Its competence already queried at inception in June 2009 by International Society of Doctors for Environment(ISDE) (1), the EU’s Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) which is investigating fluoridation chemicals, has now been accused of a conflict of interest. SCHER’s credibility is thus further compromised by one of its members having actively co-promoted fluoridation in Switzerland.

Prof Ackermann-Liebrich was involved with others in needlessly prolonging fluoridation in Basel-city for several years until in 2003, the Swiss Canton stopped fluoridation because even after 40 years, no study could prove the caries-preventive effect of fluoridation. Basel-city also cited the risk of fluorosis of bone in particular the risks to young children and babies. The only EU countries still allowing this practice are Ireland and a few English water PLCs (Scotland, Wales, N.Ireland and the Isle of Man reject it outright).

The conflict of interest charge is contained in an Open Letter (2) to new Maltese Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection (SANCO) Mr John Dalli. The letter reproduces WHO data for Malta showing no relationship between dental caries and fluoride content in drinking water. Other WHO international data for 12 yr olds was also provided to Mr Dalli that similarly found no statistical support for fluoridated water’s claimed caries prevention.

The letter is from Austrian physicist Rudolf Ziegelbecker son of the late Rudolf Ziegelbecker, scientist from Graz, whose compelling statistical evidence after many years research, demonstrates the fallacy of water fluoridation. The late Rudolf Ziegelbecker’s evidence was a decisive contribution in persuading German-speaking nations in Europe to reject fluoridation and they were later followed in the 1990s by the neighbouring Czech and Slovak republics, by former East Germany, Hungary and Poland totalling some 100 million in today’s EU.

While alerting the new Comissioner to the fallacy of water fluoridation, Mr Ziegelbecker also criticised the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for its persistent failure a) to recognise fluoride’s inefficacy as a caries preventitive and b) its setting of tolerable upper limits that do not protect against harmful effects. He quotes correspondence about this important matter from his late father to EFSA members, yet not a single opinion issued by several recent EFSA panels references any of Ziegelbecker’s research or any other scientific papers which refuted the scientific basis of caries-fluoride prophylaxis. The Open Letter explicitly questions why the Commission has instructed SCHER to collaborate closely with an agency whose work on fluoride has been challenged because it is so manifestly ill-informed and unbalanced.

Mr Ziegelbecker appeals to Commissioner Dalli to use his best efforts to stop fluoridation throughout the EU because of the immediate risk it poses to children, citing the large rise in dental fluorosis in Irish children.

Finally, in expressing disapproval of the suppression of independent fluoride research in the medical literature – Medline still does not include the highly respected open access journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research (ISFR) Fluoride – the Austrian notes how difficult it is for EU consumers to obtain independent scientific information on the subject of fluoride.

Comment from Robert Pocock of VOICE of Irish Concern for the Environment:

“ Mr Ziegelbecker’s revelations about how most of central Europe for very sound reasons stopped fluoridation, should be a wake-up call to DG SANCO. Mr Dalli must now recognise that his predecessor’s decision to involve SCHER and EFSA in assessing water fluoridation was thoroughly misguided. Unless SCHER now also finds that fluoridation of drinking water is fundamentally flawed, its report will command no credibility across Europe. Indeed if this committee — qualified to assess risks from environmental pollutants only — is to emerge with any credit from the mess visited on it by the EU Commission, SCHER must now state unequivocally that fluoridation can only be assessed as a medicine ie pharmacologically.

Unless the EU Commission faces up to its regulatory duty to enforce the Medicines Directive*, which prohibits any medicinal claim to be made for a substance without a medicinal authorisation, it will not regain EU consumer trust, least of all in Ireland and England where unauthorised and therefore illegal fluoridation chemicals are added to drinking water.

Consumers in both fluoridated Ireland and England are further disadvantaged because their respective governments officially deny the severity of dental fluorosis caused by fluoridation, with the Irish government calling it ‘a cosmetic condition’ and the UK government suppressing fluorosis evidence completely.”

