Fluoride in Drinking Water: Scientific Evidence, Legal Reviews, and Ministry Compliance (Follow-up to H2025065288)

SPENCER JONES made this Official Information request to Ministry of Health

Response to this request is delayed. By law, Ministry of Health should normally have responded promptly and by (details and exceptions)

From: SPENCER JONES

Dear Ministry of Health,

Under the Official Information Act 1982, I request the following information regarding fluoride in drinking water under the Fluoridation of Drinking Water Amendment Act 2021, specifically relating to the Director-General of Health’s responsibilities under Section 116C. This request addresses deficiencies in your response (H2025065288, 9 May 2025) and incorporates recent scientific and legal developments.

1. Detailed Review of NTP Reports (2024–2025):
• Provide the full review, analysis, or evaluation document conducted by the Ministry or Director-General of the National Toxicology Program’s August 2024 Monograph and January 2025 meta-analysis (https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/publications/m...), which found a moderate confidence link between fluoride exposure above 1.5 mg/L and lower IQ in children, with effects suggested below this level.
• Clarify whether the consideration cited in H2025065288 (www.health.govt.nz/information-releases/director-general-of-health-consideration-of-community-water-fluoridation-under-the-new-zealand-bill) includes a specific assessment of New Zealand’s 0.85 mg/L exposure level and multi-source risks (e.g., toothpaste, tea). If not, provide this assessment.
• Explain the scientific methodology and evidence supporting your conclusion that these reports do not alter safety assessments, addressing the 95% consistency of 52/55 studies showing IQ reduction.

2. Post-August 2024 Scientific Reviews:
• Provide copies of all reviews, studies, or analyses conducted or commissioned since August 2024 on fluoride in drinking water, including the October 2024 Cochrane Review and the Ministry’s 2024 evidence review (www.health.govt.nz, 2024-12-04).
• Include any assessments of neurodevelopmental risks, dental fluorosis trends, or transdermal absorption, given noncompliance with targets (Belotti et al., 2024) and public health concerns.
• If no such reviews exist, confirm this and justify the absence despite international developments (e.g., EPA reassessment, Utah ban).

3. Decision-Making Process Under Section 116C:
• Detail the criteria, methodologies, and guidelines used to evaluate “relevant evidence” under Section 116C(4), including how the NTP findings and High Court rulings (2023–2024) were incorporated.
• Provide the cost-benefit analysis for New Zealand’s 0.85 mg/L level, weighing IQ risks against dental benefits, and address equity impacts in high-deprivation areas.

4. Transdermal Absorption and Health Risks:
• Provide studies or risk assessments on fluoride absorption through the skin from fluoridated drinking water, given its use in showers and anecdotal reports of adverse effects.
• If none exist, explain why this exposure route has not been evaluated, despite its relevance to compulsory treatment debates.

5. Correspondence and Monitoring Data:
• Provide copies of internal/external correspondence (e.g., emails, meeting minutes) since August 2024 regarding NTP reports, neurotoxicity, or Bill of Rights compliance.
• Supply fluoride concentration data (1992–2025) for all 25 supplies studied by Belotti et al. (2024), detailing compliance with 0.7–1.0 mg/L targets and exceedances above 1.5 mg/L.

6. Legal and Ethical Compliance:
• Provide the full Bill of Rights Act 1990 analysis (Section 11) supporting the 2024 directive reconfirmation, including how NTP evidence and public inquiry demands (e.g., FFNZ) were considered.
• Explain any plans to align with EPA’s reassessment (2025-04-08) or respond to the 2023 High Court ruling’s process error.

7. Response to Legislative Reform – Fluoridation (Referendum) Legislation Bill 2025:
• Provide any internal correspondence, legal advice, or briefing papers held by the Ministry relating to the introduction of the Fluoridation (Referendum) Legislation Bill by New Zealand First in 2025.
• Include assessments of how repeal of the 2021 Amendment Act would affect the Director-General’s current fluoridation directives and Ministry public health policy.
• Confirm whether the Ministry has prepared contingency plans or legal risk advice in relation to this Bill and its potential implementation.

Please ensure responses are specific to drinking water as defined in the Fluoridation of Drinking Water Amendment Act 2021. If any requested information does not exist, please explicitly state this and provide reasons. If any information is withheld, please specify the grounds under the Official Information Act 1982. I also request this response be published online at www.health.govt.nz with personal identifiers removed.

