Stop mandatory fluoridation of Oregon water!

[Amaryllis]

Dear Safe Water Supporters,

Since early January, we've been trying to block a bill that is wrong for Oregon...mandatory fluoridation with untreated industrial waste for a "health" benefit never substantiated by FDA. As you know that bill passed in the House, and we're waiting for it to be assigned to a Senate Committee. We're hopeful we can stop it there.

BUT NOW, the bills we've been working to advance since 2001, meant to protect Oregon's water, ARE BEING HEARD in the Senate Environment and Land Use Committee NEXT MONDAY, April 4, and we need each of you to help. If you remember, the Water Quality Assurance Act establishes that no entity could add something to public water meant to treat your physical or mental health for which the manufacturer had not first shown proof that:
the substance had been specifically approved as safe and effective for the intended purpose by the FDA, and
the substance would not contribute contaminants, like lead and arsenic, to finished water in excess of the EPA's health-based goals, called the Maximum Contaminant Level Goals.
What could be more reasonable? Finally, it's OUR turn, and we're asking that you join us by making your voice heard on this very important legislation.

WHAT INFO IS IN THIS EMAIL:
1) When's the hearing? who should come? who should testify?
2) Background, explanation of the bills
3) Preparing, submitting written testimony
4) Sending shorter email messages of support

1) WHEN'S THE HEARING? WHO SHOULD COME? TESTIFY?

When, Where: The hearing is scheduled for Monday, April 4, time period is scheduled from 3 to 5 pm. Another bill may be heard first, but those planning to testify should arrive early (aim for 2:30 to 2:40 pm) so that we can sign in toward the top of the list. The hearing hasn't been posted yet, so I'll have to let you know what room it will be in. I'm told it may run past 5 pm.

Who should come? Everyone who has the time and interest should come, with some testifying and some not. We would love to pack the room with supporters.

Who will/should testify and how will it work? Time for giving testimony will be limited. We have some highly qualified people testifying from out of town/state, and are arranging for them to speak first and for more minutes than the rest of us. A number of our endorsing organizations, with significant memberships of their own, will be represented, and I'm hoping that at least several will testify. Members of the general public to speak include those with special qualifications (lawyers, various types of physicians, chemists, environmentalists), who can testify to specific areas of expertise, and the rest of us, who simply care about safe water.

What will work best is if you come with written testimony and a willingness to be flexible about whether or not you actually speak before the committee and for how many minutes. Please come prepared to summarize your comments, if you can, into only 1-2 minutes. It may be all the time we're given.

Let OCSDW know your plans. It will help me a great deal if you can let me know your plans. Are you coming? Would you like to testify? Are you bringing something written to submit, regardless of whether you testify or not?

2) BACKGROUND ON SB 851 and SB 852:
Attached is an explanation of SB 852. SB 851 is exactly the same bill without the FDA provision. We prefer SB 852, but have SB 851 in the wings in case it has a better chance of passing. Please write testimony on SB 852, but indicate that you would also support SB 851.
Link to SB 852: http://www.leg.state.or.us/05reg/measures/sb0800.dir/sb0852.intro.html
Link to SB 851: http://www.leg.state.or.us/05reg/measures/sb0800.dir/sb0851.intro.html
3) PREPARING, SUBMITTING WRITTEN TESTIMONY:

Subject Matter: It will be important that you focus on the provisions of the bill rather than talking about why fluoridation is a bad idea. Remember, these bills do not even mention the word "fluoride." Read the overview attached, and try to stay most with talking points focused on:

- The source of and contamination in fluoridation chemicals as industrial waste of the fertilizer industry
- Concern that no federal agency is regulating water additives, including fluoridation chemicals
- Product standards that are "voluntary"
- That FDA confirmed in Congressional documentation that fluoride ingested for a reduction in tooth decay is a drug, under FDA regulation, that it has never reviewed or approved as safe or effective for that purpose
- That EPA was unable to find any chronic toxicity studies looking at the long-term effects on health of the two most commonly used fluoridation compounds, hydrofluosilicic acid and sodium fluorosilicate
- That certification of fluoridation compounds through an NGO appears not to be protective of public health in that
1) Manufacturers are supposed to submit any published and unpublished toxicity studies on the treatment chemical and its impurities and no manufacturer is doing this
2) The Standards Committee on Fluorides that reviews and approves the standards for these chemicals is influenced by the industries who profit from selling the public their industrial waste. Cargill Fertilizer and Kaiser Aluminum and their distributors serve as officers and members of the committee.

