[FAN Bulletins] #184: A State Commissioner intervenes
THE FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK www.fluoridealert.org or http://www.fluorideACTION.net
March 21, 2005
Dear All,
many of us are so used to getting the shaft on this issue from the "civil servants" that we thought were there to protect our health and the environment, that it comes as a pleasant and heartening surprise when someone from the very top intervenes on our behalf. This is precisely what happened recently in NJ when the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) intervened with a letter to the chairman of the Public Health Council, which was all set to vote for mandatory fluoridation on March 14, 2005, without the full scientific hearing they had promised in October, 2004 and without waiting for the NAS (NRC) panel to report back on their 2-3 year investigation of the toxicology of fluoride in water.
I received a copy of his letter today and I print it out below. There are arguments presented in the letter which might be useful in battles elsewhere. So thank you Bradley Campbell for doing your job (protecting the environment and protecting the process) and offering us a little hope against the US fluoridation juggernaut.
I attended this meeting on March 14 and was shocked by the condescending attitude that some panel members (but not all) displayed with respect to hearing the opinions from the public. They only wanted to hear the assessment of "experts", which was the height of hypocrisy since their intention - before the intervention of the Commissioner - was to vote on the matter, without hearing from experts, as promised, and without waiting to hear from the NAS panel.
However, it was good that this disdain for the public was articulated because it really upset one of NJ's largest (70,000 members) and most respected environmental organizations - the NJ Environmental Federation. Sharon Finlayson, the co-director of this organization, made it clear that the public in NJ was pretty intelligent when it came to issues like this and certainly deserved to be heard, for after all, she said, "If you go ahead and put this into our water it is going to go into our bodies. we definitely deserve a say in the matter!" The NJ Environmental Federation is affiliated with the national organization Clean Water Action, and so the dentists may regret trying to force this issue down NJ throats. Those throats are connected to very large grass roots boots!
Paul Connett
March 11, 2005
Robert Pallay, M.D., Chair,
Public health Council
c/o Alise F. Davis, Executive Administrator,
NJ Department of Health & Senior Services
Offices of Boards & Council-Room 801
Market and Warren Streets -PO Box 360
Trenton, NJ 08625Dear Mr. Pallay:
I am writing regarding the upcoming Public Health Council meeting on Monday, March 14, 2005. I understand that a Petition for Rulemaking was submitted by the NJ Dental Association in February 2004 and asks for the Department of Health and Senior Services to mandate statewide fluoridation of privately owned water supplies (except for those systems for which this would constitute an unfunded mandate) for the purpose of preventing cavities. A meeting is scheduled for Monday, March 14, 2005 at which time the Public Health Council is expected to consider costs of drinking water fluoridation and to render a decision about a mandatory program.
As a result of the announcement that the Council would render a decision, I have heard from many different constituencies of this Department including environmental groups, water purveyors and waste water dischargers regarding the matter of mandated fluoridation. What is clear to me, based on comments I have received from those constituencies, is that while the dental benefits are clear, other potential health and environmental impacts of mandatory fluoridation have not been fully considered in New Jersey. For these reasons, I am recommending that the decision on this matter be deferred until a broader set of constituents have had an opportunity to be heard.
Among the issues I have heard about include the potential impact that fluoridation will have on wastewater systems in the state. The presence of fluoride in the wastewater may interfere with the system's ability to meet their phosphorous limits. In other words, by adding a chemical to drinking water, there may be inadvertent consequences down the line in the ability of regulated entities' to meet their regulatory requirements.
Further, it is my understanding that the health risks from low levels of fluoride are still being investigated. In fact the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has commissioned a major study on the health effects of fluoride. A group of national experts in the field is currently reviewing the literature and expect to have a report by the end of the year. This is a major effort by national experts and should be considered by members of the Public Health Council before final decisions on mandated fluoridation are made.
It is with these considerations in mind that I recommend that the Council postpone any decision on mandatory fluoridation and, instead, provide opportunities for a fuller public dialogue where both advocates and opponents of fluoridation can represent their issues to members of the Council. These issues can be considered in conjunction with the NAS report. With all the material on hand, the members will be better equipped to justify any decision they make.
I thank you for considering my recommendations and look forward to hearing more about this issue. if you have any questions, please contact me at (phone number).
Sincerely,
Bradley M. Campbell,
Commissioner (Department of Environmental Protection)