European Court Ruling spells an end to water Fluoridation

[Guest guest]

This just in from my friend Cassandra.

Yours in Knowledge, Health and Freedom,

Doc

 

 

 

 

Dear Doc,

 

This is a very exciting article!

 

Love,

 

Cassandra

 

 

 

European Court Ruling

spells an end to

water fluoridation

Doug Cross

UK Council Against Water Fluoridation

July 22, 2009

Fluoridated

water must be

treated as a medicine, and cannot be used to prepare foods. That is the

decision of the European Court of Justice, in a landmark case dealing

with the

classification and regulation of ‘functional drinks’ in member states

of the European Community. (HLH Warenvertriebs and Orthica (Joined

Cases

C-211/03, C-299/03, C-316/03 and C-318/03) 9 June 2005)

Functional

drinks are those

products that have two different purposes – for example, nutrition and

exerting a positive effect on some medical condition. They include

‘near-water drinks with added minerals’ and, in view of the

properties claimed for fluoridated water by fluoride advocates, it must

be

classified as a ‘funtional food’, and therefore falls within the scope

of the relevant legislation.

Medicinal law

takes precedent

over food law.

The Court ruled

that, where

two different sets of rules appear to apply to a product, medicinal

legislation

must take precedent, and the product must be regulated as a medicine.

It

emphasised that medicines regulators in member states do not have the

power to

exercise discretion on the classification of such dual-function

products. The

repeated refusal of the British and Irish Regulators to recognise

fluoridated

water as a medicinal product is therefore an unlawful misuse of their

powers,

and one that requires immediate reversal.

ECJ rulings do

not establish

new laws, but clarify how existing ones should be applied, and are

enforceable

in the domestic legislation of all member states of the EC. In effect,

this

decision at last confirms the claim that I have made for many years –

that existing medicinal law has always required that fluoridated water

be

regulated as a medicine. Fluoridated water has no medicinal marketing

authorization (’product license’), and because of this it is

– and always has been – illegal to supply it to the public, as the

1968 Medicines Act confirms.

As a ‘medicinal

water’, the protection afforded by the water quality regulations that

shield consumers from hazardous substances in drinking water does not

apply.

Its use in the processing of foodstuffs is also prohibited, under the

food

safety legislation. Aa a direct result of this ruling, all English and

Irish

legislation providing for water fluoridation are at last exposed as

having been

in violation of that fundamental prohibition, and must now be repealed.

Prohibition of

use of

fluoridated water in foods

 

But the Court

also ruled that

such functional food products must not be used in the preparation of

foods. As

a ‘medicinal water’ the fluoridated product cannot be regarded as

equivalent to the mandatory ‘water for human consumption’ specified

for drinking and food preparation. So now every food wholesale and

retail

outlet in fluoridated areas of the UK and Ireland, from the corner

chip-shop to

the largest brewery, from the small high-street bakery to the largest

supermarket retailers – all will now have to either cease production or

install an alternative water supply.

Implications for

international trade in food products

But the ruling

also has an

equally profound implication for export trade in processed foods and

drinks.

The Court stated that even if a functional food product (or a food

containing

it) is legally marketed as a food in one member state, it cannot be

exported to

any other member state unless it has a medicinal licence. So any

company making

a consumable product using fluoridated water in its preparation or as

an

ingredient cannot now export that product to any other state in the EC,

even if

their product is permitted in their home state.

The economic

implications are

enormous. Not only does the ruling ban the use of fluoridated water for

all

retail catering and wholesale food processing in the UK and Ireland, it

also

prohibits such trade from these states to other member states of the

EC. But it

goes much further than even this, because if British and Irish

processed foods

from fluoridated areas cannot be exported to the EC, this prohibition

must also

apply to the importing of such products into EC member states from any

other

country that practices water fluoridation. The decision effectively

bans all

processed food products from countries such as the USA, Australia and

New

Zealand, unless they can be positively proven to have been prepared

using only

water that was not fluoridated.

What does this

mean for water

undertakers who fluoridate their product?

Before British

water

undertakers allow Strategic Health Authorities to order them to start

fluoridating their water they need to be fully aware of the

implications to

them and their shareholders should they agree to do so. Not only are

medical

damages compensation claims likely to be far higher, with charges of

negligently supplying an unlawful product forming the basis of class

actions,

food processers who lose their markets will certainly hold their water

undertaker accountable in law for their losses. This ruling means that

Courts

in other member states of the EC must support demands from competing

food

processors that an embargo be placed on British and Irish products

unless they

can be proven to have been manufactured using only non-fluoridated

water.

I have

previously warned that

this illegal product substitution cannot be permitted to continue, and

that

members of the public are entirely entitled to demand to be supplied

with water

that complies with, and is regulated under, the drinking water quality

standards that are enforceable under both EC and UK (and Irish) law.