We need a water quality standard for additives meant to treat people that prevents the addition of a drug never reviewed for its safety or effectiveness by FDA and stops anyone from introducing contaminants to drinking water at levels that EPA has already established will harm people.

SB 852 does both of those things. SB 851 is only different in that it does not require FDA approval. We would ask you to champion SB 852, but mention that you would also support SB 851.

Documentation is available at: http://www.keepersofthewell.org/on_point.html

Sample Heading you can tailor for your testimony:


Testimony of YOUR NAME on SB 851 & SB 852
Environment and Land Use Committee
Oregon Senate
April 4, 2005


To: Chair, Sen. Charlie Ringo
Sen. Jason Atkinson, Vice-Chair
Sen. Roger Beyer
Sen. Ginny Burdick
Sen. Frank Shields

Re: Support for the Water Quality Assurance Act, SB 851 & SB 851

Chairman Ringo and Committee Members,

Then write your testimony...

BE SURE: Whether at the beginning or end, give your full name and address (phone number is optional).

How to submit testimony:

If you will be at the hearing and plan to speak, bring your testimony with you. The committee asks you to bring 20 copies as well.

Otherwise, please email or fax a copy ASAP to Matt Shields, the committee administrator. Indicate that you want your testimony entered into the record. The committee, then, will have to make the copies, and we have to give them time to do that, so probably the latest you should submit would be Monday morning.

Matt Shields, Committee Administrator
Email: [e-mail]
Fax: [phone]
To follow up by phone (if you want to make sure the fax went through), you can reach Matt at 503-986-1640.

4) Show support for these bills by calling or sending shorter email messages to Committee Members, your own Senator, and Senate Leadership. Messages are most effective when they are: in your own words, brief, cover only one or two compelling points, respectful.

Here is all the contact information you need.

Environment and Land Use Committee:

Sen. Ringo: 503-986-1717; [e-mail]
Sen. Atkinson: 503-986-1702; [e-mail]
Sen. Beyer: 503-986-1709; [e-mail]
Sen. Burdick: 503-986-1718; [e-mail]
Sen. Shields: 503-986-1724; [e-mail]

Find your own representative here (federal legislators show up first, so scroll down to find your state senator):
http://www.leg.state.or.us/findlegsltr/

Senate Leadership:

President, Sen. Courtney: 503-986-1600; [e-mail]
Majority Leader, Sen. Brown: 503-986-1700; [e-mail]
Minority Leader, Sen. Ferrioli: 503-986-1950; [e-mail]

Thank you for your participation.

We are all so, so busy, but I am asking you to help. There is little more worth protecting than the safety of our drinking water, and until we pass something like the Water Quality Assurance Act, promoters of fluoridation (and who knows what other medicinal substance down the road) will continue to hammer in session after session or in city after city until they have their way. Please help us give them and the fertilizer industry a definitive NO to disposing of this toxic crud in our water. Help us pass this act and finally establish basic safety criteria that should always have been in place.


Oregon Citizens for Safe Drinking Water
PO Box 1045
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]
National website: http://www.keepersofthewell.com/Introduction.html

Overview of SB 852
THE WATER QUALITY ASSURANCE ACT

Introduced at the request of: The Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club,
the Oregon Center for Environmental Health, and the Oregon Toxics Alliance


Introduction: The Water Quality Assurance Act (WQAA) addresses serious inadequacies in the current standard used for substances added to public water supplies that are medicinal in nature. Closing regulatory loopholes, this legislation establishes basic safety criteria everyone has assumed were already in place.

Provisions of the Act: SB 852 does NOT pertain to water additives, such as chlorine, which are required for treating water so that it is potable and safe for people to drink. SB 852 pertains only to substances added optionally to public water with the intention of treating people for the purposes of a health claim.

When a manufacturer makes a health claim, i.e., that a substance will treat or prevent some human disease, that substance is classified as a drug and falls under FDA regulation. For this medicinal type of additive, the public water supply is used as a way of delivering the substance to an entire population.

Under SB 852, additives intended to treat people instead of water, must meet two basic criteria:

1) Manufacturers must show proof that the substance has been FDA-approved as safe and effective for the purpose for which it is being added; and

2) Manufacturers must ensure that each contaminant in the substance to be added would contribute no more than the EPA’s health-based Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) to the finished water.

Artificial Fluoridation: What is the source of the chemicals being used?
At the present time, fluoride compounds are the only substances added to drinking water for the purpose of treating people. U.S. fluoridation programs use three different fluoride compounds – hydrofluorosilicic acid, sodium fluorosilicate and, minimally, sodium fluoride – which are recovered pollution, primarily from phosphate fertilizer production.

