Dear Ministry of Health,

Under the Official Information Act 1982, I request the following information relating to community water fluoridation decisions made under the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Act 2021:

1. Copies of any internal or external reviews, briefings, scientific assessments, or correspondence since 1 August 2024 that evaluate or respond to the National Toxicology Program Monograph 8 (2024, updated 2025), titled “Fluoride and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes.”

2. Any documents, memos, or legal advice reflecting how the Director-General of Health has considered Section 92I(5) of the Health Act 1956, which prohibits compulsory medical treatment, in relation to water fluoridation directives issued under Section 116C.

3. Any internal or commissioned Ministry of Health evaluations of non-oral fluoride exposure, such as transdermal (skin) or aerosol/inhalation absorption from fluoridated public water supplies.

Please provide the requested information in electronic format. If any part of this request is refused, please provide the legal grounds under the Act and specify which part is being withheld and why.

I am aware of and support Erika Whittome’s related OIA request (#30696) on FYI.org.nz. This is a complementary request intended to clarify and expand on unresolved matters in that correspondence.

Yours faithfully,

SPENCER JONES

Kia ora Ministry of Health OIA Services,

Thank you for your acknowledgement of my OIA request (H2025068786) regarding community water fluoridation decisions under the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Act 2021. I appreciate your indication that relevant documents have been located and understand that processing time may be extended due to workload.

However, I wish to formally raise the following concerns:

⸻

🔍 Clarification Required – Apparent Misaddressed Response

Your most recent communication appears to be addressed to “Hayden” and references a different request number (H2025068164), with attached materials (Philips Healthcare recall notices) that are unrelated to the subject of my request. This suggests a possible administrative mix-up or cross-posting error.

Can you please confirm:
• That my request (H2025068786) is still being processed independently,
• That no documents intended for another requester were incorrectly sent to me, and
• Whether any documents relevant to my actual request have been released or withheld so far.

⸻

📄 Substantive Gaps in Response

To reiterate, I specifically requested:
1. Any internal reviews, assessments, or correspondence concerning NTP Monograph 8 (2024, updated 2025) on fluoride neurotoxicity;
2. Legal advice or policy documents on how Section 92I(5) of the Health Act 1956 was considered when issuing directives under Section 116C;
3. Scientific evaluations of non-oral fluoride exposure, including transdermal and aerosol absorption pathways.

Your reply has not yet provided any documents relevant to those three points, nor any indication of whether such documents exist, will be released, or are being withheld.

⸻

⚖️ Legal Grounds and Public Interest

Your letter references sections 9(2)(a), 9(2)(b)(ii), and 9(2)(ba)(i) as potential withholding grounds. I request that, for each document withheld, you please:
• Specify which statutory ground applies,
• Confirm whether the public interest test under section 9(1) has been applied,
• Provide a schedule of the documents being processed, including their intended release date(s), if any.

⸻

📆 Timeliness and Right to Complain

This request was lodged on 18 June 2025. While I understand that delays may occur, I reserve the right to seek a formal review by the Ombudsman under section 28(3) of the OIA if the staged release timeline and scope remain unclear by 16 July 2025, or if relevant documents are not released in a timely and transparent manner.

⸻

🧾 Reference to Related Request

My request was framed in support of, and in addition to, OIA Request #30696 by Erika Whittome. That request was responded to on 3 July 2025 (H2025088090) but also failed to address key matters, such as transdermal fluoride absorption, legal compliance with Section 92I(5), or scientific engagement with the updated NTP findings.

I respectfully ask that the Ministry treat these interlinked requests with the seriousness and specificity they deserve.

Kind regards,
Spencer Jones
FYI Requester – OIA #31339
https://fyi.org.nz/request/31339

Thank you for your response dated 17 July 2025 (Ref: H2025068786) to my request titled “Request for Fluoridation Review Post-NTP and Health Act Compliance”.

Upon review, I believe several reasonable information pathways were not fully addressed. Under the Official Information Act 1982, I now request the following additional and clarifying information:

1. Internal and External Correspondence and Memos on NTP Monograph 8 (2024, updated 2025)

Please provide:

Copies of all emails, internal memoranda, meeting minutes, briefing papers, or discussion documents referencing:

“NTP Monograph 8” OR

“National Toxicology Program” AND

“fluoride”, “neurodevelopment”, or “IQ”

Search Window: 1 August 2024 to present
Offices to search:

Office of the Director-General of Health

Office of the Chief Science Advisor

Public Health Agency

Population Health and Prevention Directorate

MoH legal team and external legal advisors

Any consultation with the Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor (OPMCSA), ESR, Royal Society Te Apārangi, or DHBs

2. Legal Advice or Documentation Regarding Section 92I(5) of the Health Act 1956

Please confirm whether any of the following exist since 2021:

Internal legal opinions or memoranda assessing whether the issuance of community water fluoridation directives may engage Section 92I(5) of the Health Act 1956 or Section 11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990;

Risk assessments, meeting notes, or correspondence advising the Director-General on the legal implications of such directives under the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Act 2021.

If no such documents exist, please provide:

A formal statement explaining how the Ministry satisfies its public law obligations when issuing binding directions under Section 116C without conducting a documented legal review under Section 92I(5).

3. Assessment of Non-Oral Exposure Pathways (Transdermal, Aerosolised, Inhaled Fluoride)

Please provide:

Any internal analysis, commissioned research, briefing documents, or correspondence that considered or ruled out non-oral exposure pathways, including but not limited to:

Transdermal absorption (e.g. bathing, showering)

Aerosol or inhalation exposure (e.g. steam inhalation, nebulised forms)

Timeframe: From 1 January 2020 to present
If no documents exist, please confirm:

Whether the Ministry consulted other agencies (e.g. ESR, EPA, HPA, WHO) or declined to undertake such research and why.

Additional Search Clarification

To ensure a lawful and complete search under sections 13 and 15 of the OIA, please provide:

A schedule of documents considered responsive to the original OIA (#31339), including those withheld in full or part, and

Confirmation of search parameters used (keywords, date range, staff consulted, systems searched).

Reminder of Legal Obligations

Please note that under Section 13 of the OIA, the Ministry is obliged to provide reasonable assistance in clarifying and fulfilling information requests. If any parts of this request are considered too broad, I request that you contact me to refine them.

Kind regards,,
Spencer Jones
Via FYI.org.nz: https://fyi.org.nz/request/31339