Following with curiousity and admiration

https://fyi.org.nz/request/31211-fluorid...

⚠️ Note on Ministry of Health’s Non-Response (June 2025)
As a supporter of Erika Whittome’s Official Information Act request (#30696), I wish to highlight the Ministry of Health’s apparent reluctance to transparently engage with serious international scientific evidence and relevant domestic law regarding fluoridation.

🔹 The US National Toxicology Program (NTP) 2024 monograph, updated in 2025, concluded with moderate confidence that fluoride exposure >1.5 mg/L is associated with reduced IQ in children, with significant implications for prenatal and early childhood exposure. The Ministry has not disclosed any review or policy reassessment in response.

🔹 Under Section 116C(4) of the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Act 2021, the Director-General may consider any relevant evidence. This creates a reasonable expectation that MoH would actively engage with such significant findings. Their failure to produce any review documents post‑August 2024 suggests a potential dereliction of this responsibility.

🔹 The Ministry’s silence echoes issues raised in the 2023 High Court ruling (New Health NZ Inc v DG of Health), which required the Director-General to assess consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 when issuing fluoridation directives.

🔹 Further, Erika’s request rightly raises Section 92I(5) of the Health Act 1956, which prohibits compulsory medical treatment. This calls into question the legality of mandated fluoridation without consent or exemptions.

🔹 Meanwhile, jurisdictions such as Calgary (Canada), Ireland, and regions of Queensland (Australia) have paused or discontinued fluoridation in light of emerging neurodevelopmental evidence. New Zealand’s inertia is increasingly out of step with global public health best practice.

I strongly urge other FYI users to support Erika’s request by filing complementary OIAs, sharing this link, or contacting the Ombudsman to demand full disclosure and accountability from the Ministry.

https://fyi.org.nz/request/31339-request...

The Water Services Act 2021 S7:

"7 Meaning of safe in relation to drinking water
(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, safe, in relation to drinking water, means drinking water that is unlikely to cause a serious risk of death, injury, or illness,—
(a) immediately or over time; and
(b) whether or not the serious risk is caused by—
(i) the consumption or use of drinking water; or
(ii) other causes together with the consumption or use of drinking water.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the assessment of serious risk must take into account, among other factors, compliance with drinking water standards."

Comment
• Subsection 1 clearly indicates illness and 1(a) impact over time.
• Subsection 2 clearly indicates assessment of serious risk must involve consideration of "other factors", not just drinking water standards.

Annotation: Guidance on OIA Request #30696 – Review of Fluoride in Drinking Water

This OIA request by Erika Whittome, submitted to the Ministry of Health (MoH) in April 2025, seeks information on the Director-General of Health’s consideration of fluoride in drinking water under the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Act 2021, particularly in light of the August 2024 National Toxicology Program (NTP) report linking fluoride exposure (>1.5 mg/L) to reduced IQ in children.

Below is guidance for others interested in similar requests:

1. Understand the Legal Framework:
• The request references Section 116C of the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Act 2021, which allows the Director-General to direct local authorities to add or not add fluoride to drinking water and consider relevant evidence. When making similar requests, cite specific legislation to ground your query.
• Erika’s follow-up request highlights Section 92I(5) of the Health Act 1956, which prohibits compulsory medical treatment. Referencing related laws, such as this or the Water Services Act 2021 (noted by Robin Benson), strengthens your request by broadening the legal context.
• The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (Section 11) is also relevant, as it protects the right to refuse medical treatment. The 2023 High Court ruling (New Health NZ Inc v DG of Health) mandated a Bill of Rights analysis for fluoridation directives, which could be a key angle for future requests.

2. We need to be Specific in our Requests:
• Erika’s initial request was clear, asking for reviews of the NTP report and subsequent scientific evidence. However, the MoH’s response directed her to a general webpage without providing specific documents, suggesting the information was either not available or not adequately addressed.
• When drafting an OIA request, explicitly ask for documents, correspondence, or specific evidence (e.g., “internal reviews, meeting minutes, or terms of reference related to the NTP report”). This reduces ambiguity and makes it harder for agencies to provide vague responses.
• Erika’s follow-up clarified that her request focused on drinking water (not the entire water supply) and raised concerns about transdermal fluoride absorption. Be prepared to clarify or refine your request if the initial response is incomplete, as Erika did.

3. We must always anticipate Potential Challenges:
• The MoH’s responses indicate delays and limited disclosure. The first response (9 May 2025) provided a link to a general webpage, and the second (21 May 2025) stated no further information was available. This suggests either a lack of specific reviews or reluctance to disclose them.
• Be aware that agencies may cite ongoing consultations or incomplete reviews to delay responses, as noted in a related OIA (H2024053399,). Under the OIA, you can challenge such delays by contacting the Ombudsman (ombudsman.parliament.nz or 0800 802 602) if the response is overdue or unsatisfactory.
• The MoH’s failure to address Section 92I(5) of the Health Act 1956 in their response to Erika’s third query (17 June 2025) highlights the importance of persistence. Follow up with specific questions if key aspects are ignored.

4. Leverage Supporting Evidence:
• The NTP report (August 2024) is a significant piece of international evidence. Reference credible scientific studies or legal rulings (e.g., the US Federal Court ruling mentioned in) to strengthen your case. However, verify claims from non-official sources, as X posts (e.g.,) may not always be reliable.
• Annotations by myself and Robin Benson highlight additional angles, such as global trends (e.g., Calgary and Queensland pausing fluoridation) and the Water Services Act 2021’s definition of “safe” drinking water. Incorporate such points to broaden the scope of our requests.

5. Next Steps for Similar Requests:
• Refine and Resubmit: If responses are inadequate, refine our request to focus on specific documents (e.g., “the Director-General’s Bill of Rights analysis for fluoridation directives” or “correspondence related to the NTP report review”). Erika’s persistence in narrowing her focus to drinking water and the Health Act 1956 is a very good example.
• Collaborate and Amplify: File complementary OIAs or share the request link to build collective pressure. Engaging with advocacy groups like Fluoride Free NZ (,) could provide additional resources, but critically evaluate their claims against scientific evidence.
• Monitor Updates: The MoH’s Evidence, Research and Innovation Directorate is reportedly working on updated briefs on fluoridation (). Request these directly, specifying a timeframe (e.g., “briefs produced after August 2024”).
• Ombudsman Review: If the MoH fails to provide satisfactory information (as Erika noted with the overdue response), lodge a complaint with the Ombudsman under Section 28 of the OIA. Provide clear evidence of non-compliance, such as unanswered questions or delays.

6. Consider Broader Implications:
• Erika’s concern about transdermal fluoride absorption raises a novel issue not addressed in the MoH’s responses. Future requests could explore this by asking for studies on non-oral fluoride exposure or risk assessments under the Water Services Act 2021.
• The global shift away from fluoridation in some regions contrasts with New Zealand’s expansion of fluoridation (e.g., 500,000+ people gaining access since 2022,). Highlighting this discrepancy could prompt the MoH to justify their stance.

Final Note: Persistence and precision are key in OIA requests. Erika’s approach—citing specific legislation, clarifying scope, and following up on gaps—offers a strong model. Support this request by sharing it, filing related OIAs, or contacting the Ombudsman to ensure transparency and accountability from the MoH