As you may learn from the investigation report, an audio file of this closed meeting already exists and I have simply requested that it be made available to myself.  (I have also pointed out that it should be made readily available to all members of the public by posting it along with meeting minutes on the Region’s website.)

Letters to Mayor Jeffrey regarding fluoridation of water supply

1. Mayor Jeffrey, am I to understand that the only source you replied upon as the basis for your“Cavity Protection for All“ statements is the word of Dr. de Villa?  If not, kindly forward to me the scientific and legal materials that youreplied upon.  To be clear, I am not asking for you to now contact Dr. de Villa and ask her for materials to substantiate your published statements, rather I am asking for you to list and provide the materials, if any, that you relied upon at the time your newsletter was published.

2.  Mayor Jeffrey, when you published your statements, were you aware or not aware that Dr. de Villa is a Member of Ontario’s Association of Local Public Health Agencies (alPHa), which told its members, in writing, in February 2011:

I look forward to your replies to each of my 8 queries listed above.

August 2, 2016

Investigation Report finds the Region of Peel breached the open meetings requirement

Conclusion (found on page 8): “Amberley Gavel has concluded that Council for the Region of Peel breached the open meetings requirement of the Municipal Act when meeting in closed session under section 239.(3.1) of the Municipal Act on January 21, 2016.”

Click to read the full report

Do you think the public should be able to hear meetings discussing their health? Email your Councillor and let them know!

April 20, 2016

Dorota Wozny’s Letter to the Peel Community Water Fluoridation Committee

Dear Community Water Fluoridation Committee members: 
Ms. Johanna Downey, Ms. Anette Groves, Ms. Carolyn Parrish, Ms. Karen Ras, Mr. Frank Dale, Mr. Michael Palleschi, Mr. John Sprovieri and Mr. Jim Tovey;

RE: Region of Peel Water Fluoridation

As a concerned resident of the Region of Peel I’m writing this letter to ask my councillors who make up the Community Water Fluoridation Committee to vote against municipal drinking water fluoridation; against  adding fluorosilicic/ hydrofluorosilicic (HF(aq)) / hexafluorosilicic  acids (H2SiF6)/ superphosphate fertilizer waste products,  into our municipal drinking water, labeled as water fluoridation, which is the water that my family and I have no choice but to drink.  The current practice of adding Sodium Fluoride (NaF) by-product compounds into our municipal drinking water is questionable in many ways and touches upon issues which the region has not yet addressed.  As the region is conducting broader public consultation on this long standing controversial practice, I would like to take this opportunity to express my concerns.

As a resident and ratepayer in the Region of Peel, I have engaged in my own research on the subject of municipal drinking water fluoridation from an ethical, legal and health perspective.  Since my research was very lengthy, I will simply express my opinion based on findings.

First of all, it is unethical to add industrial by-products to water supply.  The concept of adding toxic substances to the public’s water without informed consent is completely unethical as well as criminal. The act of adding fluorosilicic acid into drinking water constitutes forced medication of unsuspecting public and violates medical ethics.  In Ontario, capacity is defined by the Health Care Consent Act as understanding the information that is needed to make a decision and the ability to appreciate the consequences and/or risks of that decision. A person is presumed to be capable of making health care decisions unless there are reasonable grounds to suspect incapacity, meaning they are unable to make some or all of their care decisions. Hence, by forcefully medicating the residents of the Region of Peel, via adding unwanted fluoride into drinking water, the municipality is violating the Health Care Consent Act, and by doing so, it presumes that all residents are incapable of making their own health care decisions.  Such presumption is incorrect, unethical and illegal.

Please note, that even if a resident of the Region of Peel would give consent to drinking fluoridated municipal water, the decision to drink uncontrollable amount of fluoride in tap water would be made based on misinformed consent.  For consent to be informed, a person must have access to adequate and sufficient information on which to base their decisions.  The Region of Peel has not, in any capacity, even remotely mentioned anywhere in its publications any negative health effects associated with ingesting fluoridated water.  By failing to inform the public of any risks associated with drinking fluoridated municipal water, no matter how insignificant such risks might appear to be, the region has not done due diligence and it has failed to provide adequate and sufficient information on which residents base pertinent decisions.