* Directive 2001/83/EC as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC and effective 30th October 2004, classifies all products which are presented to ‘treat or prevent’ disease or which have a ‘pharmacological , immunological or metabolic action’ as medicinal products. The only exemptions are products which are ‘clearly’ foods, food supplements etc. The amending directive makes clear that ‘in cases of doubt’ (ie ‘borderline products’) medicinal law shall have supremacy over any other EU law. Under these terms hydrofluorosilicic acid whose stated purpose is to prevent dental caries, must be regarded as medicinal. However drinking water medicated with fluorosilicic acid is not classified as medicinal by the UK or Irish government medicines regulator or by the European Medicines Agency.

The EU Commission has presided over this ten year regulatory failure despite appeals from Irish and UK MEPs and the European Parliament’s Petition Committee which lodged a petition against fluoridation (No 210 of 2007.(3)

(1) http://www.ukcaf.org/files/michael_letter_re_scher_mandate.pdf

(2) Open Letter copied in full below

(3) http://voiceireland.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/090609_Water-Fluoridation-in-the-EU-1999_final.pdf

Mag. Dipl.-Ing. Dr. techn. e-mail: zbr@aon.at

Rudolf Ziegelbecker

Franckstraße 24

8010 Graz Tel.: 0043 – 316 – 34 96 53

Mr. John DALLI
European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy (CA.16)

personally
European Commission
B – 1049 Brussels

Feb 19, 2010

Open Letter
Dear Mr Dalli,

I welcome your assurances to MEPs at the European Parliament hearing on 14.01.2010 that

“The underlying theme of my work will be Patients First, Consumers First” and that you wanted “well-informed consumers who can take educated decisions on the goods and services they consume”. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/008-67215-013-01-03-901-20100113IPR67206-13-01-2010-2010-false/default_en.htm

Your focus is very appropriate because there is an issue currently before DG SANCO which adversely affects many consumers, namely the negative health effects, especially in children, of an intentionally increased fluoride exposure. As regards being well-informed, EU citizens (like the EFSA panels) are so poorly informed about this toxin and about the change of paradigm due to the results of diligent scientific research, that they are unable to take educated decisions on how to protect themselves. While e.g. in Ireland already more than a third of the children in fluoridated areas suffer from visible fluorosis, the more than 60 years old studies seemingly showing a benefit of fluoridation and on which the EFSA, the WHO and dentists’ organizations rely, have been refuted scientifically (even unopposed) now for more than 30 years. Even many of today’s papers still do not consider the effects to which these refutations call attention.

On August 23, 2007 the highly respected Albert W. Burgstahler, Prof Emeritus of Chemistry, University of Kansas (PhD Harvard 1953), editor of Fluoride (www.FluorideResearch.org), wrote to me: “Even now, despite no clear evidence of any real caries reduction from water fluoridation or even from topical fluorides, many researchers submitting research reports for publication in ‘Fluoride’ still adhere to the belief that there is such evidence. But then, when asked to cite it, they bring up outdated and disproved reports or else drop the claim.”

Here are only two of many independent checks confirming that the basis of fluoridation is invalid, a “50% caries reduction by fluoride” as has been promised by dentists would look much different:

(Data from Ziegelbecker R.&R.C., Fluoride1993,26(4)263-6)

The above diagrams only “repeat” the “father of fluoridation” method – but in contrast show a zero effect. If one would also account for the fluoride-caused tooth eruption delay – which is a toxic effect that produces large pretended “benefits” (differences in caries due to less and youn­ger teeth) but is still ignored in probably all “scientific” papers which recommend fluoridation – the above data, like many other studies, would indicate even less resistant teeth at higher fluoride intake = inverted benefits = harm which occurs additionally to fluorosis and to many other observed or possible side effects, already at the “recommended” intake level and from any form of lifelong fluori­dation (water, tablets, salt, nutri­tion). There are many more completely independent checks and proofs for the scientifical untena­bility of the foundations of fluoridation, as Bill Osmunson’s Fig.1 in http://www.fluorideresearch.org/404/files/FJ2007_v40_n4_p214-221.pdf which suggests a zero effect of water fluoridation in the USA or John Colquhoun’s diagram showing a decline of caries during decades without any indication of efficacy of fluoridation in New Zealand (Fluoride 1993:26(2)125-34), some of them having been sent to the DG SANCO during its calls for information in spring 2009.

