International Fluoride Information Network

Good News from California

Dear All,

We received three news items from Jeff Green in California today. The most exciting news is that, despite the sour grapes of the newspaper reporting the matter, we WON in Watsonville. Earlier it was too close to call. Now, all the mailed-in votes have been counted. Another piece of good news is that Redding has officially sealed in the vote against fluoridation there, by turning down the grant of over 1.6 million dollars intended to provide the capital costs of installing the fluoridation equipment there.

A third item is intriquing. The state is refusing to disclose the details of a deal it cut with Cargill for the conversion of the salt ponds it owns in the San Francisco Bay area, into wetlands. Cargill provides most of the hexafluorosilicic acid used to fluoridate most of the water supplies in the US. According to Jeff, "Cargill supplies 70% of the fluoridation chemicals used in the U.S., yet never once has submitted toxicological data on their chemicals and their impurities as required by ANSI/NSF- Standard 60, even under Business Confidentiality Act that seems to be the basis for their secrecy in this salt pond purchase."

Paul Connett - www.fluoridealert.org
November 16, 2002
_________________________________________________________________
News Release Contact: Jeff Green
November 16, 2002 Citizens for Safe Drinking Water (800) 728-3833 greenjeff@cox.net

City of Redding rejects funding for fluoridation
Citing the passage of Ballot Measure A by an approximate 56% majority of voters on November 5, in a short, two-paragraph letter dated November 15, 2002 from City Manager Michael Warren, the City of Redding, California has formally informed the Executive Director of the California Dental Association Foundation that they are unable to accept the Foundation's offer of $1,600,250 for the purpose of fluoridation.

Measure A, enacted by the voters of the City of Redding:
In order to ensure that the public water of Redding is safe to drink, it shall be unlawful and a public nuisance for any person, agent, or any public or private water system, to add any product, substance, or chemical to the public water supply for the purpose of treating or affecting the physical or mental functions of the body of any person, rather than to make water safe or potable, unless the substance meets the following criteria:

1) The substance must have been specifically approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for safety and effectiveness with a margin of safety that is protective for all adverse health and cosmetic effects at all ranges of unrestricted consumption.

2) The substance, at Maximum Use Levels, must contain no contaminants at concentrations that exceed U.S. Maximum Contaminant Level Goals or California Public Health Goals, whichever is more protective.

If any provision of this act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity may not affect other provisions or applications of this act that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable.

Also from Jeff Green:

Once again we see a newspaper create their own facts. You might think that being a reporter would require an ability to read and discern.

The story below, once again, reports that the FDA does not regulate the addition of fluoride to public water supplies. The fact that this is true has nothing to do with measures that are to be enacted in Redding and Watsonville, CA.

Measure A in Redding, CA, and Measure S in Watsonville, CA require that a substance added to the water FOR THE PURPOSE OF FULFILLING A HEALTH CLAIM must have been approved by the U.S. FDA as safe and effective for fulfilling that health claim at the dosages expected from unrestricted consumption. No entity has the authority to make claims of health and safety for a product without the approval of the FDA.

Once again we must reiterate that these two Measures do not require the FDA to regulate water or water additives. These are specifically excluded by the Measures. However, a manufacturer who attempts to sell a product to fulfill a health claim that has not submitted their product for approval from the FDA should expect that these ordinances will prohibit their use in the drinking water, just as they are supposed to be prohibited for any other distribution.

The media's repetition of the opinions of the proponents of fluoridation or even the statements by "State Fluoridation Consultants" belong on the opinion page. The omission of facts about the State law and the Measures passed reveal more about the media's agenda than a true reporting of the actual events.

For those of you that may have missed the importance of the earlier update today, entitled "Cargill deal to stay secret," Cargill supplies 70% of the fluoridation chemicals used in the U.S., yet never once has submitted toxicological data on their chemicals and their impurities as required by ANSI/NSF- Standard 60, even under Business Confidentiality Act that seems to be the basis for their secrecy in this salt pond purchase.

For some reporters, the movie Erin Brockovich must still be a fantasy without any basis in real life.

Voters reject Watsonville fluoridation
By Karen A. Davis - Sentinel staff writer

WATSONVILLE - The final tally on Measure S is in - and it appears those opposed to adding fluoride to the city's water supply have floated to the top. Still, officials say state law may be the final word in the matter.

After all absentee ballots were tallied, the measure apparently passed with 50.9 percent of the vote, or 3,043 votes. Meanwhile, 2,931 voters - 49.1 percent - said no to the measure. A yes vote on the measure meant a voter opposed fluoridation, while a no vote meant a person supported fluoridating the city's water.

It remains to be seen whether the new council, to be seated Nov. 26, will stand on the side of local voters or the state mandate that says the city must fluoridate regardless of the public vote.

Nick Bulaich, spokesman for the fluoridation-opposition group Watsonville Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, is taking a wait-and-see approach.

"We need to see what the council does," he said. "One thing is for sure: A law has been passed by the voters here, and I would fully expect the city attorney (and council) to defend that law."

While City Attorney Alan Smith must wait to see what the council directs him to do, he says the state still mandates that the city fluoridate.

In April, city officials, on a 4-2 vote, accepted a grant of nearly $1 million from the Fluoridation 2010 Work Group to fund the design, purchase and installation of fluoridation treatment equipment and one year of operation and maintenance.

State health officials have said the city is locked into its decision to fluoridate. State Assembly Bill 733 mandates the fluoridation of water systems that have 10,000 or more hookups when funding to do so is provided by a source other than the water agency or the taxpayers the water system serves.