As industrial waste by-products, fluoridation compounds are contaminated with a
host of toxins including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury. If not marketed as “products,” these wastes would be classified as “hazardous” and could only be disposed of (at considerable expense) at a hazardous waste facility – never dumped on land, in rivers or the ocean or allowed into the atmosphere.

Congressional Investigation into Fluoridation (1998-2000):
These industrial grade fluorides used for fluoridation were the focus of a Congressional investigation in the U.S. House Committee on Science. Led by Congressman Ken Calvert, this investigation was undertaken at the request of citizen groups in an effort to obtain definitive answers from U.S. regulatory agencies regarding fluoridation.

The FDA’s response to the Committee’s inquiry is unequivocal: fluoride, when ingested for the purpose of reducing tooth decay, is a drug under FDA regulation that has never been reviewed or approved for its safety or effectiveness (letter 12/21/00).

The Congressional investigation also confirmed the following:

· According to EPA, the two compounds used almost exclusively in the U.S. for fluoridation (hydrofluosilicic acid and sodium fluorosilicate) have NEVER been studied for their effect on health or behavior (letter, 6/23/99).

· According to NSF International (the NGO involved with certification of fluoridation chemicals), manufacturers are in violation of General Requirement 3.2.1. To claim certification to the ANSI/NSF Standard 60, manufacturers should have submitted any available published and unpublished toxicological studies on their treatment chemical and its impurities. Yet, NSF says, even under business confidentiality protection, it has no such studies on file (letter, 7/7/00).

SB 852 Addresses Missing Safety Provisions in Current Standards
Companies such as LCI, Ltd., the distributor of Cargill Fertilizer’s fluoride-rich wastes, take no responsibility for potential harm from their products. The fine print on LCI’s Product Data Sheets reads, “In addition, no responsibility can be assumed by vendor for any damage or injury resulting from abnormal use…or from any hazards inherent in the nature of the product.” Yet, Oregonians are being asked to ingest these products every day for the rest of their lives.

Reasons why the requirement of FDA review and approval for safety and efficacy is so important for fluoride, but should be in place for any substance proposed for the treatment of people through the water supply:

1) The basic theory supporting fluoridation has been disproved, raising serious doubts about its effectiveness. New and accepted science shows that fluoride works topically, after teeth have erupted into the mouth, not systemically from its ingestion. Dental journals and the Centers for Disease Control now confirm that incorporating fluoride into tooth enamel while teeth are developing does NOT result in the anti-caries effect fluoridation was intended to provide (CDC, MMWR, 8/17/01). FDA has approved the over-the-counter topical use of fluoride in toothpaste and rinses. But now, with scientific confirmation that fluoride works topically, FDA’s evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of swallowing fluoride is critically needed, and fluoridation should not be implemented without it.

2) Americans already ingest 1 milligram of fluoride per day systemically.
The U.S. Public Health Service reports that Americans today get the historically recommended dose of fluoride (1 mg/day) from sources other than fluoridated water. These sources were unavailable when fluoridation began and include a variety of dental products, as well as foods or beverages processed with fluoridated water and/or contaminated with fluoride pesticide residues.

3) Too much fluoride exposure has increased rates of dental fluorosis. Millions of American children now have this permanent, visible damage to teeth caused by excessive fluoride ingestion during the time of tooth development. Rates of fluorosis in “optimally” fluoridated communities (29.9%) were found to be more than double those in non-fluoridated areas (13.5%) in the largest survey of U.S. children ever conducted (National Institutes of Dental Research, 1986-87).

Fluorosis makes teeth more porous, more prone to chipping, and permanently scars, pits, or discolors them so that bleaching or the application of expensive veneers may be required. Repair is not covered by dental insurance, nor are the significant costs of fluorosis ever factored into the economics of fluoridation.

4) Children ingest more fluoride from tap water than could be prescribed. Due to concern over increases in fluorosis, recommended prescription dosages for children in non-fluoridated communities were reduced in 1994. Yet, children in fluoridated communities regularly ingest higher daily doses of fluoride – just from tap water – than a physician in a non-fluoridated community could prescribe. The recommended prescription dose, for example, for children aged 6 months to 3 years is delivered in only 1 cup of “optimally” fluoridated water, and for a 3-6 year old, in only 2 cups.

