200 industrial chemicals and pollutants in umbilical cord blood from babies born in 2004.
The industrial chemicals, pollutants and pesticides included eight perfluorochemicals, used as stain and oil repellents, in fast food packaging, clothes, textiles, carpets etc, including the Teflon and Scotchguard chemical, PFOA, recently categorised as a likely human carcinogen, by the EPA’s advisory board.
Professor David Meltzer, and epidemiological and public health researcher said, “There have long be suspicions that PFOA concentrations may be linked to changes in thyroid hormone levels.”
Samples taken from almost 4,000 adults between 1999 and 2006, reports the journal ‘Environmental Health Perspectives’, found those with the highest 25 per cent of PFOS were more than twice as likely to have thyroid disease than individuals with the lowest 50 per cent. (Samples from the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, for study by Exeter University and the Peninsula Medical School).
Professor Galloway, of Exeter University said, “Our results highlight a real need for further research into the health effect of low-level exposure to environmental chemicals like PFOA that are the ubiquitous in the environment and in peoples’ homes.”
The home is rich in fluorides in dental products, as we all know.
There are now 17 pages of fluoride pesticides on the PSD lists. Fluoride is now a corn fumigant. And the government wants to add it to our drinking and bath water. Just how ubiquitous can it get?
Margaret Reichlin, MacCallum Road, Upper Enham.
22 Apr 2010
SOUTHAMPTON PCT CLAIMS CRITICISED BY ADVERTISING STANDARDS AUTHORITY
Southampton PCT has recently been instructed by the Advertising Standards Authority to remove all references from its published material to one of the claims made during the water fluoridation consultation. This follows official complaints made by three members of Hampshire Against Fluoridation and UK Councils Against Fluoridation about misleading claims in advertisements by the PCT to promote water fluoridation.
During the consultation, the PCT claimed in their advertisements that “By topping it up to one part of fluoride per one million parts of water, it would be possible to make a major difference to the teeth of adults and children locally, and for future generations” The ASA’s scientific experts ruled that there was no good quality evidence to support this statement. Consequently, the PCT have agreed not to repeat these claims and have also agreed to consult with the CAP Copy Advice team on future claims relating to fluoride.
HAF Chairman Stephen Peckham said “We have always argued that the PCT and SHA made exaggerated claims about water fluoridation that were not based on good evidence. The fact that the PCT have now had to promise the ASA not to repeat these statements about making a major difference to adults removes one of the key arguments made by the PCT and SHA for imposing the scheme.”
During the consultation PCT staff repeatedly said that water fluoridation would help “everyone” and the SHA in its consultation document also stated that water fluoridation benefits adults - despite the lack of evidence to support such statements.
Stephen Peckham added “It is likely that many people were influenced by these claims during the consultation and may have given support to the scheme thinking it would benefit them. The truth is that there are no such benefits. The fact that the PCT willingly withdrew this claim must also raise serious questions about other statements they made to promote water fluoridation to local people.”
Following the PCT’s assurance not to repeat this claim, the ASA have dropped this particular clause from their final ruling which is published today ( 21 April 2010).
During the consultation, the PCT claimed in their advertisements that “By topping it up to one part of fluoride per one million parts of water, it would be possible to make a major difference to the teeth of adults and children locally, and for future generations” The ASA’s scientific experts ruled that there was no good quality evidence to support this statement. Consequently, the PCT have agreed not to repeat these claims and have also agreed to consult with the CAP Copy Advice team on future claims relating to fluoride.
HAF Chairman Stephen Peckham said “We have always argued that the PCT and SHA made exaggerated claims about water fluoridation that were not based on good evidence. The fact that the PCT have now had to promise the ASA not to repeat these statements about making a major difference to adults removes one of the key arguments made by the PCT and SHA for imposing the scheme.”
During the consultation PCT staff repeatedly said that water fluoridation would help “everyone” and the SHA in its consultation document also stated that water fluoridation benefits adults - despite the lack of evidence to support such statements.