Next, drinking fluoridated water is bad for human health.  In the past, as well as now, research continues to illustrate the long-term damaging effects of adding this industrial by-product to water supply.  Also, science continues to validate earlier claims about the adverse health effects of water fluoridation including water fluoridation being the cause of a variety of health problems.  These problems include lowered IQs, hypothyroidism and increased risks for certain cancers.  For years, scientists have warned leaders of the dangers of water fluoridation including Dr. Dean Burk PhD who was a well accomplished American biochemist, medical researcher and a cancer researcher at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute and the National Cancer Institute where he was a senior chemist and then the head of the cytochemistry laboratory.  He taught biochemistry at the Cornell University medical school and was a research master at George Washington University; he published more than 250 scientific articles in his lifetime; he stated that fluoride causes more human cancer deaths and causes it faster than any other chemical.  Dr. Dean Burk used his fifty years of cancer research experience to come to that conclusion.  There are  many other pertinent scholars whose work and findings should be studied in order to draw objective, scientific, influence free, conclusions on the issue of water fluoridation.

Recent research shows that about fifty percent of all fluoride ingested is stored in the body, accumulating in tissues such as teeth, bones and the pineal gland in the brain, according to Richard Wiles, co-founder of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a research organization based in Washington, D.C.  One of the most recent studies documenting the adverse health effects of water fluoridation comes from the University of Kent, a public research university in the United Kingdom.  Scientists studied data obtained from nearly every medical practice in England and discovered that fluoride may be increasing the risk for hypothyroidism, a condition in which the thyroid gland fails to produce enough hormones, resulting in symptoms such as fatigue, obesity and depression.  Published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, the study included the largest population ever analyzed in relation to the adverse health effects caused by water fluoridation.  I believe that such pertinent scientific revelations should be mentioned in Region of Peel publications and your committee should address this issue in order to represent the public in an accountable and transparent manner as stipulated in the Municipal Councillor’s Guide.

Residents of the Region of Peel who are rate payers, hence pay for your salaries; who are also voters and vote for you to be fairly and adequately represented; these people assume that they are the ultimate stakeholders in the issue of municipal water fluoridation.  As a resident of Mississauga and a business professional, I can’t help but view this issue from a business perspective. Mississauga, being a Corporation of the City of Mississauga has been partnering up with various industries and businesses and has been forming public and mutual benefit not-for-profit platforms in order to facilitate interaction and business transactions.  Hence, new partners and their affiliates have now increased the municipal pool of stakeholders; their roles in resource interactions, as well as their economic, business and personal objectives.

The municipal decision making environment has now changed as these new stakeholders tend to exert economic influence.  Who are the stakeholders in the issue of water fluoridation? How do these stakeholders influence your decision making process? How does your committee prioritize stakeholders when it comes to accountability and why?  Residents need transparency on this issue as there seems to be a conflict of stakeholder interest when it comes to the issue of water fluoridation.   Does your committee follow a social contract political concept to deal with stakeholders or is a strategic management approach utilized that looks at the principle of who and what really counts when analyzing stakeholders?

I think that these questions are very important because by answering them, the Community Water Fluoridation Committee will establish a precedent regarding the process involved when deciding whether or not to fluoridate the region’s drinking water, as per disclosed influences.  The lack of transparency together with the closed door policy has left constituents in the dark on this issue.  According to the Municipal Act, “municipal committees whose membership is made up of at least fifty 50per cent of people who also serve as members on a municipal council or a local board must conduct their meetings in accordance with the open meetings provisions in the legislation – including proper record keeping done by the appropriate officer. The municipal procedures bylaw would also apply to these committees.”  Currently, the committee does not seem to be following that mandate. Consequently, the public is justified in suspecting a possible conflict of interest or moral hazard because there are no publicly available records, or minutes of meetings, available to prove otherwise.  Hence, it is reasonable to assume that some civil servants, or the municipality as a whole may be involved in a conflict of interest situation, whether they know it or not and which has or has not been disclosed.