Your predecessor in the DG SANCO placed undue reliance on fluoride opinions by EFSA experts, even though these opinions are scientifical­ly invalid, as well as on the current SCHER procedure.

However, there are some very important facts demanding your personal engagement in this highly important issue:

1. Even after EFSA’s director had been extensively informed by email on Feb. 13/14, 2006 by my late father http://www.fluorideresearch.org/423/files/FJ2009_v42_n3_p162-166.pdf , an Austrian expert on fluoridation, about the fact that the EFSA relies on studies which have been refuted for more than 30 years, the EFSA panels act as if they do not have any knowledge of these developments. EFSA panels continued producing scientifically untenable opinions on fluoride and inadmissibly “declaring” fluorides as “nutrients” (a recent example was in November 2008 when EFSA approved sodium monofluorophosphate (‘MFP’) as a food supplement, at direct odds with the EU Cosmetics Directive on fluoride toothpastes that requires they carry a warning to children under 6 years to minimize swallowing toothpaste containing MFP, and in a way that the leading toxicologist and long-serving expert adviser to the Europe­an Com­mis­sion, Prof Vyvyan Howard, was moved to question why EFSA chose to ignore the risk of fluo­ride exposure to the foetus and to growth and development – http://www.anhcampaign.org/files/090123-Commentary-Prof-Vyvyan-Howard-EFSA-SMP-opinion.pdf).

2. If scientific methods are to be correctly applied now,

a) EFSA panels would have to correct=overthrow their own earlier opinions, and

b) the SCHER must not rely (again) on them.

Both requirements are not only not provided, but even impeded by the method selected by the former EU commission: To the contrary, the text “While no one doubts the beneficial effects of fluoride…” in SCHER’s preli­mi­nary working mandate was issued at a time when serious doubts were available to the EFSA and therefore also to the DG SANCO, and the

actual working mandate contains a close coopera­tion of SCHER with EFSA of which people will be further dismayed due to the questionable competence of the EFSA concerning fluorides.

3. Another major cause for concern is the involvement of Professor Ursula Ackermann-Liebrich. Being an opponent to my father in 1999 in a fluoridation hea­­ring on Basle (see http://www.sso.ch/doc/doc_download.cfm?uuid=882FA737D9D9424C46408F384F86C9C0 p. 544 bottom), as a consequence of which she was also responsible for the senseless prolonging of Basle’s water fluoridation (which was finally stopped in 2003 because the promoters could not provide a proof for its efficacy), she is now – as a member of the SCHER and despite her declaration of a conflict of interests – “deciding in her own case”.

When in 2009 your predecessor called for information on fluoride and fluoridation chemicals for risk-assessment by the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER), she was clearly not familiar with the battle against fluoridation in Germany, Austria and Switzerland since the 1970s. All readers of the book by Dr.med M.O. Bruker and Rudolf Ziegelbecker (my late father), know that the precondition and main reason for stopping fluoridation in continental Europe was its inefficacy against dental caries, accompanied by taking account of its actual and possible side-effects, which fact is well documented in this book.

I therefore enclose 2 copies of the book “Vorsicht Fluor” for your and your authority’s use.

It also covers efficient methods of reducing dental caries (pp. 15-17 and 321-323), the untenable scientific basis of fluoridation (e.g. pp. 332-348), the elimination of fluoridation in Europe (pp.398-405) and manipulation of information (pp. 422 ++).

While in true science the remarkable fact that the “caries flood” which had been predicted by fluoridation promoters in case of ending the numerous fluoridations – which indeed took place in many European countries since the 1970s – has never occurred after such stops (see Fluoride 1998; 31(3)171-4 in http://www.fluorideresearch.org/313/files/FJ1998_v31_n3_p129-174andS1-S34.pdf and pp. 368/369 and 404/405 of the book “Vorsicht Fluor”) would have completely refuted the hypothesis of the “benefit of fluoridation” by every single one of these cases, such important findings against fluoridation are simply ignored or suppressed from getting to the relevant researchers and authorities which are supplied instead with “selected” information in a complete departure from responsible science, even up to this day:

For example Fluoride, the open-access, quarterly scientific journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research (ISFR), despite all efforts, has never been available on Medline, the database most used by medical researchers (see the Editorial Report in http://www.fluorideresearch.org/424/files/FJ2009_v42_n4_p256-259.pdf), which fact results in some editors still publishing erroneous claims about fluoridation (which then are available via Medline!) simply because the scientific evidence has been hidden in this way.