Stephen Peckham added “It is likely that many people were influenced by these claims during the consultation and may have given support to the scheme thinking it would benefit them. The truth is that there are no such benefits. The fact that the PCT willingly withdrew this claim must also raise serious questions about other statements they made to promote water fluoridation to local people.”
Following the PCT’s assurance not to repeat this claim, the ASA have dropped this particular clause from their final ruling which is published today ( 21 April 2010).
Kim Rose withdraws from Southampton Itchen election battle
Kim Rose withdraws from Southampton Itchen election battle
2:12pm Wednesday 21st April 2010
General Election, Kim Rose, Southampton Itchen
By Matt Smith »
SOUTHAMPTON independent candidate Kim Rose, above, has abandoned his campaign after a little over a week and endorsed his Tory rival.
He is urging his followers in the Itchen constituency to vote for fellow Eurosceptic and “local man” Royston Smith.
Mr Rose, a former socialist and latterly UK Independence party candidate who attracted 1,623 votes in 2005, said he was won over by Conservative plans to give “more power to the people”.
He launched his campaign by attacking Gordon Brown for costing the country an estimated £7 billion by selling off the nation’s gold reserves at rock bottom prices a decade ago.
He has run a series of newspaper adverts urging voters to pick a candidate who will “serve the people rather than his own bank account” and “health warnings” over plans to add fluoride to water supplies in the city.
Mr Rose, a jeweller, claimed Labour Cabinet minister John Denham, Itchen MP since 1992, had become remote from local issues. “Labour has had a long time to change things and not a lot has been,” he said.
Mr Smith said: “He’s a well known local chap. I’m grateful for his endorsement.”
Mr Denham declined to comment on the switch.
Lib Dem candidate David Goodall said: “I don’t think it’s of any significance really”.
2:12pm Wednesday 21st April 2010
General Election, Kim Rose, Southampton Itchen
By Matt Smith »
SOUTHAMPTON independent candidate Kim Rose, above, has abandoned his campaign after a little over a week and endorsed his Tory rival.
He is urging his followers in the Itchen constituency to vote for fellow Eurosceptic and “local man” Royston Smith.
Mr Rose, a former socialist and latterly UK Independence party candidate who attracted 1,623 votes in 2005, said he was won over by Conservative plans to give “more power to the people”.
He launched his campaign by attacking Gordon Brown for costing the country an estimated £7 billion by selling off the nation’s gold reserves at rock bottom prices a decade ago.
He has run a series of newspaper adverts urging voters to pick a candidate who will “serve the people rather than his own bank account” and “health warnings” over plans to add fluoride to water supplies in the city.
Mr Rose, a jeweller, claimed Labour Cabinet minister John Denham, Itchen MP since 1992, had become remote from local issues. “Labour has had a long time to change things and not a lot has been,” he said.
Mr Smith said: “He’s a well known local chap. I’m grateful for his endorsement.”
Mr Denham declined to comment on the switch.
Lib Dem candidate David Goodall said: “I don’t think it’s of any significance really”.
21 Apr 2010
17 Apr 2010
Daily Echo
Advert in the front page of today's newspaper
Letters
How can you believe anything they say?
PEOPLE may still not know who is telling the truth about fluoridation despite or maybe because of the strength of the views expressed by both sides, those for fluoridation and those against.
Professors take completely opposed sides dismissing each other and their views with disdain. For all those who still trust those in favour of fluoridation to tell you the truth, consider the following statement in the British Dental Association's (BDA) 2010 manifesto. Quote "In 2008 South Central Strategic Health Authority (SCSHA) carried out consultations on proposals to introduce fluoride to water supplies in Southampton and South West Hampshire. Despite gaining much local support, progress on the proposal stalled, pending a judicial review of the decision.
"Despite gaining much local support?" - do you agree with that? Any Echo reader would know this is not the case. If the BDA can twist facts like that what credence their assurances that fluoridation is safe and effective? Who would now believe anything they said?