Further to public business conduct, according to the Municipal Councillor’s Guide:  “The Act includes provisions related to the transparency and accountability of council as well as its local boards and committees, including the conduct of meetings and the public’s right to attend them. Transparent decision making processes may be seen as part of the foundation of the good governance of a municipality.  A key transparency rule for municipalities is the requirement that most municipal meetings be open to the public. There are only a limited number of exceptions, for consideration of matters such as litigation, or personal matters about an identifiable individual.”  What exceptions have been utilized by your committee to hold closed door meetings on the issue of water fluoridation?

As I researched pertinent civil servants, as well as municipal and regional partners to the issue of water fluoridation in the Region of Peel, I found numerous business and industry affiliations which create a concern that the interests of my group of stakeholders may not be adequately represented by council.  There is a very likely possibility, as per my research and the closed door policy, that the objectives of citizens are being forgone in order to satisfy the mutually exclusive objectives of industry on the issue of municipal water fluoridation.  As business partners have a vested interest in the Region of Peel, their main objective is to grow but that growth cannot occur at the expense of our health.

Industry, through personal and business affiliations has an objective to maximize profits and minimize costs by disposing of their chemical waste products in a profitable way.  On the other hand, as residents of the Region of Peel and consumers of its drinking water, we would like to maximize our health status by, among other things, drinking fluoride – free water, and minimize our costs by not having to pay approximately $450,000 annually for a toxic chemical product that we don’t want or need in our drinking water.  The Municipal Act states: “Generally, municipal decisions must not be based on fraud, oppression or improper motive. Courts may decide to quash a bylaw based on bad faith. The courts decide about good faith and other legal issues case by case. For example, while generally a bylaw passed by council in good faith cannot be quashed or reviewed by the courts because of unreasonableness of the bylaw (see section 272 of the Municipal Act), the courts have held that unreasonableness might be evidence of bad faith.”

As a resident and risk management professional, I see an urgent need for the Region of Peel to assess the risks to health of constituents who drink water that has been fluoridated by the municipality.  An independent, influence-free, competent, risk assessment study should be conducted, using up to date technology and knowledge in order to determine all risks associated with the issue of water fluoridation in a municipal environment, as well as the implications and treatments.   It’s time to make such results public and to update current municipal subjective opinions with objective scientific conclusions.  Finally, municipal due diligence would be best achieved if councillors familiarized themselves with municipal risk management strategies in addressing public issues, including the issue at hand.

The Municipal Councillor’s Guide states, on the issue of risk management: “More and more, municipalities are adopting risk management strategies to address public liability. Generally, risk management strategies seek to minimize the effects and costs of public liability suits against a municipality. This involves identifying potential hazards and implementing the appropriate measures to reduce or eliminate them in your community.”  Hence, a holistic risk management strategy should be embraced by councillors in order to achieve a broad view on the issue of municipal water fluoridation and all of the risks involved.  When the occurrence of a risk is high and the consequences are severe, the treatment method is avoidance.  I hope that this committee can recognize that the act of adding fluoride to our drinking water has severe health consequences on those dependent on that water and hence, water fluoridation should be avoided.  Municipal decision makers who practice improper motives may and should be charged with fraud.  I trust that this committee will render an educated, objective and influence-free decision on the issue of municipal water fluoridation.

Kind regards,
Dorota Wozny, BBM CRM

PEEL FLUORIDATION COMMITTEE RESTRICTS PUBLIC DELEGATIONS TO INVITATION ONLY

Source: Mississauga News | April 1st, 2016 | By Roger Belgrave

Location: Canada, Ontario

The committee reviewing water fluoridation in Peel Region has decided it will hear public delegations by invitation only.

Councillors on the Community Water Fluoridation Committee met Thursday morning in Regional Council chambers to list some studies and data it wants gathered as part of the review.