Since the

ruling must be enforced in all EC member states, water companies will

now have

to come off the fence and accept that fluoridated water is not an

acceptable

alternative drinking water.

The only way out

–

repeal all fluoridation laws and ban the product.

This decision

completely

supports the challenge that I have issued repeatedly to the UK

Regulator, the

MHRA – identify the case law that justifies your perverse claim that

this

product is not a medicine. Ironically, it was the MHRA itself that

finally gave

the game away, in a formal response to another Regulator, the

Advertising Standards

Authority (ASA). In what I can only assume was a deliberate attempt to

mislead

the ASA, the MHRA actually cited this case in support of its continued

perverse

refusal to implement the medicines legislation that it is obliged to

enforce!

The beginning of

the end

– fluoridation must now be banned, worldwide.

This ECJ ruling

effectively

puts the final nail in the coffin of water fluoridation, not only

within the EC

but worldwide. It establishes a very substantial but entirely justified

obstacle to trade in food products that are prepared without proper

regard to

the protection of the public that is enshrined in law. The ruling must

be

recognised and enforced not only in every memebr state, but also in any

external state that wishes to trade with the EC in processed foods. So

just

what can be done to resolve the present unacceptable situation?

One solution

would be to

grant a medicinal licence to fluoridated water. But the Court ruled

that any

evaluation of a functional drink may only be done under the rigorous

procedures

required to scrutinise any pharmaceutical product. In the present state

of

scientific concern over the evidence of its lack of efficacy and safety

it is

impossible to imagine that such a licence could ever be granted. If it

were, it

would immediately result in a world-wide denunciation from the

scientific

community that is fully aware of the improper commercial influence that

is at

the heart of the international promotion of fluoridated products.

The only

acceptable response

is to call a halt to this controversial practice now. The experience of

the

past half century has shown that it is completely unjustified – indeed,

it is responsible for what may reasonably be described as a pandemic of

avoidable chronic fluoride poisoning. In ruling that this type of

product must

be regulated under medicinal law, the Court has taken the final step

towards

bringing this disreputable practice to a long-delayed end. Let us hope

that

national Governments all over the world will heed this decision – the

economic consequences will be dire for those who continue to attempt to

continue this discredited and illegal practice.

http://www.infowars.com/european-court-ruling-spells-an-end-to-water-fluoridation/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment: vcard [not shown]

[Guest guest]

Let's hope this finds its way into America!

 

Lori"I feel ashamed that so many of us cannot imagine a better way to do things than locking children up all day in cells instead of letting them grow up knowing their families, mingling with the world, assuming real obligations, striving to be independent and self-reliant and free." - John Taylor Gatto

 

herbal remedies (AT) Groups (DOT) comFrom: DocDate: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 22:19:16 -0400{Herbal Remedies} European Court Ruling spells an end to water Fluoridation

 

 

This just in from my friend Cassandra.Yours in Knowledge, Health and Freedom,Doc

 

 

 

Dear Doc,This is a very exciting article!Love,Cassandra

 

 

 

European Court Ruling spells an end to water fluoridation

Doug CrossUK Council Against Water FluoridationJuly 22, 2009

Fluoridated water must be treated as a medicine, and cannot be used to prepare foods. That is the decision of the European Court of Justice, in a landmark case dealing with the classification and regulation of ‘functional drinks’ in member states of the European Community. (HLH Warenvertriebs and Orthica (Joined Cases C-211/03, C-299/03, C-316/03 and C-318/03) 9 June 2005)

Functional drinks are those products that have two different purposes – for example, nutrition and exerting a positive effect on some medical condition. They include ‘near-water drinks with added minerals’ and, in view of the properties claimed for fluoridated water by fluoride advocates, it must be classified as a ‘funtional food’, and therefore falls within the scope of the relevant legislation.

Medicinal law takes precedent over food law.

The Court ruled that, where two different sets of rules appear to apply to a product, medicinal legislation must take precedent, and the product must be regulated as a medicine. It emphasised that medicines regulators in member states do not have the power to exercise discretion on the classification of such dual-function products. The repeated refusal of the British and Irish Regulators to recognise fluoridated water as a medicinal product is therefore an unlawful misuse of their powers, and one that requires immediate reversal.

ECJ rulings do not establish new laws, but clarify how existing ones should be applied, and are enforceable in the domestic legislation of all member states of the EC. In effect, this decision at last confirms the claim that I have made for many years – that existing medicinal law has always required that fluoridated water be regulated as a medicine. Fluoridated water has no medicinal marketing authorization (’product license’), and because of this it is – and always has been – illegal to supply it to the public, as the 1968 Medicines Act confirms.

