Dear Senators, I understand a fluoride motion has been tabled and is due for debate at your next meeting. I included here for your convenience a recent letter and review that was sent to DCC which outlines the grounds for having ceased, Ireland’s mandatory water fluoridation policy, a policy for which no other European Government maintain a similar policy due to health, environmental, legal or ethical concerns. I’d be grateful if youd consider this correspondence when evaluating the matter for yourselves and any possible course of action you may take. Thanking you in advance for your consideration. Yours sincerely, Owen Boyden _____________________________________________________________________________________ Regarding the anti fluoride motion still due for debate, I attach here for your consideration as per request from various Councillors on Dublin City Council over the last number of weeks, a brief review offering clarification of various legal and ethical aspects relating to public water fluoridation. I note proponents of the practice making substantial cases in an effort to influence your support for a policy which breaches legally binding human rights and EU directives. Though I had outlined these legal instruments before, I see they were rebutted without sufficient review of these legal matters referred to, and so for Councillor’s to review the matter themselves, in the attached document I have included relevant Articles which to a layperson like myself, raises serious questions over the legality of the Health (Fluoridation of Water Supplies) Act 1960. Included in the attached review are references to peer reviewed reports and information pertaining to; - International precedent within Europe and accompanying position statements outlining why the majority of European Government’s do not medicate their citizens through the public water supply. - Medication without consent and relevant legislation and human rights prohibiting the practice - Breaches to bodily integrity and relevant legal instruments clarifying citizens fundamental rights - Evidence of Cosmetic damage and excerpts from the Supreme Court Appeal of 1964 (Ryan v AG) which was shot down on the grounds that dental fluorosis would not occur as a result of the practice. As is openly conceded by The Expert Body and the IDA, fluorosis is now widespread which otherwise equates to cosmetic damage on a massive scale. - Relevant scientific reports - Economy and relevant EU Directives implicated and violated Though I fully understand and respect you all deal with multiple issues in an average day and the attached document is substantial enough (36 page), it’s quite clear The Expert Body and to a lesser extent, the IDA (Irish Dentists Association) have been misleading the State for a long time and as a consequence, there is widespread cosmetic damage (dental fluorosis) being inflicted on the Irish populace which constitutes an illegal practice. I’d also like to briefly offer some clarity regarding my own involvement with the national effort as I see various attempts made from persons on the pro side of the debate who seem to be misinformed. First and foremost, I perceive a very real and serious threat being posed to the health of the Irish populace through an involuntary and indiscriminate medication policy that has not been appropriately reviewed since the policy’s commencement in 1964. Rather it seems, any reviews undertaken have been inadequate where the priority has been to maintain the practice, even if it has meant disregarding or deliberately misinterpreting evidence and modern views on the subject. Secondly and due to evidence I have included in the attached review, I believe the policy also poses one of the biggest threats to our economy, that being our very valuable food and drinks industry. And last but not least and in the interests of attaining a just and fair society in the 21st century, I believe the State as a priority, should not be medicating the Irish populace without consent, a position that is supported by international human rights. Only as recently as July of this year, we saw the Government delegation getting grilled by the UN Human Rights Committee for systematic human rights violations going on in our country over decades. The Irish State is no stranger to human rights abuses unfortunately. Regarding the campaigns that I direct, those being the West Cork Fluoride Free Campaign and the Fluoride Free Towns project. WCFFC was set up nearly a year ago to increase political support in County Cork. Luckily since 2012, three local Town Council’s before being abolished passed motions so we had a support base to work from. Earlier in the year (2014)with support from hundreds if not thousands of people in West Cork, motions were passed in Bantry, Macroom and Kinsale which in a large way led to Cork County Council doing the same. At the same time and unbeknownst to me, Laois County Council also passed a motion. We experienced some degree of success in raising awareness but the biggest hurdles have yet to come. Another aspect of the campaign that was embarked upon was to align