Chuck Carter, one of five council members who supported fluoridation, says he believes some people were confused by the initiative's wording and that could have affected the outcome.

Dr. Jim Jacobson, a Watsonville orthodontist and fluoridation supporter, agreed. Jacobson is a member of the city's Dientes! Community Dental Clinic board and the Monterey Bay Dental Society's Fluoridation Task Force.

Though the initiative did not specifically mention fluoride, the measure was aimed at preventing the city from adding that or other chemicals to the local water supply. Not included were chemicals such as chlorine that make the water safe to drink. Still, the federal Food and Drug Administration does not regulate the addition of fluoride to public water supplies.

Jacobson also believes state mandate will be the final authority in deciding the issue.

"If the state is not going to support its own laws, then any small group of citizens can organize and change state law as they see fit," Jacobson said.

Fluoride opponent Dan Hernandez, also a member of the Citizens for Safe Drinking Water group, said the state's money would be better spent on health programs that teach area residents good dental hygiene habits, rather than on fluoridating the city's water.

"The people have spoken," Hernandez said. "I hope the council will take that into consideration. But no matter what, we'll prepare for a lawsuit because that will probably come next."
Contact Karen A. Davis at kdavis@santa-cruz.com.
You can find this story online at:
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2002/November/16/local/stories/03local.htm
Copyright © Santa Cruz Sentinel. All rights reserved.
________________________________________________________________

Cargill deal to stay secret
By Paul Rogers

The Davis administration on Friday said it will not release copies of contracts, toxic studies and other key documents surrounding its proposed $100 million purchase of industrial salt ponds ringing the South Bay from Cargill Salt to create wetlands.

The announcement, made at a public hearing in Palo Alto, brought immediate criticism from environmentalists, taxpayer groups and open government advocates. They said the high level of secrecy threatens to erode public support for the deal, which, if successful, could rank as the nation's largest wetlands restoration outside the Florida Everglades.

"This is the biggest wetlands acquisition ever to take place in California,'' said Marc Holmes, a spokesman for the Bay Institute, an environmental group that has backed the sale. "It has enormous importance. The public has a right to scrutinize the details.''

State officials also said the close of the deal, already two months behind, will probably be completed in March.

At the hearing, the state's two top negotiators, state Fish and Game Director Bob Hight and state Wildlife Conservation Board Executive Director Al Wright, said they will not release the purchase contract, independent toxics studies of the land, appraisals and other reports. All the documents are expected to be finished by mid-February.

Hight and Wright said they are following state law and working to protect the privacy of Cargill Salt, the Minneapolis-based agribusiness giant that is offering 16,500 acres of salt evaporation ponds for sale. The ponds stretch from Redwood City to Alviso to Hayward.

"The reason for that is to protect the private party's rights in case acquisition doesn't occur,'' Hight said.

Hight said an agreement between Cargill and the government should be reached in mid-December. The state Wildlife Conservation Board, an agency that buys parklands with public money, will vote on the final deal in mid-February, he said.

Under questioning from state Sen. Byron Sher, D-San Jose, who chaired the hearing, both Hight and Wright said they plan to issue a synopsis of the documents.

But they will not release the actual documents, they said. Wright said toxics reports, which reportedly have found some levels of mercury contamination on the lands, contain "proprietary information'' that Cargill does not want released, Wright said.

Sher urged them to reconsider.

"In my view this is not enough,'' he said. "The public needs to be able to make a judgment about whether this is a good deal.''

Both the state and federal governments have refused requests by the Mercury News to make public the appraisals that placed the land's value at $243 million. Cargill is expected to seek a tax write-off for $143 million of the price.

Sher told the Mercury News that he asked to see the appraisals but was told by Hight, Wright and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that he must first sign a confidentiality agreement. He declined.

Open-records experts said Friday that the state is violating the law if it refuses to release a signed purchase contract or the toxics studies before the Wildlife Conservation Board votes.

"There's nothing in the law that makes it confidential or allows an agency to take this position,'' said Terry Francke, general counsel for the First Amendment Coalition, based in Sacramento.

"This is the public's money. People rightfully want to know all the conditions. Is this a white elephant? Is it a good deal for the state?''

Francke said that the last time the Davis administration withheld information about major contracts was when it was negotiating with power companies for long-term electricity purchases two years ago. Public outcry was so great that Gov. Gray Davis finally released the contracts, revealing that he had paid three times the current market rate for electricity, locking the state into $43 billion in debt.

"If a developer were to tell a family buying a home, `I'm sorry we can't share termite reports and safety inspections with you because it is proprietary and if it got out it might hurt our business,' what would your reaction be?'' Francke said.

Taxpayer groups agreed.

"It is the taxpayers who are the buyers,'' said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. "To suggest that those who are footing the bill should not be informed is an arrogant attitude on the part of those making the deal.''

California Government Code Section 6254 says state agencies have discretion to release or keep secret "The contents of real estate appraisals or engineering or feasibility estimates and evaluations . . . until all of the property has been acquired or all of the contract agreement obtained.''

Francke said that language doesn't allow the state to withhold the Cargill purchase contract or toxics studies.

"This is about accountability,'' he said. "The public must have the ability to keep its eye on its own purse and to evaluate the quality of people who are negotiating these deals.''
San Jose Mercury News Posted on Sat, Nov. 16, 2002
Contact Paul Rogers at progers@sjmercury.com or (408) 920-5045. © 2001 mercurynews and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.bayarea.com