AR Department of Health and NSF Deceptions on Water Additives Debate

March 12, 2013 Action Alerts, Water Issues

All the more reason to support Senator Brian King on passing SB255.

Secure Arkansas has known for a while, with the mere mention of fluoride, mixed messages always seem to come from the Arkansas Department of Health (ADH), an organization which seems to require protecting its sacred cow at all costs.

Last session, the Arkansas legislature voted for a state-issued water fluoridation mandate; therefore, we believe that accountability for the contents of the actual raw product is essential.

The ADH in a letter

to Carroll Boone water district, admits the product used for water fluoridation contains potential toxic contaminates including, but not limited to, arsenic, lead, and radioactive substances. So why wouldn’t the ADH support the public’s right to know from the manufacturers what impurities

being used for water fluoridation

are in the actual raw product and in what amount? Why would they object to full disclosure, transparency, and accountability to the public? Could it be that it may not be in their best interest to reveal that they have no enforcement power, nor accountability, nor a need to reveal the prominent disclaimers in the beginning of Standard 60, which includes:

Disclaimers 1

NSF International (National Sanitation Foundation),

in performing its functions in accordance with its objectives, does not assume or undertake to discharge any responsibility of the manufacturer or any other party. The opinions and findings of NSF represent its professional judgment. NSF shall not be responsible to anyone for the use of or reliance upon this Standard by anyone. NSF shall not incur any obligations or liability for damages, including consequential damages, arising out of or in connection with the use, interpretation of, or reliance upon this Standard.

If you were to contact NSF and request data on a specific manufacturer, NSF would tell you the manufacturer’s data is confidential.

But, while this may sound standard when no one in the chain of supply or the department of health or the certifying body is willing to be accountable, it points out the need for SB255.

So, the real question may be, “Why would the non-governmental body NSF, which establishes the standard that SB255 references as the criteria that a water additive manufacturer must meet, be in opposition to full disclosure from manufacturers to the water districts to whom they sell their product; especially when SB255 requires that the manufacturer submit an exact copy of what NSF requires?

Is it because the health department’s and NSF’s lack of enforcement that water districts are faced with a lack of transparency and accountability for the products from which water districts are forced to choose?

The Health Department has sent out comments about SB255, but the actual document they submit came from NSF International, the non-governmental body that has NO enforcement capacity, nor any direct accountability to any consumers or even water districts, nor to the AR State Legislature.

NSF’s EPA Deception, their first statement: the July 1988 Federal Register in which the EPA jettisons their oversight of direct water additives. Clear statements indicating the phase out to be final in 1990, and all previous recommendations invalidated, are found on the last page of this Notice (Page 25589, left column). The Statement in the findings of the Bill does not state that the EPA gave up oversight of drinking water. It stated that the EPA gave up enforceable oversighton drinking water additives. NSF’s claiming an inaccuracy with this misleading statement should raise a red flag for anyone reading the rest of their statement and why they are taking a position against due diligence.

NSF’S Random Batch Testing Deception:

Nothing in SB255 eliminates or minimizes the value of process audits, or establishes any random batch testing alone. Unannounced inspections and processing audits are part of the core requirements for meeting NSF Standard 60. In fact, if there were an amendment advised, it might be to request for the record of the previous five years’ dates and entities making unannounced inspections at the specific facilities where the specific product purchased by the public water system is sourced.

The real question might well be, “Since when did NSF and ADH think it was irrelevant to mention that there has never been any batch testing and that the claim of safety and effectiveness is based on a manufacturer’s promise to maintain the same formulation?”; that even an independent analysis is not necessarily on the actual batch that shows up at the water plant?

NSF’S Cost Deception:

NSF states that there would be an increased cost to public water systems for collection and review of documents. SB255 requires exact copies of what is already produced and submitted by the manufacturer to merit compliance with Standard 60. Those documents are of a routine business nature and should be as simple as copying something that should be in an easily accessible file or top drawer. Water districts send out Public Notices in the form of a Request for Bid in which the water district clarifies the conditions of purchase.

The request for documentation is not a cumbersome or cost-incurring process out of the realm of routine requests — the Bill requires they produce COPIES.

As reported in an editorial this week by Becky Gillette, reporter with Eureka Springs Independent news: the Water Additive Accountability Act, Senate Bill (SB) 255, which a group of public water systems requested, requires water districts to have detailed copies of documents manufacturers are required to submit to merit a water district buying their products. So far, chemical manufacturers have not been willing to share, and some water districts resent, that the health department would force them to proceed without allowing or requiring them to perform due diligence.

A Eureka Springs Independent news article recently reported the ADH’s detailed opposition to SB 255. It turns out the statement was authored by the non-governmental certifying body, NSF International, who we are supposed to trust for the quality of water additives. But when the ADH and the product certifying body oppose a water district’s quest for accountability and full disclosure, we did a little of our own due diligence.

The health department’s opposition statement was not truthful or accurate. For example, the ADH/NSF opposition began by saying SB 255 contains several inaccurate statements including the claim: “US EPA gave up all enforceable oversight responsibilities for drinking water additives in 1988….”

We found numerous statements by the US EPA and NSF International that contradict their claim of inaccuracy. So which is it? NSF has no enforcement power over the manufacturer or the water district; yet the ADH/NSF opposition statement claims it will be costly and will increase water rates for water districts to collect information and assure compliance.

Wait a minute. Arkansas law already requires that the manufacturer submit documents to comply with product standards and this bill requires that the water district demand copies of those documents as a part of their request for bids.

How hard can that be?

We see access to clean, pure, safe drinking water as a basic human right and support water districts having information they are asking for and need. And we resent the ADH telling anyone not to look too closely.

SB255 is not about the public policy of water fluoride. It is about consumer protection.

PLEASE take the time for your voice to be heard. Call, fax, or email the senators below ASAP and ask them to support accountability, full disclosure, and transparency of the raw fluoridation product that will affect us all.

Vote DO PASS on SB255!

The Arkansas Water Additive Accountability bill will be heard in the Senate Public Health, Welfare, and Labor Committee on March 20, 2013.

SENATE PUBLIC HEALTH, WELFARE, AND LABOR COMMITTEE, 2013

Cecile.Bledsoe@senate.ar.gov (Chair)

Paul.Bookout@senate.ar.gov (vice chair)

Lchesterfield@comcast.net

Stephanie.Flowers@senate.ar.gov

David.Burnett@senate.ar.gov

Paul.Bookout@senate.ar.gov (vice chair)

Lchesterfield@comcast.net

Stephanie.Flowers@senate.ar.gov

David.Burnett@senate.ar.gov