BILL EDMUNDS, Cadnam.
• I have read the letter 'Strong Fluoride Objection' from Mr and Mrs Andrew, Chandler's Ford. Very well put, it is so true and makes me smile ... just a little bit.
I, too, am still waiting and hoping for the Strategic Health Authority to finally understand the meaning of the word 'Democracy', preferably before they waste any more public money, that could be so much better spent!
Yes, exactly, why don't they just 'wash their hands of it' once and for all.... in unfluoridated water, of course!
A Bassett Resident who cleans her teeth (name & address supplied).
Letters
How can you believe anything they say?
PEOPLE may still not know who is telling the truth about fluoridation despite or maybe because of the strength of the views expressed by both sides, those for fluoridation and those against.
Professors take completely opposed sides dismissing each other and their views with disdain. For all those who still trust those in favour of fluoridation to tell you the truth, consider the following statement in the British Dental Association's (BDA) 2010 manifesto. Quote "In 2008 South Central Strategic Health Authority (SCSHA) carried out consultations on proposals to introduce fluoride to water supplies in Southampton and South West Hampshire. Despite gaining much local support, progress on the proposal stalled, pending a judicial review of the decision.
"Despite gaining much local support?" - do you agree with that? Any Echo reader would know this is not the case. If the BDA can twist facts like that what credence their assurances that fluoridation is safe and effective? Who would now believe anything they said?
BILL EDMUNDS, Cadnam.
• I have read the letter 'Strong Fluoride Objection' from Mr and Mrs Andrew, Chandler's Ford. Very well put, it is so true and makes me smile ... just a little bit.
I, too, am still waiting and hoping for the Strategic Health Authority to finally understand the meaning of the word 'Democracy', preferably before they waste any more public money, that could be so much better spent!
Yes, exactly, why don't they just 'wash their hands of it' once and for all.... in unfluoridated water, of course!
A Bassett Resident who cleans her teeth (name & address supplied).
16 Apr 2010
Daily Echo letter Fluoride: the implications
Fluoride: the implications
HAVING written before re the fluoridation debate, I would ask that you reprint an excerpt from my letter of six years ago:
If fluoride is added to all water then presumably all plants and vegetables will be watered by and grown by this same water.
It will be necessary to wash all these foods as usual - but in fluoridated water - before they can be used.
All birds and animals, cattle, etc will have to drink this water. All lawns, flowers and garden needs will use this water. All our meals will be cooked in this water.
Every part of our bodies - from newborn babies and healthy youngsters to elderly folk - will have to use fluoridated water when showering or bathing.
Our pets will have to be washed in and daily drink this water. Think of poor goldfish!
All our clothing will have to be washed in this water. Drinks such as squashes, beers, etc will have to be manufactured using this water.
The list could go on and on as we think of the things we use water for all the time.
Oh yes! We could wash/brush our teeth a couple of times a day using fluoride toothpaste - the fluoride getting to teeth which is all that is necessary anyway! NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED
HAVING written before re the fluoridation debate, I would ask that you reprint an excerpt from my letter of six years ago:
If fluoride is added to all water then presumably all plants and vegetables will be watered by and grown by this same water.
It will be necessary to wash all these foods as usual - but in fluoridated water - before they can be used.
All birds and animals, cattle, etc will have to drink this water. All lawns, flowers and garden needs will use this water. All our meals will be cooked in this water.
Every part of our bodies - from newborn babies and healthy youngsters to elderly folk - will have to use fluoridated water when showering or bathing.
Our pets will have to be washed in and daily drink this water. Think of poor goldfish!
All our clothing will have to be washed in this water. Drinks such as squashes, beers, etc will have to be manufactured using this water.
The list could go on and on as we think of the things we use water for all the time.
Oh yes! We could wash/brush our teeth a couple of times a day using fluoride toothpaste - the fluoride getting to teeth which is all that is necessary anyway! NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED
15 Apr 2010
FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
http://fluoridealert.org/
FAN Bulletin 2014: Important developments
April 14, 2010
We apologize that you have received so few bulletins from us over the past few weeks, but we have been working very hard this end on two very exciting projects, the details of which we cannot reveal at the moment , but we will as soon as we can.
Meanwhile, there have been four important developments to which we would like to draw your attention:
1) TIME MAGAZINE in its April 12th issue has an article discussing common household toxics to which we and our kids are exposed. TIME lists fluoride in its "Top 10 Common Household Toxins." They describe fluoride as "neurotoxic and possibly tumorogenic if swallowed."
2) LOUISIANA: Legislation is advancing in the Senate to forbid the purchase of water fluoridation chemicals from China. The Advocate, April 14.
3) SOUTHAMPTON UK: Lib Dem, Tory and Green candidates for the parliamentary seats in Southampton have said they opposed plans to add fluoride to the city's tap water. BBC News, April 10.
4) WATERLOO, ONTARIO, CANADA: Carol Clinch of People for Safe Drinking Water is challenging the legality of using hydrofluorosilic acid to fluoridate Waterloo's drinking water by filing a complaint with Health Canada. Waterloo Chronicle, April 14.
Slowly the wheels seem to be turning in our direction.
Paul
http://fluoridealert.org/
FAN Bulletin 2014: Important developments
April 14, 2010
We apologize that you have received so few bulletins from us over the past few weeks, but we have been working very hard this end on two very exciting projects, the details of which we cannot reveal at the moment , but we will as soon as we can.
Meanwhile, there have been four important developments to which we would like to draw your attention:
1) TIME MAGAZINE in its April 12th issue has an article discussing common household toxics to which we and our kids are exposed. TIME lists fluoride in its "Top 10 Common Household Toxins." They describe fluoride as "neurotoxic and possibly tumorogenic if swallowed."
2) LOUISIANA: Legislation is advancing in the Senate to forbid the purchase of water fluoridation chemicals from China. The Advocate, April 14.
3) SOUTHAMPTON UK: Lib Dem, Tory and Green candidates for the parliamentary seats in Southampton have said they opposed plans to add fluoride to the city's tap water. BBC News, April 10.
4) WATERLOO, ONTARIO, CANADA: Carol Clinch of People for Safe Drinking Water is challenging the legality of using hydrofluorosilic acid to fluoridate Waterloo's drinking water by filing a complaint with Health Canada. Waterloo Chronicle, April 14.
Slowly the wheels seem to be turning in our direction.
Paul
14 Apr 2010
12 Apr 2010
Daily Echo - Fluoridation issue: The SHA's silence is deafening
Fluoridation issue: The SHA's silence is deafening
CONGRATULATIONS to JG Johnson for articulating what I have long suspected regarding the real reason for fluoridation i.e. industrial waste disposal under the guise of being a beneficial aid to healthier teeth. It was only recently that I learned that the industrial waste Hexafluosilic Acid cannot be legally disposed of in rivers or the sea and everything has now clicked into place.
In my home town as long ago as the 50s, fluoridation was proposed and thanks to vigorous opposition rejected and still the same cynical battle is being fought -1 now realise why
The case against fluoridation is well known and clearly stated but the SHA's silence is deafening. How on earth do they justify their stance but then again undue influences are perhaps being asserted? I live in hope that the public will make it clear to the SHA what it can do with its fluoridation in no uncertain terms.
M DARNELL, Southampton.
CONGRATULATIONS to JG Johnson for articulating what I have long suspected regarding the real reason for fluoridation i.e. industrial waste disposal under the guise of being a beneficial aid to healthier teeth. It was only recently that I learned that the industrial waste Hexafluosilic Acid cannot be legally disposed of in rivers or the sea and everything has now clicked into place.