Dear Mr Dalli, if consumers and especially children are truly to be your top priority, please use your very best efforts to rectify the greatest dental health policy error of recent decades, fluoridation. Only by your early personal action, by completely stopping fluoridation across the whole Euro­pean Union and putting this issue on a scientific basis again (which includes full incorporation also of the refutations of the papers which have led to fluoridation into the scientific discussion, and full publication also of contrary results) plus information of the con­­sumers and revision of EFSA’s earlier scientific opinions including a lowering of the Upper Tole­ra­ble Intake Level for fluoride can consumers and children in the European Union be adequately protected.

Given the widespread public concern about this matter, I am sending this as an Open Letter.

A study on the safety of fluoride in public drinking supplies will not be available until 2012 – more than five years after Green Party leader John Gormley promised to outlaw the chemical if elected to government. It is already nearly three years since the study was promised in the Programme for Government. But the examination of fluoride’s safety in drinking water will not even begin until this summer. Fluoride has been added to public water supplies for decades to protect teth by preventing cavities. But some researchers have concerns about its impact on human health. Mr Gormley campaigned strongly against fluoride before the election. He promised in March 2007 to ban fluoride from water supplies if he was electd to Government. It was subsequently agreed in the Programme for Government between Fiann Fáil and the Greens that a study would be undertaken on its safety. Health Minister Mary Harney confirmed yesterday that the Health Service Executive (HSE) will use a new monitoring programme to collect information regarding the total exposure in the population to fluoride.

The monitoring will begin in July and no details were available last night as to how it will work. But the results will not be available for another two years. As Green Party spokesman on health, John Gormley led a campaign against fluoridation. He maintained that countries throughout Europe which do not fluoridate have better dental health than Ireland. The Department of Health has defended the use of fluoride in drinking water and said there is no evidence to indicate it is not safe. A spokesman for Mr Gormley said he believes the study, when it is completed, will be comprehensive and he “awaits its results”.

Eilish O’Regan13/02/2010

Followed by letter of 19th February 2010 in Irish Independent below. Act on fluoride study now Friday February 19 2010

Why wait another three years before John Gormley’s fluoride safety study is ready (Irish Independent, February 13) when he, like the rest of Europe, has already found fluoridation to be both unsafe and ineffective?

It took him years of researching the international evidence (because no independent studies have ever been done here), and he brought many outside experts to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children, before he produced in late 2006 a report that won the approval of many committee members. However, for political reasons, it was blocked by the usual built-in Fianna Fail/PD committee majority. Fortunately, www.fluoridereports.com has made it available to the public on the internet so people can read its main conclusion. Fluoride in drinking water is not safe for bottle-fed babies and fluoridation should therefore stop. Since we have the lowest level of breast feeding in all of Europe at 40pc this advice was, and still is, very relevant to tens of thousands of parents.

And, as if to highlight how urgent the issue remains, last December both the American Dental Association and the US Centres for Disease Control re-issued their original advice that parents should not make up formula with fluoridated tap water because of the risk of dental fluorosis.

Our Health Minister, however, securely back in the Fianna Fail fold, recently issued a progress report on fluoride which described the permanent and untreatable disfigurement that is obvious dental fluorosis as “a cosmetic condition but not a health problem”. With John Gormley’s 2006 fluoridation report confirming that more and more Irish teenagers are now affected by this irreversible condition, a continuing cover-up of yet another health system failure is totally unacceptable.

Robert Pocock
DUBLIN 2

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/act-on-fluoride-study-now-2070436.html

Well done to all those who got out and protested against the proposed Poolbeg incinerator last Saturday 30th January in Ringsend. There were trade unions, politicians and locals together voicing their outrage about the proposed incinerator for Poolbeg. The event got great media attention and featured on the RTE Six One news that evening. See the link below for more http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0130/incinerator.html

Tomorrow, February 3rd, there will be another protest outside a conference being held with the company who are to run the incinerator, Covanta at the Westbury Hotel, Grafton Street at 11am. Show your support and go along! The event is organised by the Combined Residents Against Incineration (CRAI) group based in Ringsend.

11.30am, Sat. Jan 30th, Dublin Waste to Energy Project, Clanna Gael, Sean Moore Road, Ringsend, D4–Bring friends, children, family, workmates- they need a big turnout!

‘The incinerator is anti-recycling:

Dublin City Council plan to build one of the biggest incinerators in Europe in Poolbeg– it will have a capacity for burning 600,000 tonnes of waste while Dublin only produces a fraction of that amount.

The Public Private Partnership means that 320,000 tonnes is guaranteed by the councils to the private operator of the incinerator. How will this encourage recycling or reduction of waste?  Incineration goes against the principles of reduce, re-use recycle. Dublin City Council will in all likelihood be less inclined to continue to promote recycling

Too many health dangers:

There are potential health dangers of implications of the emission of toxic micro-particles to the population of Dublin. The plant will produce 10,000 tonnes per month of toxic bottom ash

It is a waste of Money:

The incinerator has already cost 120 million. How much more of your money will be spent on this white elephant?

We can stop this incinerator. Lets Keep up the pressure on the Dublin city council and Minister for the Environment John Gormley’

Organised by the COMBINED RESIDENTS AGAINST INCINERATION (CRAI)

Contact: Frances Corr:  0877715825   Rory Hearne 0861523542   May Kane: 0876994267

Environmental Reps. for New Water Advisory Councils

The Sustainable Water Network (SWAN) is co-hosting, with its member environmental groups* a series of meetings nationwide to select the environmental representatives to go forward for seven water Advisory Councils; one in each of seven regions (River Basin Districts) throughout the country.

What’s the purpose of the meeting and who should attend? The purpose of the meetings is to select the best qualified nominees from the environmental community, which we will then put forward to represent the environment on the River Basin District water Advisory Councils. If you are interested in how the rivers, lakes, bays and groundwater of your region are managed and you would like a say in who should represent the environment on the new Water Advisory Councils, to promote sustainable water management, then this meeting is for you. You may even be interested in putting yourself forward for the Council. If so, then your participation in one of these meetings is particularly welcome. Contact info@swanireland.ie for all the information you need and see the Events tab of the VOICE website for locations and times of the meetings.

River Basin Planning – Participation of Environmental Groups

River Basin Management Plans for the rivers; lakes; coastal and groundwaters of the country will come into force in 2010. These will set out measures to get the waters of all seven regions up to good status, as required by European law (the Water Framework Directive). Past experience shows that implementation of these Plans is far from guaranteed and that vigilance on the part of environmental groups will be necessary to ensure words translate into action. Water Advisory Councils in each region provide an opportunity for us to participate in, and ensure the best implementation of the Plans.

What are the Water Advisory Councils?

These are statutory bodies set up in 2005 to provide an opportunity for public input into the river basin management process. They are made up of Councillors from all the local authorities in each River Basin District[1][1]and stakeholder representatives of various interests including farming; business; recreation and water protection. Their role is to consider matters relating to the river basin management process and other matters relevant to the protection and use of the aquatic environment and to advise and make recommendations on these matters to the relevant public authorities.

Selection Process

The term of the first Councils finished in early 2009 and a public call for stakeholder nominees for new councils is expected in mid February 2010. SWAN, in conjunction with its member organisations, will be co-ordinating the selection of nominees to go forward to the water Advisory Councils, through this series of facilitated meetings. Anyone who is interested in who will represent the environment sector on these Councils and would like to participate in the process of selecting these representatives in their region is encouraged to attend.[1] For example the South Eastern RBD comprises Counties Carlow, Wexford, Kilkenny, Waterford, South Tipperary, Laois, North Tipperary, Kildare, Offaly, Wicklow, Limerick, Cork and Waterford City Council.

