Dear All,

While this battle at times seems overwhelming, it is useful to take stock how far we have come over the last few years. Michael (webmaster for the Fluoride Action Network webpage http://www.fluoridealert.org) has been reviewing recent fluoridation campaign activities around the world and prepared the following list of events. With so much going on there are probably many omissions. If you spot any would you please let us know so that we can continue to update this list.

1. CITIZEN PETITION and INITIATIVE DRIVES.
2. LEGAL VICTORIES.
3. HEALTH DEPARTMENT MANDATES.
4. RECENT REJECTIONS OF FLUORIDATION.
5. QUESTIONING/DEBATING FLUORIDATION.
6. COMMUNITIES WITH FLUORIDATION PROPOSALS.
7. SUBVERSIONS OF ANTI-FLUORIDATION VOTES.

Every victory counts whether it is a village or a large city or a whole country. A victory anywhere gives us hope everywhere. Fluoride free by zero three!

Paul Connett.
————————————————————————

1. CITIZEN PETITION  AND INITIATIVE DRIVES:

Davis County, Utah: Davis citizens have gathered enough signatures (8000+) to force a revote on its mandatory countywide fluoridation program this November. This is a major victory. Hats off to Utah Citizens for Safe Drinking Water. See:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/utah/davis-revote.htm

Redding, California: As with Davis County, Redding Citizens for Safe Drinking Water have gathered enough signatures to put the fluoridation issue to a public vote. They were compelled to do this after the Redding city council voted 4-1 last September to fluoridate the water. See:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/calif/redding-petition.htm
http://www.redding.com/top_stories/local/20020626toplo045.shtml

Watsonville, California: In a proactive twist, with precedent-making potential, Watsonville citizens have gathered enough signatures to put a safe drinking water initiative to a vote this November. “The Watsonville Safe Drinking Water Initiative prohibits the addition of any substance to the public water supply for the purpose of treating people, rather than the water, that has not been specifically approved by the U.S. FDA for safety and effectiveness in accordance with health claims made, at all levels of consumption.

In addition, the proposed citizen-created ordinance would prohibit adding any substance to the public drinking water for treating humans that contains contaminants that exceed already-established California and U.S. public health goals.” This has obvious implications for Watsonville’s current plans for fluoridation. See:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/calif/watsonville-initiative.htm

Billings, Montana: As with Davis Co, Redding and Watsonville, it looks like Billings citizens will be able to gather enough signatures to force a public referendum. They were compelled to do so after the Billings city council voted 9-1 this May to fluoridate Billings water. See:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/mont/council-petition.htm
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/mont/billings-council.vote.htm

Fond du Lac, Wisconsin: Like Billings, Fond du Lac residents are hoping to replicate the success of Davis County, Redding CA, and Watsonville CA, by petitioning for a public vote this November on fluoridation. The Fond du Lac city council voted 5 to 2 against the public referendum, and so residents have had to go on a petition drive to make it a reality. See:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/wisconsin/fdl-petition.htm

2. LEGAL VICTORIES:

Manchester, New Hampshire: A New Hampshire Superior Court judge has ordered an injunction against the fluoridation program in Manchester NH, on the grounds that the city violated state law by fluoridating adjacent communities without allowing the communities their right to referendum. According to Judge Robert J. Lynn, “It necessarily follows that where a single supplier services more than one municipality, there must be a hearing and vote in each of said municipalities.” See:

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_show.html?article=11717
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_show.html?article=11832

Woods Cross, Utah: In June, Woods Cross won a court case which allows them to not take part in Davis County’s current fluoridation mandate. See:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/utah/woods.cross.june-02.htm

Israel: The Israel Union for Environmental Defense and the Union of Local Authorities have won some needed breathing room in their campaign against mandatory fluoridation in Israel. A judge ordered a freeze on all regulations compelling water suppliers serving more than 5,000 residents to fluoridate. According to the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz,

“The order, issued Tuesday by Justice Eliezer Rivlin, will remain in force for three months until the court has debated a petition by the Union of Local Authorities, Herzliya council and the Israel Union for Environmental Defense to annul these laws on grounds that fluoride is dangerous to humans and the environment.” See:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/israel/court-ruling.htm