Yours faithfully,

SPENCER JONES

Link to this

From: OIA Requests


Attachment image.png
89K Download


Kia ora Spencer,

 

Thank you for your request under the Official Information Act 1982 (the
Act), received by the Ministry of Health on 4 June 2025. You requested:

 

1. Detailed Review of NTP Reports (2024–2025):
• Provide the full review, analysis, or evaluation document conducted by
the Ministry or Director-General of the National Toxicology Program’s
August 2024 Monograph and January 2025 meta-analysis
(https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...),
which found a moderate confidence link between fluoride exposure above 1.5
mg/L and lower IQ in children, with effects suggested below this level.
• Clarify whether the consideration cited in H2025065288
(www.health.govt.nz/information-releases/director-general-of-health-consideration-of-community-water-fluoridation-under-the-new-zealand-bill)
includes a specific assessment of New Zealand’s 0.85 mg/L exposure level
and multi-source risks (e.g., toothpaste, tea). If not, provide this
assessment.
• Explain the scientific methodology and evidence supporting your
conclusion that these reports do not alter safety assessments, addressing
the 95% consistency of 52/55 studies showing IQ reduction.

2. Post-August 2024 Scientific Reviews:
• Provide copies of all reviews, studies, or analyses conducted or
commissioned since August 2024 on fluoride in drinking water, including
the October 2024 Cochrane Review and the Ministry’s 2024 evidence review
([http://]www.health.govt.nz, 2024-12-04).
• Include any assessments of neurodevelopmental risks, dental fluorosis
trends, or transdermal absorption, given noncompliance with targets
(Belotti et al., 2024) and public health concerns.
• If no such reviews exist, confirm this and justify the absence despite
international developments (e.g., EPA reassessment, Utah ban).

3. Decision-Making Process Under Section 116C:
• Detail the criteria, methodologies, and guidelines used to evaluate
“relevant evidence” under Section 116C(4), including how the NTP findings
and High Court rulings (2023–2024) were incorporated.
• Provide the cost-benefit analysis for New Zealand’s 0.85 mg/L level,
weighing IQ risks against dental benefits, and address equity impacts in
high-deprivation areas.

4. Transdermal Absorption and Health Risks:
• Provide studies or risk assessments on fluoride absorption through the
skin from fluoridated drinking water, given its use in showers and
anecdotal reports of adverse effects.
• If none exist, explain why this exposure route has not been evaluated,
despite its relevance to compulsory treatment debates.

5. Correspondence and Monitoring Data:
• Provide copies of internal/external correspondence (e.g., emails,
meeting minutes) since August 2024 regarding NTP reports, neurotoxicity,
or Bill of Rights compliance.
• Supply fluoride concentration data (1992–2025) for all 25 supplies
studied by Belotti et al. (2024), detailing compliance with 0.7–1.0 mg/L
targets and exceedances above 1.5 mg/L.

6. Legal and Ethical Compliance:
• Provide the full Bill of Rights Act 1990 analysis (Section 11)
supporting the 2024 directive reconfirmation, including how NTP evidence
and public inquiry demands (e.g., FFNZ) were considered.
• Explain any plans to align with EPA’s reassessment (2025-04-08) or
respond to the 2023 High Court ruling’s process error.

7. Response to Legislative Reform – Fluoridation (Referendum) Legislation
Bill 2025:
• Provide any internal correspondence, legal advice, or briefing papers
held by the Ministry relating to the introduction of the Fluoridation
(Referendum) Legislation Bill by New Zealand First in 2025.
• Include assessments of how repeal of the 2021 Amendment Act would affect
the Director-General’s current fluoridation directives and Ministry public
health policy.
• Confirm whether the Ministry has prepared contingency plans or legal
risk advice in relation to this Bill and its potential implementation.

 

The reference number for your request is H2025068090. As required under
the Act, the Ministry will endeavour to respond to your request no later
than 20 working days after the day your request was received:
http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/.   

 

If you have any queries related to this request, please do not hesitate to
get in touch ([1][email address]).

 

 

Ngā mihi 
 
OIA Services Team 
[2]Ministry of Health information releases 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. https://www.health.govt.nz/about-ministr...

Link to this

From: OIA Requests


Attachment Outlook dohd3lpj.png
42K Download

Attachment H2025068090 response.pdf
311K Download View as HTML


Kia ora,

 

Please find attached the response for your request for official
information.

 

Ngā mihi 

 

OIA Services Team

Ministry of Health  | Manatū Hauora 

M[1]inistry of Health information releases 

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. https://www.health.govt.nz/about-ministr...

Link to this

From: SPENCER JONES

Dear OIA Requests,

**Subject**: Clarification and Request for Further Information – OIA H2025088090 Response Incomplete

**Kia ora Ministry of Health OIA Team,**

Thank you for your response dated 2 July 2025 regarding OIA request #31211 (Ref: H2025088090).

Upon careful review, I respectfully submit the following follow-up points and clarification requests, pursuant to sections 13 and 28(3) of the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA). The response provided fails to supply several key categories of information sought, relies heavily on generalised or outdated evidence, and omits consideration of recent international developments that the Ministry is reasonably expected to have reviewed, particularly in exercising compulsory powers under section 116C of the Health Act 1956.

---

## 1. **Clarification of Legal Reference – Section 116C vs 116E**

My prior reference to section 116C(4) was a typographical error. The intent was to reference **Section 116E(3)**, which sets out the Director-General’s duty to consider “any relevant evidence or information” before issuing a fluoridation directive.

Please therefore confirm the following:

* What internal frameworks, guidance documents, or review criteria does the Ministry use to determine what constitutes “relevant evidence or information” under s116E(3)?
* Were the **NTP 2024 Monograph**, **NTP 2025 meta-analysis**, **Belotti et al. (2024)**, **EPA reassessment**, or the **October 2024 Cochrane review** considered as part of this evidence threshold?
* If not, please explain why the Ministry believes it can lawfully continue to issue fluoridation directives without assessing such material.

---

## 2. **Targeted Evaluation of Recent Scientific Reviews**

You did not supply or confirm whether the Ministry (or University of Otago under contract) has reviewed:

* The **National Toxicology Program (NTP)** Monograph (August 2024) or meta-analysis (January 2025),
* The **Cochrane Review (October 2024)** on water fluoridation,
* Or responded to international regulatory developments (e.g. **EPA’s proposed classification of fluoride as a neurotoxicant**, **Utah’s legislative ban**, or **EU safety guidance** on fluoride in infant exposure).

Please confirm:

* Whether any **internal memos, correspondence, or analysis** of the above were produced or held by the Ministry.
* Whether the 2024 MoH “evidence review” directly assessed these documents.
* If not, please explain how the Ministry can claim fluoridation remains “safe and effective” in the absence of a robust review of these recent findings.

---

## 3. **Exposure Risk Assessment at NZ Fluoride Concentration (0.85 mg/L)**

You declined to provide any analysis of cumulative fluoride exposure risks at the **current NZ level (0.85 mg/L)**, taking into account common additive exposures (e.g., toothpaste, tea consumption, infant formula).

Please now provide:

* Any documentation held that examines **total daily fluoride exposure** in New Zealanders, segmented by age group, including potential exceedances of the **WHO tolerable upper intake level**.
* If no such data exists, please explain why the Ministry has not commissioned such analysis before issuing population-wide directives.

---

## 4. **Transdermal Absorption and Showering Risk Assessments**

You stated the Ministry holds no studies of transdermal fluoride absorption from bathing or showering, and that this route is unlikely to contribute significantly.

Given growing anecdotal evidence and published hypotheses of transdermal absorption in high-use scenarios (e.g., eczema, prolonged showering), please clarify:

* Whether any **international scientific reviews** of this exposure route have been considered by the Ministry.
* Why this pathway has not been investigated domestically, despite mandatory dosing via public supply.

---

## 5. **Internal Correspondence – Narrowing Request Scope**

While I acknowledge your interpretation of the correspondence request as relating to “substantive” documents, please now provide:

* Any **email correspondence, internal briefings, or meeting notes** involving Ministry officials, panel advisors, or external scientists between **August 2024 and present** that mention:

* The **NTP Monograph or meta-analysis**,
* **Neurotoxicity**, **IQ effects**, or fluoride-related **cognitive risk**,
* The **Fluoridation (Referendum) Legislation Bill 2025**,
* Or the **NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990**, s11 analysis and the Director-General’s obligations under s116E.

This includes draft assessments, review comments, or scientific summaries not previously released.

