Federal lawsuit filed due to unapproved fluoridation chemical will affect Arkansas. Since the state government has passed a water fluoridation mandate, it will affect even more people.
The Plaintiffs in this case are saying, “Don’t tell us or the media or the court how safe some generic, mythical, or virtual form of fluoride is. Go tell it to the FDA, through the evaluation process of the actual hydrofluosilicic acid drug being delivered, with all of its contaminants, and get approval before foisting it on us!”
This lawsuit is a good reason to attend the below meeting and support the Representative Loy Mauch’s Arkansas Water Additive Accountability Bill.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011, 1:00 pm
Hot Springs Convention Center, Room 209
State of Arkansas Health, Safety and Welfare Committee
Interim meeting discussing State Rep. Loy Mauch’s bill for Water Additive Accountability
This bill addresses concerns over source and quality of fluoride and other future chemicals added to our drinking water that are intended to treat humans. This meeting is NOT a protest about fluoride. It’s about public accountability of the contents of the chemicals added to the water that is used for people treatment. Due to the fact that a lot of the fluoridation chemical is coming from China and never tested in the US, the country of origin is something we need to know. It also requires that every batch of the chemical added to our water be tested for impurities like arsenic and lead. This bill also requires the safety tests for humans be made available to the public by the manufacturer. We can’t live without water, so we should have the right to know about the chemicals being added that will affect our bodies.
Come and show your support for Representative Loy Mauch’s very important water accountability bill.
Largest Water Wholesaler in Southern California Sued for Illegal Use of an Unapproved Drug to Fulfill Fluoridation Program
SAN DIEGO, Aug. 10, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — Alleging willful misrepresentation and deceptive business practices by Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, attorneys for citizen/consumers from San Diego, Los Angeles and Ventura Counties filed a lawsuit in the public interest of millions of consumers in Southern California, citing that MWD of SoCal has made claims of safely and effectively treating and preventing dental disease in recipient consumers, while selecting and delivering a hydrofluosilicic acid drug through their water system that has never been approved for safety and effectiveness, nor in the expected dosages delivered by MWD through retail water districts, either topically, systemically through ingestion, or trans-dermal exposures through baths and showers.
In legal action which may impact the decision-making of water districts across the country employing the same practices, the lawsuit filed on August 9 in U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, addresses the Constitutional right of Plaintiffs to be free of bodily intrusion from a drug that has not been approved for MWD’s intent to alter the physical structure and bodily functions to make a person’s teeth more resistant to the demineralization process of tooth decay without their consent.
While some consumers may elect to purchase bottled water for drinking, virtually all consumers are captive to exposures from baths and showers, as simple filtration and most non-commercial methods do not remove the product, resulting in exposures to consumers similar to that of medications delivered by seasickness or nicotine patches.
“This case does not challenge the public policy of fluoridation,” states Kyle Nordrehaug, attorney for the Plaintiffs. “It does challenge MWD’s bait and switch tactics of orchestrating statements by them and their down-line distributors of water to individual consumers when MWD knew that the actual drug product that they deliver had never had a toxicological study performed on the health and behavioral effects of its continued use until 2010, much less approval for MWD’s perpetuation of absolute health claims.”
Despite early misrepresentations in the media, MWD of SoCal is not compelled to fluoridate its water by the State of California, and the costs of adding the unapproved drug are being borne by consumers in the form of rate hikes without water districts providing ratepayers clear notice of what the extra costs are for, or obtaining their consent.
The lawsuit’s filing clarifies that Congress has established that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is the only government entity with the authority to approve claims of safety and effectiveness for products intended to treat and prevent disease, and that not only has the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency never had that authority, but in 1988 abandoned authority for safety standards for all direct water additives, including fluoridation chemicals.
While the Plaintiffs do not seek an award for any physical harm, they do point to evidence concerning safety/harm and effectiveness that by law and for consumers’ protection requires that the product be thoroughly evaluated, and approval given, for any claims and MWD’s intended health impact, before exposing consumers without their consent.
Plaintiffs point to MWD’s misrepresentations and omission of any notice of contraindications, government recognition of susceptible populations, and scientific evidence of disproportionate harm to children, Latinos, and African Americans, from the particular harmful side effects from the hydrofluosilicic acid drug selected by MWD, above other forms of fluoride.
“This lawsuit pushes past the rhetoric and reliance on unaccountable endorsements or opinions that usually accompany this subject, and focuses on whether MWD of SoCal adds hydrofluosilicic acid to public drinking water in order to treat or prevent dental disease, and whether FDA regulates products intended to treat disease, or not,” said Jeff Green, National Director of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water and spokesperson for the Plaintiffs.
“In essence,” continued Green, “the Plaintiffs are saying, ‘Don’t tell us, or the media, or the court how safe it is. Go tell it to the FDA through the evaluation process and get approval for the claims for the specific product you deliver, and don’t administer it to us topically, systemically through our ingestion, or through our skin from our baths and showers, without our consent until you do.'”
Contacts: Jeff Green, Plaintiff Spokesperson
Citizens for Safe Drinking Water (800) 728-3833
Kyle Nordrehaug, Attorney
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhomik