Listed as “one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century”, the future of water fluoridation may well be decided in the courts! The question is, is water fluoridation even legal?
On June 26, 2014, lawyer Nader Hasan, representing the group Concerned Residents of Peel, presented a legal opinion to the Peel Region council informing them that they could be legally responsible for harming residents whose health is put at risk by water fluoridation.
“Not only is the region responsible and liable to the people of Peel, individual councilors are responsible and liable” said Hasan.
He also informed council that the Charter of Rights protecting Canadians against government-inflicted harm are being violated and warned that if fluoride is not removed, a costly legal battle may ensue.
As a dental professional, I have taken the time to research the science behind water fluoridation and I can find no evidence to support its continued use, and in fact, the most current studies suggest that the risks far outweigh the benefits of this highly toxic practice.
In a meta-analysis, researchers from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and China Medical University in Shenyang for the first time combined 27 studies and found strong indications that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development in children. Based on the findings, the authors say that this risk should not be ignored, and that more research on fluoride’s impact on the developing brain is warranted.
I applaud this cautionary approach that is beginning to blossom within the scientific/health community but support the members of the public who do not wish to “wait” for more research to be conducted.
In his summary and opinion, Hasan stated:
“In short, if an Ontario resident can properly present the scientific and medical evidence to an Ontario court, there is a reasonable possibility that an Ontario court would declare the Fluoridation Act and municipal fluoridation programs in Ontario to be unconstitutional and thus invalid. Should that occur, then there is also a real possibility that the Region of Peel would be held legally liable to residents in a lawsuit for harm caused by artificial fluoridation”.
The Peel council, in response, voted to defer a move to reopen the issue until September when the region’s legal staff will present an opinion on Hasan’s arguments.
What is your opinion? Do you think that mass medication of the public is constitutional? I welcome your feedback. Please leave a link back to your own blog if you have one via the commentluv feature here on the site.
Until next time,