---

## 6. **Access to Fluoride Concentration Compliance Data**

You declined the request for fluoride concentration data from the **Belotti et al. (2024)** study on the grounds that it was not conducted by the Ministry.

Please confirm whether:

* The Ministry holds **any equivalent historical fluoride concentration data (1992–2025)** for the 25 local supplies listed in Belotti et al., or from the **National Drinking Water Register**,
* Or can retrieve this data from the relevant local authorities as part of your statutory oversight role.

If the Ministry does not hold or track this data, please explain how it monitors compliance with **fluoridation concentration ranges (0.7–1.0 mg/L)** and exceedances beyond **1.5 mg/L**, which may have public health implications.

---

## 7. **Omissions Regarding Legal and Ethical Risk Management**

You provided a copy of the February 2024 NZBORA s11 assessment for 14 fluoridation directives but did not address:

* Whether the **NTP findings** or international calls for **independent inquiry** (e.g., Fluoride Free NZ) were considered in that legal assessment;
* Whether the Ministry intends to update the risk assessment following the **EPA reassessment (April 2025)**;
* Or whether it has reviewed the **2024 High Court ruling** on press error and delegated authority.

Please confirm whether such updates, legal reviews, or risk management responses are underway or planned.

---

## 8. **Response to Legislative Reform – Fluoridation (Referendum) Bill 2025**

You refused this request under s18(g)(i), stating the Ministry does not hold information regarding:

* The **Bill of Rights Act 1990 analysis** of the proposed Bill,
* Legal advice or contingency planning in the event of repeal of the Fluoridation Amendment Act 2021.

Please confirm:

* Whether any **briefings, impact assessments, or draft advice** have since been initiated regarding the Referendum Bill;
* Whether the Ministry has prepared **contingency plans** for regulatory or legal challenges to its current fluoridation directives under repealed powers.

---

## 9. **Right to Complain**

I respectfully reserve the right to lodge a complaint with the Ombudsman under section 28(3) of the OIA, should the Ministry continue to avoid substantive engagement with:

* The post-2024 international scientific record,
* The statutory requirement to evaluate “relevant evidence” under s116E,
* And its duty to act transparently and lawfully when exercising coercive public health powers.

---

Kind regards,

SPENCER JONES

Link to this

SPENCER JONES left an annotation ()

To those following this OIA request (submitted 4 June 2025) regarding fluoride in drinking water: I’ve now reviewed the Ministry of Health’s response (Ref: H2025088090, dated 3 July 2025). Below is a summary of our review methodology and findings for transparency and public interest purposes.

---

### 🔍 Review Methodology

This review assessed the Ministry’s response against the seven parts of my original request, covering:

* Scientific reviews and health risk assessments (e.g., NTP reports, neurotoxicity, fluorosis)
* Multi-source fluoride exposure at NZ’s 0.85 mg/L level
* Legal duties under the Health Act 1956 (particularly s116E)
* Transdermal absorption risks
* Fluoride concentration data (Belotti et al.)
* NZBORA s11 analysis and legislative reform impacts (2025 Referendum Bill)

Each part was assessed for:

* **Completeness** – Were the specific documents or analyses supplied?
* **Transparency** – Was the Ministry’s reasoning clear and supported?
* **Potential Issues** – Signs of obfuscation, misdirection, or selective disclosure.
* **Contextual Relevance** – Alignment with recent science and legal obligations.

---

### 📌 Key Findings

#### 🔹 Incomplete and Evasive Responses

* **No direct evaluation of the NTP 2024/25 findings** was provided. Instead, the Ministry cited broader and older reviews (2014, 2021, 2024) that do not address neurodevelopmental risks or the US EPA’s reassessment.
* **No risk assessment of fluoride exposure from multiple sources** (e.g., tea, toothpaste) at NZ’s target level (0.85 mg/L).
* **No data or analysis on transdermal absorption** from fluoridated tap water.
* Requests for **Belotti et al. (2024) concentration data** and analysis of the **Fluoridation (Referendum) Legislation Bill 2025** were refused under s18(g)(i) with no alternative data sources explored.

#### 🔹 Obfuscation and Misdirection

* The Ministry avoided directly addressing the NTP Monograph and Cochrane Review, instead **redirecting to generalised summaries** that pre-date or omit this evidence.
* The reference to a non-existent section (“116C(4)”) was used to deflect discussion of the **Director-General’s actual evidentiary obligations under s116E**.
* **No clear rationale** was provided for not assessing new legal risks (e.g., BORA s11, EPA findings, or High Court rulings).