3. HEALTH DEPARTMENT MANDATES:

Tacoma-Pierce County, Washington: In light of the difficulties proponents of fluoridation are having in winning public referendums, it looks as if they may now begin trying to avoid public referenda by getting Health Departments to simply mandate the measure. This was the approach taken recently by the Tacoma-Pierce County Board of Health in Washington State. Of particular concern is that “Since the April vote, health department directors across the state have congratulated the county on its stand and said they will follow suit if the mandate stands up in court…They’re all waiting to see what happens here.” See:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/WA/TP-mandate.htm
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/WA/TP-salmon.htm

Lakewood, Washington: Lakewood Washington, located within Tacoma/Pierce County, is one of the towns challenging the Health Department’s mandate. See:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/WA/lakewood2.htm
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/WA/lakewood.htm

Methuen, Massachusetts: Under very questionable circumstances, the Methuen Board of Health followed the same path as Tacoma/Pierce County by mandating fluoridation. This despite the fact that Methuen’s citizens have twice voted against fluoridation, the most recent rejection being just 5 years ago. The secretive nature of the Board’s vote sparked quite a bit of controversy in Methuen – and thanks to the efforts of the Mayor – the mandate has since been rescinded. See:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/mass/methuen2.htm
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/mass/methuen.htm

4. RECENT REJECTIONS OF FLUORIDATION:

Mount Alexander Shire, Australia:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/australia/mt-alexander.htm

Franklin, North Carolina:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/NC/franklin.htm

Missoula, Montana:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/ifin-557.htm
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/mont/missoula2.htm

Plainville, Massachusetts:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/Mass/Plainville-referendum.htm

Monroe, Louisiana:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/louisiana/monroe2.htm

Hawaii:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/hawaii/bill-2761.htm

Inglewood & Kaitake, New Zealand:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/ifin-538.htm

Colorado Springs, Colorado:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/COLO/springs-vote.htm

Kennewick, Washington:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/WA/kennewick4.htm

Bennington, Vermont:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/benn-ccdh.htm

Lanai, Hawaii:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/hawaii/lanai2.htm

Cobalt, Ontario (Canada):
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/canada/cobalt2.htm

Erie, Colorado:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/COLO/erie.nov.29.htm

Modesto, California:
http://www.modbee.com/local/story/1130487p-1198287c.html

Worcester, Massachusetts:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/nov-2001.htm

Flagstaff, Arizona:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/AZ/flagstaff-vote.htm

Sutherlin, Oregon:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/nov-2001.htm#4

Kamloops, British Columbia:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/canada/kamloops-vote.htm

Allerdale and Buttermere, West Cumbria, UK.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/UK/NWCAF.2-more.htm (Also see subversion of vote by United Utilities in section 7.)

Ashburton, New Zealand:
See IFIN bulletin #521 (Ashburton voted to stop fluoridation in February , 02, letter from Bill Wilson).

Kumezima,Okinawa prefecture, Japan:
See IFIN bulletin #568.

For a comprehensive list of US & Canadian communities that have rejected fluoridation in the last few years, see:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/communities.htm

5. QUESTIONING/DEBATING FLUORIDATION:

Ireland:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/ireland/archive.htm

Durban, South Africa:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/south-africa/durban.htm

South Africa:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/south-africa/cape-argus.htm

Centerville, Utah:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/utah/centerville-06.07.02.htm

West Jordan, Utah:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/utah/west-jordan.htm

Bolton, England:
http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/Bolton_Evening_News.html

Methven, New Zealand:
See IFIN bulletin #580.

6. COMMUNITIES WITH FLUORIDATION PROPOSALS:

Texarkana, Texas & Texarkana, Arkansas:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/texarkana1.htm

Kennebunk & Kennebunkport, Maine:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/maine/kennebunk.htm

Edwardsburg, Indiana:
http://www.southbendtribune.com/stories/2002/06/23/local.
20020623-sbt-MICH-C3-Edwardsburg_consider.sto

Timaru, New Zealand:
See IFIN bulletin #580.

Geelong, Australia:
Persoanl correspondence with Philip Robertson .

South Africa:
See recent IFIN bulletins # 585 et seq.

7. SUBVERSIONS OF ANTI-FLUORIDATION VOTES.

Allerdale, West Cumbria, UK
See IFIN bulletins #581, 595.