business interests. This seemed like a logical move as all Irish food and drinks products are in breach of European Food Directives, as per referenced in the attached document. The idea to have a certain number of businesses in a town install reverse osmosis filters, thereby offering safe fluoride free food and drinks products to their customers was formed. It was decided that upon 6 businesses in a town installing filters, the town would acquire fluoride free status. It was however never claimed that any town that achieved this milestone would be completely fluoride free and any contributors who state so otherwise have not done their research. Earlier this year both Bantry and Clonakilty achieved fluoride free status which made national headlines. irishexaminer/ireland/west-cork-town-becomes-a-fluoride-free-first-for-ireland-259078.html Due to the quick successes the West Cork Fluoride Free Campaign was seeing as a far reaching people’s campaign involving local citizens, business interests and representatives, it became apparent that a national platform was required so that valuable lessons learned could be passed on to other communities that were interested in getting involved. This led to the Fluoride Free Towns project being set up that employed a similar philosophy to that of the well known, Fair Trade Movement. With over 25 Fluoride Free Town projects up and running around the country now, I wouldn’t be surprised if we see another Town acquiring fluoride free status as part of the national movement in the near future. To view both these campaigns, please follow the links here; https://facebook/westcorkfluoridefreecampaign https://facebook/fluoridefreetowns fluoridefreetowns I’d also like to clarify one or two points brought up by proponents of fluoridation who I understand are anxious to see medication without consent continue. One of these attempts was to pass off the fact that fluoride being identified in the NRC report (2006) as an endocrine disruptor was somehow a good thing. If this contributor (Journalist) went to the bother of doing much research, he’d note that fluoride works through topical effect, not as a result of endocrine disruption. This is acknowledged by the CDC (US Centres for Disease Control) and SCHER (European Scientific Community for Health and Environmental Research) amongst others. Endocrine disruption due to unnecessary systemic fluoride ingestion is the reason young children’s teeth are erupting with signs of fluorosis and this would point to pre eruption damage caused by endocrine disruption and fluoride overdose. Not exactly a good thing. Another issue I’d like to address in this cover letter is evidence of ongoing blatant misrepresentation by dental and medical authorities of well respected reviews of the impacts of water fluoridation. Two reports that I’ll cite are the York Review (2002) and the NRC Report 2006. Both of these were well respected reviews/ reports and continue to be used by pro fluoride organisations somehow purporting to support a wide stated myth that water fluoridation is “safe and effective.” The Chair of the York Review in his frustration at what he saw as misrepresentation of the findings by the British Dental Associations and other medical organisations in press releases or other disseminations, wrote a letter expressing these concerns and it’s quite obvious The Expert Body and the IDA are guilty of same. The letter referred to is in the attached document under the section “relevant scientific reports”. A similar precedent was also set in the case of the NRC report, also with relevant references in the aforementioned section. Whether the motion comes up at your next meeting or a subsequent one, I’d like to thank you all for consideration of various correspondence from myself over the last few months and hope what I’ve written (especially here) will help you in your search for information to draw a logical conclusion with regards this matter. To conclude, I’d like to put a rhetorical question to you all with regard to public water fluoridation and the upcoming motion? As representatives with responsibility for the welfare and safety of your constituents, do you feel any obligation to uphold and consider human rights in your capacities as public representatives or do you wish to publicly support a policy which results in the medication without consent of your constituents, a policy which was given the all clear 50 years ago on the basis that it would not cause cosmetic damage (dental fluorosis), which it does so on a widespread basis today in 2014 bearing in mind no other European Government maintain a mandatory water fluoridation policy due to health, environmental, legal or ethical concerns? When considering this question, please also consider fellow representatives of yours on twelve Councils around the country representing some 2,000,000 people since 2001 have passed motions calling for an end to the practice. I hope DCC will be the last. Yours sincerely, Owen Boyden
Posted on: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 19:47:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015