#### 🔹 Transparency Gaps Remain

* While a **Bill of Rights Act analysis** was linked for the 2024 directives, it did **not mention** how recent scientific evidence or public submissions were factored in.
* **No mention** of EPA’s 2025 reassessment, US court proceedings, or regulatory comparisons with countries that have suspended or banned fluoridation.

#### ✅ No Clear Evidence of Misinformation

* Factual references were largely accurate, but **key omissions and lack of engagement with recent science** obscure the Ministry’s decision-making process.

---

### 🚨 Implications & Next Steps

The Ministry’s response raises serious concerns about its failure to:

* Review emerging neurotoxicity evidence before issuing directives;
* Assess cumulative fluoride exposure risks;
* Disclose or actively engage with public health concerns or legal scrutiny.

#### I encourage FYI users to:

* Review the Ministry’s cited sources at [www.health.govt.nz](http://www.health.govt.nz) for yourself;
* Submit follow-up OIA requests focused on the NTP Monograph, transdermal exposure, or legal risk reviews;
* Consider contacting the Ombudsman ([info@ombudsman.parliament.nz](mailto:info@ombudsman.parliament.nz) or 0800 802 602) under **s28(3) OIA** to review any incomplete or unreasonable refusals.

---

**Thank you for following this request – feedback and collaboration welcome.**

Spencer Jones | 3 July 2025*

Link to this

From: OIA Requests


Attachment Outlook jbk00fu5.png
42K Download


Kia ora Spencer,

 

Thank you for your email. The Ministry of Health stands by the information
we have already provided and has nothing further to add in order to
respond to your initial request for information. 

 

While it is permissible to seek information by asking questions under the
Act, a distinction must be drawn between questions which seek information
that is ‘held’, and questions which seek to elicit an opinion or
explanation. The primary purpose of the Act is to allow requesters to seek
information ‘held’ by agencies. It is not a mechanism for requesters to
seek an explanation or opinion from an agency, or to create or compile new
information in order to satisfy a request.

 

As such, the Ministry is not required to provide additional explanation of
material which addressed your initial request for information. A
distinction must be drawn between clarifying a response an agency has
provided and a new request for information.

 

The Ministry responds to all official information requests made in good
faith in accordance with the requirements of the Act. Rather than refuse
your follow up request as frivolous or vexatious at this stage, we ask
that any future requests are submitted in more appropriate terms.

 

Please be advised that using the Act in this manner, where a clarification
email could be construed as a new request or asking the Ministry to
compile or create information, or provide an explanation or opinion could
result in such requests being refused under section 18(h) of the Act.

 

For further information please see the following Ombudsman guidance:
[1]https://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/reso....

 

Under section 28(3) of the Act, you have the right to ask the Ombudsman to
review any decisions made under your requests. The Ombudsman may be
contacted by email at: [2][email address] or by calling 0800
802 602.

 

Ngâ mihi  

 

OIA Services Team

Ministry of Health  | Manatû Hauora 

M[3]inistry of Health information releases 

 

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: SPENCER JONES <[FOI #31211 email]>
Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2025 12:07
To: OIA Requests <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Response to your official information act request, ref:
H2025068090 CRM:0001765

 

Dear OIA Requests,

**Subject**: Clarification and Request for Further Information – OIA
H2025088090 Response Incomplete

**Kia ora Ministry of Health OIA Team,**

Thank you for your response dated 2 July 2025 regarding OIA request #31211
(Ref: H2025088090).

Upon careful review, I respectfully submit the following follow-up points
and clarification requests, pursuant to sections 13 and 28(3) of the
Official Information Act 1982 (OIA). The response provided fails to supply
several key categories of information sought, relies heavily on
generalised or outdated evidence, and omits consideration of recent
international developments that the Ministry is reasonably expected to
have reviewed, particularly in exercising compulsory powers under section
116C of the Health Act 1956.

---

## 1. **Clarification of Legal Reference – Section 116C vs 116E**

My prior reference to section 116C(4) was a typographical error. The
intent was to reference **Section 116E(3)**, which sets out the
Director-General’s duty to consider “any relevant evidence or information”
before issuing a fluoridation directive.

