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.
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:
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.
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 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
[email protected] (Chair)
Cecile Bledsoe, Chair, and Paul Bookout, Vice Chair
(R) Senator Cecile Bledsoe, Dist. 3
709 Sky Mountain Dr., Rogers, 72757
(D) Senator Paul Bookout, Dist. 21
3806 Pebble Beach Drive, Jonesboro, 72404
(D) Senator Linda Chesterfield, Dist. 30
12 Keo Drive, Little Rock, 72206
(D) Senator Stephanie Flowers, Dist. 25
104 Main St., Suite C, Pine Bluff, 71601
(D) Senator David Burnett, Dist. 22
306 Hale, Osceola, 72730
(R) Missy Irvin, Dist. 18
P. O. Box 106, Mountain View, 72560
(R) Jonathan Dismang, Dist. 28
P. O. Box 475, Beebe, 72012
(R) Senator Ronald Caldwell, Dist. 23
2490 Highway 284, Wynne, 72396
* REMINDER *
PLEASE – FORWARD THIS ACTION ALERT TO YOUR ENTIRE LIST: TO FRIENDS, FAMILY, & OTHER GROUPS.
May our Heavenly Father bless and guide our work.
Securing the blessings of liberty,