To: Ministry of Health CC: Te Whatu Ora, Local Councils (e.g., Horowhenua District Council), Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), Taumata Arowai To Whom It May Concern, Under the Official Information Act 1982, I am requesting detailed information regarding water fluoridation in New Zealand to better understand its justification, potential risks, and alternatives. Please provide information on the following: 1. Effectiveness of Fluoridation: What evidence is there to demonstrate that fluoridating water is more effective at improving dental health than alternative methods such as using fluoride toothpaste or targeted dental programs, as seen in many Western European countries? Have studies been conducted comparing the Decayed, Missing, and Filled Teeth (DMFT) scores of fluoridated and non-fluoridated regions within New Zealand? If so, please provide the findings. 2. Public Consent and Choice: Was there any public consultation process before implementing water fluoridation in New Zealand? If so, please provide records of the consultation outcomes. What measures are in place to accommodate those who do not consent to water fluoridation? Are fluoride-removing filters provided or subsidized? 3. Comparative Analysis with Non-Fluoridated Countries: Has New Zealand studied why 97% of Western Europe does not fluoridate its water and yet achieves comparable or better dental health outcomes? If so, please provide the findings. Are there plans to adopt similar practices, such as individual-based approaches using fluoride toothpaste or public dental health education and if so, what are they? If there aren't plans to adopt similar practices, why not? 4. Health and Safety Concerns: What studies have been conducted on the long-term health effects of water fluoridation in New Zealand, specifically regarding endocrine disruption? Please provide copies or summaries. What is the government's position on fluoride being classified as an endocrine disruptor? Given the absence of research into endocrine disruption by fluoride in New Zealand, is the government considering investing in research to address the gap in evidence? How does the government address the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s observation that the lack of evidence may indicate insufficient research rather than an absence of effects? 5. Alternatives to Fluoridation: Has the government evaluated the cost-effectiveness of alternatives like subsidized fluoride toothpaste or targeted dental care programs compared to water fluoridation? Please provide any analyses or reports. What steps has the government taken to explore non-fluoridation methods for improving dental health, as seen in Western Europe? 6. Equity and Access: Are there subsidies or programs in place for low-income families to access fluoride toothpaste or dental care services? If water fluoridation were removed, what plans would the government implement to ensure equitable access to effective dental health solutions for all New Zealanders? 7. Environmental and Infrastructure Concerns: What measures are in place to monitor the impact of fluoridated water on the environment, including groundwater contamination? What is the annual cost of adding fluoride to New Zealand's water supply, and how does this compare to investing in alternative dental health strategies? 8. Future Planning: Are there any plans to conduct public consultations or reviews on water fluoridation policies? Has the government considered a temporary pause or localized pilot studies to assess the impact of removing fluoride from water supplies? This request is addressed to the Ministry of Health as the primary authority responsible for overseeing water fluoridation policies. I have also included Te Whatu Ora, local councils, Taumata Arowai, and the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to ensure region-specific and environmental factors are accounted for. The information requested aims to assess the efficacy, safety, and public consent regarding water fluoridation policies and explore viable alternatives that align with global best practices. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response.

Opening this data would solve the problem of understanding whether water fluoridation in New Zealand is the most effective and safe approach to improving dental health. It would clarify the potential health risks, such as endocrine disruption, and provide evidence to compare fluoridation with alternative strategies used successfully in non-fluoridating countries like Western Europe. Additionally, it would address public concerns about consent, environmental impact, and equitable access to dental care solutions, ensuring transparency and informed decision-making for future water policies.

Opening this data would solve this problem by providing transparency about the effectiveness, safety, and necessity of water fluoridation in New Zealand. It would allow comparisons with alternative dental health strategies used in non-fluoridated countries, clarify potential risks like endocrine disruption, and help assess the cost-effectiveness of current practices. Additionally, it would enable evidence-based discussions about public consent, environmental impacts, and equitable access to dental care, fostering informed decisions on whether fluoridation remains the best option or if alternatives should be explored.