Kia ora,

I am writing to request some information under the Official Information Act to help me better understand the methodology used to assess safety in the "Community water fluoridation: New Zealand Bill of Rights Act analysis" (Appendix 1, dated November 2024).

On page 13 of this November 2024 analysis, the document assesses the safety of the mandate, stating that "The Oral Health Survey indicated that fluorosis prevalence is not increasing" and concludes that the policy "does not give rise to significant health risks." To ensure I am reviewing the correct data methodology that informed this specific conclusion, could you please provide the following:

1. Clarification of Source Data:
Please explicitly confirm the specific year and publication title of the "Oral Health Survey" that the Director-General is referencing in the above quote on page 13 to conclude that fluorosis prevalence is not increasing. (e.g., Is this referencing the 2009 New Zealand Oral Health Survey, or a different dataset?)

2. Internal Briefings Provided TO the Director-General:
Assuming the reference points to the 2009 Oral Health Survey (where clinical decay was surveyed from ages 2 to 75+, but fluorosis data was restricted solely to ages 8–30), please provide any internal memo or working document submitted to the Director-General prior to the finalisation of the November 2024 analysis that explains how the safety of the mandate was assessed for children aged 0–7 and adults aged 31+.

3. Location within the Published November 2024 NZBORA Analysis:
I am unable to locate where this specific demographic data exclusion (the absence of fluorosis data for the 0–7 and 31+ cohorts) is disclosed to the public. If this methodological limitation is recorded within the final published November 2024 analysis, please provide the exact page and paragraph numbers where it can be found.

4. Confirmation of Omission:
If the exclusion of the 0–7 and 31+ demographics from the primary fluorosis safety data was neither briefed internally to the Director-General (as per Question 2) nor recorded in the final published November 2024 NZBORA analysis (as per Question 3), please explicitly confirm this omission.

5. The Longitudinal Safety Data (The "Not Increasing" Metric):
To establish that a prevalence is "not increasing" requires a comparative longitudinal assessment between at least two points in time. Please provide the specific subsequent clinical survey, dataset, or contemporary surveillance reporting from between 2010 and November 2024 that the Director-General compared against the 2009 baseline to legally conclude on page 13 that the prevalence "is not increasing." If no such contemporary comparative dataset was provided to the Director-General, please explicitly confirm this omission.

Thank you for your time and help in clarifying this.
Alisha Riley