Media statement on behalf of David Sloan, Chairman of New Health New Zealand Inc.
New Health has read the decision and respectfully disagrees with the judge’s interpretation of the Local Government Act,
Health Act and NZ Bill of Rights Act. In particular it disagrees with the judge’s view that fluoridation is not medical
treatment for the purposes of s 11 of the Bill of Rights.
It will appeal the decision.
There is a persuasive and respectable body of scientific and medical evidence that water fluoridation is of doubtful
benefit and there are risks of harm.
In today’s consumer-enlightened era, people should have the choice whether or not to ingest something that has a claimed
therapeutic purpose.
No other public health measure removes a person’s choice in the same way as fluoridation.
Comparing water fluoridation with water chlorination and iodised salt is simply wrong. Iodine is an essential nutrient
but fluoride is not. Further people have a choice whether to buy iodised or non-iodised salt.
Water chlorination treats the water by eliminating bacteria, whereas fluoride claim to treat dental decay. These
purposes are quite different.
New Health is concerned at some of the implications of the decision. For example on its face it permits councils to put
medicines such as the claimed mood-enhancer lithium in the water supply. Additionally the water supply potentially could
be a delivery system for vaccines.
Delivering medication this way is contrary to medical ethics as its fails to control for dose, individual need and
sensitivities, and overrides individual consent.
ENDS