Please therefore confirm the following:

* What internal frameworks, guidance documents, or review criteria does
the Ministry use to determine what constitutes “relevant evidence or
information” under s116E(3)?
* Were the **NTP 2024 Monograph**, **NTP 2025 meta-analysis**, **Belotti
et al. (2024)**, **EPA reassessment**, or the **October 2024 Cochrane
review** considered as part of this evidence threshold?
* If not, please explain why the Ministry believes it can lawfully
continue to issue fluoridation directives without assessing such material.

---

## 2. **Targeted Evaluation of Recent Scientific Reviews**

You did not supply or confirm whether the Ministry (or University of Otago
under contract) has reviewed:

* The **National Toxicology Program (NTP)** Monograph (August 2024) or
meta-analysis (January 2025),
* The **Cochrane Review (October 2024)** on water fluoridation,
* Or responded to international regulatory developments (e.g. **EPA’s
proposed classification of fluoride as a neurotoxicant**, **Utah’s
legislative ban**, or **EU safety guidance** on fluoride in infant
exposure).

Please confirm:

* Whether any **internal memos, correspondence, or analysis** of the above
were produced or held by the Ministry.
* Whether the 2024 MoH “evidence review” directly assessed these
documents.
* If not, please explain how the Ministry can claim fluoridation remains
“safe and effective” in the absence of a robust review of these recent
findings.

---

## 3. **Exposure Risk Assessment at NZ Fluoride Concentration (0.85
mg/L)**

You declined to provide any analysis of cumulative fluoride exposure risks
at the **current NZ level (0.85 mg/L)**, taking into account common
additive exposures (e.g., toothpaste, tea consumption, infant formula).

Please now provide:

* Any documentation held that examines **total daily fluoride exposure**
in New Zealanders, segmented by age group, including potential exceedances
of the **WHO tolerable upper intake level**.
* If no such data exists, please explain why the Ministry has not
commissioned such analysis before issuing population-wide directives.

---

## 4. **Transdermal Absorption and Showering Risk Assessments**

You stated the Ministry holds no studies of transdermal fluoride
absorption from bathing or showering, and that this route is unlikely to
contribute significantly.

Given growing anecdotal evidence and published hypotheses of transdermal
absorption in high-use scenarios (e.g., eczema, prolonged showering),
please clarify:

* Whether any **international scientific reviews** of this exposure route
have been considered by the Ministry.
* Why this pathway has not been investigated domestically, despite
mandatory dosing via public supply.

---

## 5. **Internal Correspondence – Narrowing Request Scope**

While I acknowledge your interpretation of the correspondence request as
relating to “substantive” documents, please now provide:

* Any **email correspondence, internal briefings, or meeting notes**
involving Ministry officials, panel advisors, or external scientists
between **August 2024 and present** that mention:

* The **NTP Monograph or meta-analysis**,
  * **Neurotoxicity**, **IQ effects**, or fluoride-related **cognitive
risk**,
  * The **Fluoridation (Referendum) Legislation Bill 2025**,
  * Or the **NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990**, s11 analysis and the
Director-General’s obligations under s116E.

This includes draft assessments, review comments, or scientific summaries
not previously released.

---

## 6. **Access to Fluoride Concentration Compliance Data**

You declined the request for fluoride concentration data from the
**Belotti et al. (2024)** study on the grounds that it was not conducted
by the Ministry.

Please confirm whether:

* The Ministry holds **any equivalent historical fluoride concentration
data (1992–2025)** for the 25 local supplies listed in Belotti et al., or
from the **National Drinking Water Register**,
* Or can retrieve this data from the relevant local authorities as part of
your statutory oversight role.

If the Ministry does not hold or track this data, please explain how it
monitors compliance with **fluoridation concentration ranges (0.7–1.0
mg/L)** and exceedances beyond **1.5 mg/L**, which may have public health
implications.

---

## 7. **Omissions Regarding Legal and Ethical Risk Management**

You provided a copy of the February 2024 NZBORA s11 assessment for 14
fluoridation directives but did not address:

* Whether the **NTP findings** or international calls for **independent
inquiry** (e.g., Fluoride Free NZ) were considered in that legal
assessment;
* Whether the Ministry intends to update the risk assessment following the
**EPA reassessment (April 2025)**;
* Or whether it has reviewed the **2024 High Court ruling** on press error
and delegated authority.