In my home town as long ago as the 50s, fluoridation was proposed and thanks to vigorous opposition rejected and still the same cynical battle is being fought -1 now realise why
The case against fluoridation is well known and clearly stated but the SHA's silence is deafening. How on earth do they justify their stance but then again undue influences are perhaps being asserted? I live in hope that the public will make it clear to the SHA what it can do with its fluoridation in no uncertain terms.
M DARNELL, Southampton.
11 Apr 2010
Southampton candidates oppose fluoride plans
Lib Dem, Tory and Green candidates for the parliamentary seats in Southampton have said they opposed plans to add fluoride to the city's tap water.The South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) agreed the plans in February 2009
The decision was made despite 72% of 10,000 respondents in a public consultation opposing the move.
The plan is the subject of a judicial review after a private legal challenge. Labour has not commented.
Resident Geraldine Milner has mounted the legal challenge against the decision by the SHA.
The judicial review will be based on government policy, which states most residents need to be in favour of the move.
Campaign group Hampshire Against Fluoridation and other supporters delivered a petition with 14,000 signatures to Downing Street on 9 June last year.
Councillors have also called on the SHA to hold a referendum, but the authority said it "has no mechanism" to do so.
The health authority argued that mass fluoridation was a "safe way" of tackling tooth decay and said it was confident the decision was "in the best interests of the health of local people".
'Deeply unethical'
John Spottiswoode said he was standing as Green Party candidate for Southampton Itchen in an attempt "to remove MPs and councillors who support water fluoridation".
He said: "Seventy-two per cent rejected water fluoridation in the public consultation.
"It is also deeply unethical to force people to drink a known toxin via their water supply, especially if it is being used to medicate people against their will."
Chris Bluemel, also from the Green Party, said: "A judicial review into the policy is currently pending in the High Court, and I await the outcome of this with interest. Regardless of the outcome, I will remain opposed, and will continue to call on the Strategic Health Authority to reconsider its position."
Sandra Gidley, Liberal Democrat MP for Romsey and prospective parliamentary candidate for Romsey and Southampton North - created by boundary changes - said: "The issue is not whether fluoridation is a good or bad thing.
The consultation process was a sham
Caroline Nokes, Conservatives
"It is more about the sham consultation by the SHA and the expressed wish of the public being ignored."
David Goodall, Lib Dem candidate for Southampton Itchen, has actively campaigned against the decision.
He said: "If elected I will use my position to lobby the health minister to change the plan."
Royston Smith, Conservative candidate for the Southampton Itchen constituency, said: "I wouldn't argue with the science but I don't believe people should have a medical product put into their water supply unless and until they have been fully consulted and have had their chance - through a referendum if necessary - to endorse or otherwise the decision."
And Caroline Nokes, Conservative candidate for Romsey and Southampton North, said: "The fact that the SHA decided to ignore the vast majority of views expressed in the consultation, did not even bother to consult some of those residents who will be affected, and is certainly not accountable to any elected body speaks volumes.
"The consultation process was a sham.
"I fully support the judicial review process, believe there should be a referendum on this matter and the results of that should be binding."
The candidates standing for election so far in the Southampton Test constituency are: Alan Whitehead, Labour; Jeremy Moulton, Conservatives; David Callaghan, Lib Dems and Chris Bluemel, Green Party.
The candidates standing for election so far in the Southampton Itchen constituency are: John Denham, Labour; Royston Smith, Conservatives; David Goodall, Lib Dems; John Spottiswoode, Green Party and Tim Cutter, Trade Unionist & Socialist.
The candidates standing for election so far in Romsey and Southampton North are: Sandra Gidley, Lib Dems; Aktar Beg, Labour and Caroline Nokes, Conservatives.
10 Apr 2010
Why Medical Authorities Went to Such Extremes to Silence Dr. Andrew Wakefield
A very long video but well worth watching.
9 Apr 2010
Lymington Times - Health committee adds call to stop fluoridation
Health committee
adds call to stop
fluoridation
A COMMITTEE of Hampshire county councillors has added its voice to those fighting an NHS fluoridation scheme which could affect 8,000 Totton residents.
