Anti-fluoridation advertising deceptive

Posted on April 24, 2014 | 8 Comments

 Looks like the scientific fight-back against the misinformation coming from anti-fluoridation groups is having some success. This press release from the on-line Making Sense of Fluoride group.

The complaints and decisions can be found at:

Anti Fluoridation Advertisements Rejected by The Advertising Complaints Authority

Over the past week, the Advertising Complaints Authority (ASA) has upheld three complaints made against the anti fluoride group (Fluoride Action Network of NZ) FANNZ. The complaints involved several advertisements authorized by FANNZ and placed in the Kapiti News earlier this year. The newspaper that ran the advertisements, the Kapiti News stated that it had received many phone calls from agitated members of the public saying that the information provided by FANNZ was ‘wrong’.

After seeing these advertisements, Making Sense of Fluoride (MSOF) legal spokesperson, Christopher Atkinson contacted the ASA voicing his concern that they that were not factual and were likely to cause concern about the safety of community fluoridated water. Consequently, the ASA upheld Mr Atkinson’s complaints and ruled that the advertisements be removed.

MSoF warn the Kapiti Coast District Council that they are the latest Council to be targeted in a series of attacks from anti-fluoridation activists and urges the Council not take activists claims in face value.

Hamilton stopped fluoridating its water supply after pressure from anti fluoride activists in June last year. After a referendum was held, residents overwhelmingly voted for fluoridated water and the council backed down, reversing their decision.
It was only after the recent High Court case in Taranaki which affirmed the widely held view that community water fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure and did not violate the Bill of Rights legislation, the Hamilton City Council voted to resume water fluoridation.

MSoF hope that Kapiti Coast District Council will not follow the Hamilton example and be pressured into decisions concerning public health by activists threatening legal action.

The online advocacy group Making Sense of Fluoride (MSoF) is a group of students, academics, medical professionals, and other concerned individuals advocating that this significant public health initiative either be maintained or introduced. They provide a forum to discuss all aspects surrounding this topic; fb.com/fluoridewater.

Similar articles

This entry was posted in New Zealand, SciBlogs, science, Science and Society and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 responses to “Anti-fluoridation advertising deceptive”

  1. Billy Budd | April 24, 2014 at 10:00 am |

    It would be helpful if there were links to the specific advertisements ruled illegal. This action is good press for truthfulness world-wide.

    Like

  2. Ken | April 24, 2014 at 10:03 am |

    You are right Billy – I will hunt down the ASA links

    Like

  3. Ken | April 24, 2014 at 11:05 am |

    Have edited the post to include links to the ASA decisions – all the details are in these. The first decision was in favour of FANZZ but MSoF appealed and won the decision.

    These documents also include the FANNZ arguments in their defence.

    Like

  4. Fred Norris | April 30, 2014 at 8:39 am |

    Interesting. I guess it goes both ways, the pro-folks had their ad removed last October, and now are using the same tactic. Maybe it’s time we just focus our time and money on a less controversial, more effective oral health approach like the Childsmiles program in Scotland that has resulted in a dramatic reduction in dental decay. It’s voluntary, it’s effective, it targets those most at risk, 99% of the money isn’t literally flushed down the toilet, and it still involves fluoride, so all of those fluoride product manufacturers who give millions to the dental lobby for their support of fluoridation, can still be happy.

    Like

  5. Ken | April 30, 2014 at 11:09 am |

    Fred, these findings were that the advertiser was presenting opinion as fact which is considered unethical. I think it is important that people contnue to challenge such misleading advertising, which in the health field is very common.

    As for the Scottish Childsmile progamme – as you point out it actually involves fluoride dental treatment. It is not an alternative to fluoride as such.

    I think you are technically wrong about 99% of water, or even money, going down the toilet – but it is a common point that 99% of treated water is not drunk. But are you seriously suggesting that we should not chlorinate, disinfect or defloculate water which we don’t drink? Are you promoting a dupolicated reticulation system? Surely that would be throwing money down the drain.

    As for you claim that “fluoride product manufacturers” “give millions to the dental lobby” how about some evidence? Will not be hard to find if your claim is true. Until I see evidence I will charge you woith being a conspriacy theorist.

    Like

  6. Fred Norris | June 15, 2014 at 11:03 am |

    1.) I have no problem with the use of topical treatments, as used in Scotland. My problem is with the systemic use of fluoride; this is where the health risk comes in. I also have a problem with adding it to the water supply without control of dose.

    2.) Chlorine is necessary to keep people from dying. Fluoride is voluntarily added in an attempt to reduce dental decay…two very different purposes, with one being necessary and the other being unnecessary for the safety of the drinking water. Your flawed debate logic is astounding.

    3.) Here is the proof of the millions of dollars manufacturers give to the ADA annually, enjoy: http://www.grassley.senate.gov/about/upload/American-Dental-Association.pdf

    Like

  7. Fred Norris | June 15, 2014 at 11:08 am |

    Oh no, Senator Grassley just took the ADA’s prostitution list down from his website…good thing the people all over the interweb save these documents so they are preserved after the ADA demands they be taken down. Here it is: http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/87297-american-dental-association

    Like

  8. Ken | June 15, 2014 at 2:41 pm |

    Fred, I don’t see anything in your responses supporting your claim:
    “fluoride product manufacturers who give millions to the dental lobby for their support of fluoridation.”

    How about isolating the specific fluoride manufacturer, the number of millions they gave and the purpose for which it was given?

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.