Should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact Bojana at info@swanireland.ie and be sure to see the events calendar for dates and venues for the SWAN meetings.

Monday, January 25, 2010

THE recent hardship caused by burst water pipes highlighted the precarious condition of our water supply network. That approximately 40% of all water in Ireland is lost in leakage was widely publicised in recent weeks when so many pipes failed in the freeze. Though many people were previously unaware of the dire condition of the national network of water pipes, the rate of leakage – the highest in the EU – has been criticised by Brussels for some time. The excuse we are being given for this level of leakage is that the pipes are old, but this is not the whole story.

We are not unique among our EU neighbours in having old piping. What makes us unique is that we are the only country that as a matter of national policy pours a toxic industrial waste, hexa fluorisilic acid (fluoride), into our water. This acid is very severe and corrodes the pipes and joints over time. Even more is the damage it does to our health: infertility, bone diseases, cancer, thyroid disease, mental illness, reduced IQ in babies, heart disease, etc.

Though we are told that water is fluoridated to prevent dental cavities, the health authorities admit more than 40% of Irish teenagers now suffer from dental fluorosis, which is permanent damage to tooth enamel from too much fluoride. Northern Ireland does not fluoridate its water. The level of cavities among its population is the same as ours. However, dental fluorosis is not as significant a problem among Northern teenagers as it is here.

Most toothpaste contains calcium or sodium fluoride. This is less harmful than the type of fluoride put in drinking water. However, because even this fluoride is dangerous, the toothpaste packaging carries warnings it is not to be used by young children or be swallowed.

Some toothpaste warnings even advise the user to go to a doctor or a poison control centre if he or she swallows even a pea-size quantity.

Despite this known danger, the Government insists on having us swallow an even more dangerous form of fluoride.

Now that we will be asked to pay for the water we use in our homes, I suggest we insist the supply is reliable and, more importantly, safe and healthy for our children and ourselves. I would also suggest people educate themselves about fluoride … the medical research, as well as many other interesting aspects of water fluoridation, is available on the internet.

Kathy Sinnott
‘St Joseph’
Ballinabearna
Ballinhassig
Co Cork

Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.ie/opinion/letters/if-fluoride-hastens-water-pipe-corrosion-what-is-it-doing-to-our-childrens-health-110515.html#ixzz0ddSPXvW8

The NGO organisers are seeking to get as many people, organisations, businesses, and educational institutes to sign up to reduce their own emissions by 10% over the year 2010 as possible. ‘Polar Bears are an iconic image of global warming,’ John  explained. ‘We are delighted to have them on our side in this campaign and know they will receive a warm welcome wherever they go.’ Dublin Zoo Director Leo Oosterweghel was very supportive and excited about the prospects of the campaign. Dublin Zoo is committed to reducing its carbon footprint this year and fully supports the 10:10 initiative.

What’s 10:10 all about?

It’s all explained on the 10:10  website  http://www.1010.ie/. You can calculate your carbon footprint, download tips and advice, and read the answers to the Awkward Questions. Cutting emissions can actually be easy, save energy, save money – and save polar bears. The Bears want to lead Ireland towards becoming a low carbon society as a matter of self-interest. Cuting emissions by 10% by the end of 2010 is an ambitious goal but for most of us it’s an achievable one. It’s precisely the sort of deep, quick cut scientists say is needed. The Polar Bears have been invited so far to visit Galway, Maynooth, Kilkenny, Nenagh, and Dublin.

10:10 is supported by 11 Irish environmental NGOs including VOICE. To contact the Polar Bears, call John at 086 8054492.

See the Irish Times article at http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0120/breaking66.html

Happy New Year from all of us here at VOICE! Be sure to sign up to the 10:10 campaign and to download our latest newsletter below.

http://www.1010.ie/

Download Newsletter PDF

090609_Water Fluoridation in the EU 1999-2009

Why not give your friend or relation a VOICE subscription this Christmas?

If you are looking to give your friend, sister, brother, aunt, parent or neighbour something different and want to do your bit for the planet this Christmas why not give them a VOICE subscription of only €40 for individuals or €20 for students/unwaged and O.A.Ps?

Download PDF for full details