As a ‘medicinal water’, the protection afforded by the water quality regulations that shield consumers from hazardous substances in drinking water does not apply. Its use in the processing of foodstuffs is also prohibited, under the food safety legislation. Aa a direct result of this ruling, all English and Irish legislation providing for water fluoridation are at last exposed as having been in violation of that fundamental prohibition, and must now be repealed.

Prohibition of use of fluoridated water in foods

 

But the Court also ruled that such functional food products must not be used in the preparation of foods. As a ‘medicinal water’ the fluoridated product cannot be regarded as equivalent to the mandatory ‘water for human consumption’ specified for drinking and food preparation. So now every food wholesale and retail outlet in fluoridated areas of the UK and Ireland, from the corner chip-shop to the largest brewery, from the small high-street bakery to the largest supermarket retailers – all will now have to either cease production or install an alternative water supply.

Implications for international trade in food products

But the ruling also has an equally profound implication for export trade in processed foods and drinks. The Court stated that even if a functional food product (or a food containing it) is legally marketed as a food in one member state, it cannot be exported to any other member state unless it has a medicinal licence. So any company making a consumable product using fluoridated water in its preparation or as an ingredient cannot now export that product to any other state in the EC, even if their product is permitted in their home state.

The economic implications are enormous. Not only does the ruling ban the use of fluoridated water for all retail catering and wholesale food processing in the UK and Ireland, it also prohibits such trade from these states to other member states of the EC. But it goes much further than even this, because if British and Irish processed foods from fluoridated areas cannot be exported to the EC, this prohibition must also apply to the importing of such products into EC member states from any other country that practices water fluoridation. The decision effectively bans all processed food products from countries such as the USA, Australia and New Zealand, unless they can be positively proven to have been prepared using only water that was not fluoridated.

What does this mean for water undertakers who fluoridate their product?

Before British water undertakers allow Strategic Health Authorities to order them to start fluoridating their water they need to be fully aware of the implications to them and their shareholders should they agree to do so. Not only are medical damages compensation claims likely to be far higher, with charges of negligently supplying an unlawful product forming the basis of class actions, food processers who lose their markets will certainly hold their water undertaker accountable in law for their losses. This ruling means that Courts in other member states of the EC must support demands from competing food processors that an embargo be placed on British and Irish products unless they can be proven to have been manufactured using only non-fluoridated water.

I have previously warned that this illegal product substitution cannot be permitted to continue, and that members of the public are entirely entitled to demand to be supplied with water that complies with, and is regulated under, the drinking water quality standards that are enforceable under both EC and UK (and Irish) law. Since the ruling must be enforced in all EC member states, water companies will now have to come off the fence and accept that fluoridated water is not an acceptable alternative drinking water.

The only way out – repeal all fluoridation laws and ban the product.

This decision completely supports the challenge that I have issued repeatedly to the UK Regulator, the MHRA – identify the case law that justifies your perverse claim that this product is not a medicine. Ironically, it was the MHRA itself that finally gave the game away, in a formal response to another Regulator, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). In what I can only assume was a deliberate attempt to mislead the ASA, the MHRA actually cited this case in support of its continued perverse refusal to implement the medicines legislation that it is obliged to enforce!

The beginning of the end – fluoridation must now be banned, worldwide.

This ECJ ruling effectively puts the final nail in the coffin of water fluoridation, not only within the EC but worldwide. It establishes a very substantial but entirely justified obstacle to trade in food products that are prepared without proper regard to the protection of the public that is enshrined in law. The ruling must be recognised and enforced not only in every memebr state, but also in any external state that wishes to trade with the EC in processed foods. So just what can be done to resolve the present unacceptable situation?

One solution would be to grant a medicinal licence to fluoridated water. But the Court ruled that any evaluation of a functional drink may only be done under the rigorous procedures required to scrutinise any pharmaceutical product. In the present state of scientific concern over the evidence of its lack of efficacy and safety it is impossible to imagine that such a licence could ever be granted. If it were, it would immediately result in a world-wide denunciation from the scientific community that is fully aware of the improper commercial influence that is at the heart of the international promotion of fluoridated products.

The only acceptable response is to call a halt to this controversial practice now. The experience of the past half century has shown that it is completely unjustified – indeed, it is responsible for what may reasonably be described as a pandemic of avoidable chronic fluoride poisoning. In ruling that this type of product must be regulated under medicinal law, the Court has taken the final step towards bringing this disreputable practice to a long-delayed end. Let us hope that national Governments all over the world will heed this decision – the economic consequences will be dire for those who continue to attempt to continue this discredited and illegal practice.

http://www.infowars.com/european-court-ruling-spells-an-end-to-water-fluoridation/

 

Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Store, access, and share your photos. See how.