This process is expected to culminate in a recommendation to council as to whether or not the Region should continue its longstanding practice of adding fluoride to the municipality’s drinking water.

The review has generated widespread comment from fluoridation supporters who see health benefits in the practice, as well as from opponents who believe the chemical additive is actually harmful to public health.

Water fluoridation critics, from all over Canada and outside the country, have been inundating the Region with comment since the review was initiated earlier this year.

Councillors fear an open policy on delegations would bog down the review process in hours of repetitive presentations on the benefits and evils of fluoridation.

“We’re going to end up with dozens of delegations,” said committee chair Carolyn Parrish.

The committee will go back to council to request designation as a study group ­– allowing committee members to determine who will make presentations as part of this review.

Members of the public would be free to make delegations on the issue once the committee submits its recommendations to council.

“There’s an opportunity when this goes back to council. They can have their delegation then,” pointed out Mississauga councillor Karen Ras.

The Region has already been criticized for shutting out the public on this issue when it held an education session for coucillors behind closed doors last January.

This is the second time Peel council has dived headfirst into the water fluoridation debate.

In April 2011, debate ended with council voting unanimously to continue to the practice. But the anti-fluoride lobby has refused to let the issue die and have even launched an ongoing court challenge.

Let MPP Bob Delaney know the dangers of water fluoridation:
Bob Delaney ‏@BobDelaneyMPP 

Moving forward on our plan to ensure every Ontario citizen is protected by municipal drinking water fluoridation… http://fb.me/21wAz5Juk 

Lawsuit to Stop Water Fluoridation in Peel (24:00)

March 6, 2016 Brampton Focus host Michael A. Charbon interviews Liesa Cianchino and her lawyer Nader Hassan to ask why they are suing Peel Region to stop Fluoridating water. Special guest interview with John Sprovieri, Peel Regional Councillor for Wards 9 & 10 in Brampton.

cc: Peel Council, Peel Medical Officer of Health, Peel Chapter of Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, Ontario Premier

Water Fluoridation Communications – Region of Peel Council Agenda

Thank you to the following experts for contributing letters of concern towards the continued fluoridation of the drinking water in Peel Region:

Henry Rodriguez, Founder and Executive Director, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
Lois Marie Gibbs, Founder and Stephen Lester, Science Director, Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ)
Karen Spencer, Resident, Glouchester, Massachusetts
Dr. Oksana M. Sawiak, Wellness Counsellor, Author, Lecturer
Christine Massey, Resident, City of Brampton

Click to view Council agenda from the February 11th meeting. Letters of support begin on page 48.

Peel to form a water fluoridation advisory committee

Council will now waste more time and taxpayer’s money, in further consideration of their illegal and costly program of dumping 460,000 kilograms of toxic waste, annually, into our tap water in blatant violation of Canada’s Superior Law.

“That a Committee be established to report to Regional Council with terms of  reference and recommendations for next steps, including public consultations, on the issue of fluoride in drinking water; And further, that  Regional Chair Dale and Councillors Downey, Groves,  Palleschi, Parrish, Ras, Sprovieri and Tovey be appointed to the committee.”Click to view Council minutes from the January 28th meeting.

Can they really call themselves educated?

None of Peel’s mayors attended the entire closed-door fluoridation education session of Jan. 21, 2016 that cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars.  Click to view Council minutes from the January 21st education session.

Legal arguments against artificial
water fluoridation

Click to view the June 2014 legal opinion explaining that fluoridation violates s. 7 of the Canadian Charter and Rights and Freedoms, s. 20 of Ontario’s Safe Drinking Water Act, and Canada’s Food and Drugs Act. 

Appended to the brief is an affidavit from a fluoride toxicity expert explaining that water fluoridation has in fact never been proven safe or effective, and that the available data do not support community water fluoridation.

VIDEO: Presentation to Peel Region ~ Legal Opinion on Water Fluoridation

January 2016 – Peel Fluoridation in the local news