5) Fluoride is ineffective on two major forms of tooth decay. When we hear the word “decay,” we’ve been conditioned to think “fluoride.” Yet the dental profession acknowledges that fluoride is “ineffective” on the two most serious forms of tooth decay:

· Baby Bottle Tooth Decay, which can only be prevented when parents are educated about the effect of giving children bottles of juice or other sugary liquids for extended periods of time, and

· Pit & Fissure Decay, which occurs in the chewing surfaces and accounts for 90% of decay in children’s permanent teeth (CDC, MMWR, 11/30/01).

6) Decay “crises” are reported in fluoridated cities across America. That fluoridation isn’t working is apparent in news reports of extensive decay in major cities U.S. cities with fluoridated water. One of many examples, Cincinnati – fluoridated since 1979 – recently identified tooth decay as “the city’s No. 1 un-met health need.” These kids are getting fluoride – from multiple sources. But what low-income populations most burdened with decay are NOT getting is access to a dentist. This is the elephant in the room: access to care should be the right of every child and fluoridation CAN NEVER SERVE as any sort of substitute.

7) Decay rates in Western Europe, which has almost entirely rejected water fluoridation, rival ours. Clearly, low decay rates are possible without fluoridated water. In fact, in the first ever state-by-state oral health survey (“Missing the Mark,” Oct. 2000), Oregon got a “B” for lower than average cavity rates, in spite of an “F” in fluoridation.


8) Body of peer-reviewed studies indicating harm keeps growing. Evidence of harm from fluoride to teeth, bones, the brain, pineal gland, and thyroid continues to mount, thereby raising more and more concerns about adverse health effects.

9) Scientists at EPA headquarters oppose fluoridation. The medical studies of concern are cited by scientists belonging to the union of professionals at EPA headquarters, who further argue that the current Maximum Contaminant Level for fluoride is based on fraudulent science. The union opposes fluoridation and has been calling for a national moratorium until the serious questions raised in recent years about its safety and effectiveness are thoroughly investigated.

10) Use of contaminated product and loopholes in regulation need to be addressed. Aside from the whole issue of FDA approval for ingested fluoride products are the following disturbing questions: 1) Is it appropriate to medicate the public with products containing carcinogens, heavy metals, and other toxic substances so harmful that some have science-based Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) of zero? 2) Are we comfortable with voluntary product standards that are influenced by the very industries profiting from the sale of their industrial wastes under those standards? 3) Or with manufacturers selling products as “certified” that do not comply with the certification standard? 4) Or with the use of fluoride compounds for which there are NO toxicity studies?

In Conclusion: Accessibility to safe drinking water – which is essential to the life and well being of each and every Oregonian – has been established by the United Nations as a basic human right and should be one of Oregon’s highest priorities.

If someone wants to add a substance to public water for an alleged health claim, we must remember that the FDA is the ONLY entity in the U.S. invested by Congress with the authority to validate that claim. In the case of fluoride ingested for a reduction in tooth decay, FDA never has.

When the issue of adding fluoride to public water is raised before a legislative body, city council or the voting public, all are unfairly and impossibly placed in the position of doing what only FDA can do: rigorously review its safety and effectiveness.

The enactment of SB 852 serves to finally establish a basic and reasonable safety standard, ensuring that now and in the future, should there be efforts to add any substance meant to treat people to public water supplies, Oregonians would not be exposed to:
1) a drug FDA has never approved for the health claim being made or
2) contaminant levels exceeding EPA’s public health goals (MCLGs).

Does Oregon have the authority to establish a standard more protective than the ANSI/NSF Standard 60 currently in use? Yes. Not only do we have that right, but the improved standard would be more in keeping with the stated goal of the Oregon DHS Drinking Water Program: to reduce and prevent Oregonians’ exposure to contaminants in drinking water. The purposeful introduction of fluoridation compounds containing any amount of lead and arsenic is clearly antithetical to this goal and should not be tolerated.

Senators, we urge your support of this vital legislation. Please join us in protecting Oregon’s most precious resources, our water and our people. Vote “Yes” on SB 852.

[vpigrad]

1. Why are repukes obscessed with putting poisons in water?

It just doesn't make any sense. They drink this poisoned water and assuming they wash, they cover themselves in this poisoned water. Why would they want it to be poisoned?

[Amaryllis]

2. Good question...what they want to put is is an industrial waste product,

contaminated with lead and arsenic. Could there possibly be corporate greed involved here? Noooo...they wouldn't do that, would they?

[insanity]

3. its not gunna happen

I talked with Rep. Buckley and he doesn't think its gunna happen.

[funflower]

4. The fluoridation bill itself is dead, right?

I thought it was roundfiled in Charlie Ringo's Senate committee.