The county's health overview and scrutiny committee agreed to call on South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) to drop the plans it controversially approved last year.
Fluoridation was proposed by Southampton City Primary Care Trust and will affect 190,000 people in total and includes Totton because of the layout of the pipes. The committee's decision comes days after the city council voted to demand a referendum.
Committee member Coun. David Harrison said: "The latest development is that Southampton City Council has changed policy and are now of the view that fluoride should not be added to tap water without clear evidence of public consent, through a referendum.
"This effectively removes the last fig leaf of democratic accountability that the SHA could hold onto. All local authorities in the area, all MPs and even the prime minister are saying that the plans should be dropped until there is public consent."
The committee chairman agreed to write to the SHA calling on them to shelve the plans.
Although fluoridation is aimed at tackling child tooth decay, it has sparked health fears and protests about "forced medication" and is being fought in the courts.
During consultation 72% of responses were against fluoridation, but a Mori poll showed a different picture with only 38% opposed against 32% in support. The SHA is also facing a pending judicial review and complaints to the health service ombudsman.
adds call to stop
fluoridation
A COMMITTEE of Hampshire county councillors has added its voice to those fighting an NHS fluoridation scheme which could affect 8,000 Totton residents.
The county's health overview and scrutiny committee agreed to call on South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) to drop the plans it controversially approved last year.
Fluoridation was proposed by Southampton City Primary Care Trust and will affect 190,000 people in total and includes Totton because of the layout of the pipes. The committee's decision comes days after the city council voted to demand a referendum.
Committee member Coun. David Harrison said: "The latest development is that Southampton City Council has changed policy and are now of the view that fluoride should not be added to tap water without clear evidence of public consent, through a referendum.
"This effectively removes the last fig leaf of democratic accountability that the SHA could hold onto. All local authorities in the area, all MPs and even the prime minister are saying that the plans should be dropped until there is public consent."
The committee chairman agreed to write to the SHA calling on them to shelve the plans.
Although fluoridation is aimed at tackling child tooth decay, it has sparked health fears and protests about "forced medication" and is being fought in the courts.
During consultation 72% of responses were against fluoridation, but a Mori poll showed a different picture with only 38% opposed against 32% in support. The SHA is also facing a pending judicial review and complaints to the health service ombudsman.
Echo Letter Fluoridated water should not be used for baby milk
Fluoridated water should not be used for baby milk
I AGREE with Ralph Frost (Letters, March 23), saying that people who don't want fluoride added to their tap water should bill the Strategic Health Authority for the cost of buying bottled water.
This is essential for another group. The American Dental Association states that fluoridated water should NOT be used to make up babies' bottle feeds. They advise parents to buy bottled water with a no/low fluoride content for feeds. In February 2007 the British Fluoridation Society (who promote fluoridation) issued similar advice. Children can receive too much fluoride which can interfere with the formation of enamel on teeth - dental fluorosis. This causes unsightly permanent tooth mottling, which has led to some children needing unpleasant dental work on front teeth, such as veneers. The advice is now that no fluoride should be given to infants under a year old. Jug filters won't remove fluoride - this needs a costly plumbed-in reverse osmosis unit or distillation machine. Many parents could not afford bottled water to make up baby feeds, so the SHA should pay for bottled water if they press ahead with this ill-considered idea.
This is only the start of the problems that will arise for other people, such as those with allergies, other medical conditions and those who just don't want fluoride. But I doubt the authorities will give in on this.
A. WILLS,
I AGREE with Ralph Frost (Letters, March 23), saying that people who don't want fluoride added to their tap water should bill the Strategic Health Authority for the cost of buying bottled water.
This is essential for another group. The American Dental Association states that fluoridated water should NOT be used to make up babies' bottle feeds. They advise parents to buy bottled water with a no/low fluoride content for feeds. In February 2007 the British Fluoridation Society (who promote fluoridation) issued similar advice. Children can receive too much fluoride which can interfere with the formation of enamel on teeth - dental fluorosis. This causes unsightly permanent tooth mottling, which has led to some children needing unpleasant dental work on front teeth, such as veneers. The advice is now that no fluoride should be given to infants under a year old. Jug filters won't remove fluoride - this needs a costly plumbed-in reverse osmosis unit or distillation machine. Many parents could not afford bottled water to make up baby feeds, so the SHA should pay for bottled water if they press ahead with this ill-considered idea.
This is only the start of the problems that will arise for other people, such as those with allergies, other medical conditions and those who just don't want fluoride. But I doubt the authorities will give in on this.
A. WILLS,
5 Apr 2010
UK - Those responsible should be before a court of law
Those responsible should be before a court of law
Southampton City Council has demolished the last shred of support for fluoridation by voting for a referendum.
SHA Board members cower behind closed doors, unable to defend an unethical policy reliant on biased propaganda and corrupt science. David C Kennedy, DDS. Professor and past president, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology: "During the Fountain Congressional hearings of 1977, the NCI admitted that they had relied upon no scientific data whatsoever when they claimed 25 years earlier that fluoride would be safe to add to the community water supplies."
To this day, no evidence exists that proves fluoride at 1ppm is safe. On the contrary, the evidence of harm is overwhelming. All of which begs the question. Why fluoridate the entire public water supply at huge expense to the NHS and the taxpayer, when providing school dentists would give real, risk-free benefit at much lower cost?
The SHA's refusal to answer is as suspicious as their determination to squander nearly half a million pounds on a judicial review, instead of on front line services. Whispers of undue influence abound. Are industry lobbyists involved? The industrial waste product Hexafluorosilicic Acid (used in fluoridation) is a Class 2 poison with no medicinal licence. Industry cannot dispose of it in the sea or in but can make money disposing of it in the public water supply Since fluoride causes the serious condition dental fluorosis, we may assume that the fluoridation roll-out is not for the benefit of teeth, but for the benefit of industry Compulsory mass medication with a dangerous toxin is one of the most sinister policies any government could ever force on the people. Fluoridation is an authoritarian abuse devoid of logic and bereft of social benefit.
The call for legal action against Board members is getting louder by the day This abuse will not stop until those individuals responsible answer for their actions in a court of law.
JENNIFER GODSCHALL JOHNSON,
Upper Clatford.
Southampton City Council has demolished the last shred of support for fluoridation by voting for a referendum.
SHA Board members cower behind closed doors, unable to defend an unethical policy reliant on biased propaganda and corrupt science. David C Kennedy, DDS. Professor and past president, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology: "During the Fountain Congressional hearings of 1977, the NCI admitted that they had relied upon no scientific data whatsoever when they claimed 25 years earlier that fluoride would be safe to add to the community water supplies."
To this day, no evidence exists that proves fluoride at 1ppm is safe. On the contrary, the evidence of harm is overwhelming. All of which begs the question. Why fluoridate the entire public water supply at huge expense to the NHS and the taxpayer, when providing school dentists would give real, risk-free benefit at much lower cost?
The SHA's refusal to answer is as suspicious as their determination to squander nearly half a million pounds on a judicial review, instead of on front line services. Whispers of undue influence abound. Are industry lobbyists involved? The industrial waste product Hexafluorosilicic Acid (used in fluoridation) is a Class 2 poison with no medicinal licence. Industry cannot dispose of it in the sea or in but can make money disposing of it in the public water supply Since fluoride causes the serious condition dental fluorosis, we may assume that the fluoridation roll-out is not for the benefit of teeth, but for the benefit of industry Compulsory mass medication with a dangerous toxin is one of the most sinister policies any government could ever force on the people. Fluoridation is an authoritarian abuse devoid of logic and bereft of social benefit.
The call for legal action against Board members is getting louder by the day This abuse will not stop until those individuals responsible answer for their actions in a court of law.
JENNIFER GODSCHALL JOHNSON,
Upper Clatford.
4 Apr 2010
The BDA manifesto
Below is an extract from the 2010 British Dental Association manifesto showing their duplicity. How can anyone say that the SHA gained much local support - yes they did but overwhelmingly they gained a lot of opposition. If the BDA can massage the figures like that how can anyone believe these people who have an agenda that overrides any regard for the truth?
In2008 South Central Strategic Health Authority carried out consultations on proposals to introduce fluoride to water supplies in Southampton and South West Hampshire. Despite gaining much local support, progress on the proposal stalled, pending a judicial review of the decision.
The government that is elected in 2010 must recognise the contribution fluoride
makes to preventing tooth decay, pledge to support strategic health authorities who wish to consult their residents on proposals to introduce fluoridation, and back
evidence-based, targeted schemes such as fluoride varnishing.
http://www.bda.org/docs/manifesto.pdf
In2008 South Central Strategic Health Authority carried out consultations on proposals to introduce fluoride to water supplies in Southampton and South West Hampshire. Despite gaining much local support, progress on the proposal stalled, pending a judicial review of the decision.
The government that is elected in 2010 must recognise the contribution fluoride
makes to preventing tooth decay, pledge to support strategic health authorities who wish to consult their residents on proposals to introduce fluoridation, and back
evidence-based, targeted schemes such as fluoride varnishing.
http://www.bda.org/docs/manifesto.pdf
Chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation: John Spottiswood
Video made last year - John is now standing for Parliament for the Green Party. Stephen Peckham is the new Chairman.
1 Apr 2010
Daily Echo - SHA's members are not good listeners
SHA's members are not good listeners
ON the subject of a fluoridation referendum I personally think that it would at least answer the question as to what the state of public opinion really is.
The SHA are almost certainly of the opinion that the people who completed the self-completion survey are not representative of the population as a whole, and put a lot of emphasis on their own MORI poll, which I personally think that even if it is more representative, does not necessarily constitute a random sample, as I question very much if every member of the sample population has an equal chance of being selected.
As I already drink bottled water I am unlikely to be directly affected by whatever happens, but I personally do not think it is right for people's health needs to be dictated by a quango who have little other involvement in the local community, and have not shown themselves to be the best of listeners.
With regard to the fact there was no one from the SHA board to receive the open letter signed by 170 people, I could perhaps understand it if the majority of board members had other commitments on the day.
However they all presumably knew that the petition was being delivered, and that some of the people delivering it would be travelling reasonable distances. Therefore I very much believe they should have made provision in advance for at least one member of the group to be allowed in to deliver it. The SHA have put a lot of store on scientific arguments in dealing with this issue, but many people who signed this open letter (many of them well respected in the local community) have a scientific background.
ON the subject of a fluoridation referendum I personally think that it would at least answer the question as to what the state of public opinion really is.
The SHA are almost certainly of the opinion that the people who completed the self-completion survey are not representative of the population as a whole, and put a lot of emphasis on their own MORI poll, which I personally think that even if it is more representative, does not necessarily constitute a random sample, as I question very much if every member of the sample population has an equal chance of being selected.
As I already drink bottled water I am unlikely to be directly affected by whatever happens, but I personally do not think it is right for people's health needs to be dictated by a quango who have little other involvement in the local community, and have not shown themselves to be the best of listeners.
With regard to the fact there was no one from the SHA board to receive the open letter signed by 170 people, I could perhaps understand it if the majority of board members had other commitments on the day.
However they all presumably knew that the petition was being delivered, and that some of the people delivering it would be travelling reasonable distances. Therefore I very much believe they should have made provision in advance for at least one member of the group to be allowed in to deliver it. The SHA have put a lot of store on scientific arguments in dealing with this issue, but many people who signed this open letter (many of them well respected in the local community) have a scientific background.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