Please confirm whether such updates, legal reviews, or risk management
responses are underway or planned.

---

## 8. **Response to Legislative Reform – Fluoridation (Referendum) Bill
2025**

You refused this request under s18(g)(i), stating the Ministry does not
hold information regarding:

* The **Bill of Rights Act 1990 analysis** of the proposed Bill,
* Legal advice or contingency planning in the event of repeal of the
Fluoridation Amendment Act 2021.

Please confirm:

* Whether any **briefings, impact assessments, or draft advice** have
since been initiated regarding the Referendum Bill;
* Whether the Ministry has prepared **contingency plans** for regulatory
or legal challenges to its current fluoridation directives under repealed
powers.

---

## 9. **Right to Complain**

I respectfully reserve the right to lodge a complaint with the Ombudsman
under section 28(3) of the OIA, should the Ministry continue to avoid
substantive engagement with:

* The post-2024 international scientific record,
* The statutory requirement to evaluate “relevant evidence” under s116E,
* And its duty to act transparently and lawfully when exercising coercive
public health powers.

---

Kind regards,

SPENCER JONES

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: SPENCER JONES

Kia ora Ministry of Health OIA Services Team,

Thank you for your 14 July 2025 reply regarding my follow-up to request #31211 (Ref: H2025068090).

I respectfully disagree with your characterisation of my clarification as seeking explanation or opinion. To reiterate:

My refined request is seeking information held, in the form of:
• internal memoranda,
• legal advice or reviews,
• email communications,
• meeting minutes,
• and risk assessments.

These are all forms of information covered under section 2 of the Official Information Act 1982. I do not ask you to create new information or provide subjective commentary. My request has been clearly framed under section 13 of the Act, as a clarification to assist both parties and to avoid ambiguity.

I acknowledge the importance of ensuring OIA requests are not used vexatiously. However, this follow-up is submitted in good faith to better understand how the Ministry has engaged with key legal and scientific evidence in its fluoridation policy decision-making, including under section 116E of the Health Act 1956 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

I note your reference to Ombudsman guidance, and I am happy for the Ombudsman to review both your reply and my refined request to determine whether the Ministry has fulfilled its statutory obligations under the Act.

Kind regards,
Spencer Jones
https://fyi.org.nz/request/31211

Link to this

SPENCER JONES left an annotation ()

📌 User Annotation – OIA Status Summary & Ministry Conduct (Updated 14 July 2025)

This request (#31211) seeks internal evidence, legal reviews, and scientific assessments held by the Ministry of Health (MoH) regarding fluoridation policy under section 116E of the Health Act 1956, with particular focus on:
• NZ-specific risk assessments (e.g. exposure above 0.7 mg/L, cumulative intake from water, tea, toothpaste);
• The 2024–2025 US National Toxicology Program (NTP) findings on neurotoxicity;
• The October 2024 Cochrane Review and EPA fluoride reassessment;
• Legal compliance with the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 (section 11) – right to refuse medical treatment;
• Contingency planning for the 2025 Fluoridation Referendum Bill;
• Any risk assessments or discussions regarding transdermal fluoride exposure.



⚠️ Ministry Response Summary (as at 14 July 2025)
• The MoH provided public summary documents (e.g. Director-General’s 2024 statement) but refused internal records, claiming they are not held.
• The Ministry’s 14 July reply asserted that follow-up questions are “inappropriate” and threatened refusal under section 18(h) (vexatious/frivolous), despite the requester’s lawful clarification under section 13 of the OIA.
• No evidence was provided of reasonable internal searches for memos, legal advice, or correspondence relating to key policy decisions.
• The Ministry has not disclosed any analysis of:
• the NTP 2024 neurotoxicity findings,
• NZBORA compliance (compulsory treatment),
• or transdermal exposure risks.



🧾 Next Steps
• A formal refined request has been submitted, clarifying scope and document types.
• A complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman is being prepared, citing failure to:
• confirm search efforts,
• apply s116E evidence standards transparently,
• engage with public health and human rights concerns in good faith.



🔍 For Others Following This Request:

If you are concerned about fluoride safety, NZ-specific scientific review standards, or government transparency in public health decision-making, consider lodging parallel OIA requests or supporting Ombudsman accountability efforts. These responses raise significant questions about MoH compliance with legal duties under the OIA and Health Act.

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Ministry of Health only: