UKCAF website

Go to content

Main menu:

UK Councils Against Fluoridation -
The only Internet website providing in-depth, easy-to-read and up-to-date
analyses on recent developments in water fluoridation.

Human Rights, Civil Liberties,
and Water Fluoridation.


"Councillors have a responsibility to uphold the basic Human Rights of the people they represent to choose what medication they and their family wish to take, and not have it enforced through their water supply."
(Councillor Adrian Underwood, South Ribble District Council,
First Chairman of North West Councils Against Fluoridation, !989)

25th January 2014


Update on ‘Independence Day!’

LATEST - 25th January

For the record, Annex II of EC Regulation 1925/2006 has now been replaced by Annex III of
Regulation 1170/2009. There is no change - sodium and potassium fluorides are STILL the
only authorised sources for added fluoride in food preparation.

As I fully expected, my comments on the legitimacy of using fluorosilicic acid as an ingredient in foods have provoked furious arguments! So let me expand slightly on them, and look at an apparent anomaly in the EC Regulations that may appear to challenge what I have suggested. Remember, I am not a qualified lawyer, and my arguments do not constitute any form of legal advice whatsoever. So if any qualified legal practitioner out there is able to refute or clarify my proposals, I would be delighted to place their arguments on this web site - we have been trying to get a qualified and independent debate going on this topic for years!

Does Regulation 1925/2006 really apply to fluoridated water?

Regulation 178/2002 appears to prevent Regulation 1925/2006 being applied to the control of the fluorosilicic acid used to add the mineral fluoride to drinking water. Regulation 178/2002 makes it clear in Article 2 that the quality of drinking water, as a finished product, is subject to general food law only after it emerges from the consumer’s tap.

Section 6 of the Preamble explains that this is in recognition that the chemical and biological qualities in the finished product are fully defined by Directive 98/83/EC. On first sight, this does indeed appear to exclude Regulation 1925/2006 being invoked to challenge the use of fluorosilicic acid to increase the concentration of the mineral fluoride in finished drinking water.

Different purposes

In fact, I believe that there is no such conflict. Regulation 178/2002 sets the general framework under which food law operates, but makes no provisions regarding the specific identities of chemicals that may be used in the actual preparation of foods. This is left to other legislation. In contrast, Regulation 1925/2006 deals explicitly with what chemicals may be used to add vitamins and minerals during the actual assembly of foods.

It makes no exclusion of its own application to drinking - indeed, it does not mention drinking water at all. So it is reasonable to suggest that it appears to apply to all food products solely during their assembly, and before they are actually delivered to the consumer.

The difference between an ingredient and a ‘parameter’

The concentrations of chemical substances (and biological entities) in drinking water are referred to a ‘parameters’ in the EC Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EC. A parameter is quite different from an ingredient - indeed, there is no such substance as ‘fluoride’ that can be bought over the counter. In contrast, the fluorosilicic acid can be purchased in bulk from many suppliers.

Regulation 178/2002 consigns the control of water quality
parameters to Directive 98/83/EC, whereas Regulation 1925/2006 controls the use of actual chemicals, like fluorosilicic acid, that are actually used as ingredients in preparing foods. The former does not make any assumptions regarding the ultimate chemical nature of any derivatives of authorised substances that may be added during preparation, and that subsequently may appear in a different form in the finished product.

So in the somewhat special case of drinking water, the parameter ‘fluoride’ is indeed regulated by Directive 98/83/EC. But since drinking water is a food product when delivered to the public, Regulation 1925/2006 must apply to the identity of the chemical ingredient that is actually employed during its manufacture in a water treatment works to modify the parameter ‘fluoride’ in the final product.

Missing the boat - why was no application made to continue its use?

Since the ingredient fluorosilicic acid is not an authorised source material for fluoride in foods, and neither the British or Irish government submitted a relevant no application for exemption to continue using it as such, they failed to meet the final deadline, which expired on 19th January 2014. So from that date onwards, its use to increase the concentration of fluoride in any food - including water - in the EC has to be abandoned.

The only way in which fluoridated water could now continue to be manufactured and supplied to customers in the EC would be by making it with either of the authorised source materials, sodium or potassium fluoride - but these are not permitted under English and Irish law!.

Ban on use fluoridated water in making foods

Fluoridated water may not now be used as an ingredient in foods in the EC, and any food manufactured in defiance of this prohibition must not be exported to another EC Member State. The implications for both domestic and international trade are, as I have already suggested, remarkable.

The final straw - it’s also an illegal medicine!

And if this is not enough to convince British and Irish authorities that they must now abandon the production of this product, the supply of fluoridated water to the public is also prohibited under the EC medicinal legislation. Article 1.2.(a) and (b) of Directive 2001/83/EC defines what products must be regulated as medicine. As long ago as 1983 Lord Jauncey ruled that ‘fluoride, in whatever form it may be purchased by the respondent’ is subject to subject to section 130 of the Medicines Act, 1968, which implemented the EEC Medicines Directive 65/65/EEC into English law. It is therefore legally a medicinal product, and cannot be supplied unless it has been granted a medicinal product licence.

Since no such licence has been awarded, its supply to the public is therefore an offence, and it is also illegal to use a medicinal product in in the preparation of any food unless that food also has such a licence. Any such ‘medicinal’ food, also known as a ‘functional’ food, that is prepared with a medicinal ingredient in any State within or outside the EC is subject to medicinal law.

The crunch!

So whether water fluoridated with fluorosilicic acid is legally a medicine or a food, it is my thesis that its manufacture is prohibited within the EC, and that no food prepared using it as an ingredient may be exported to the EC.



As from today, water fluoridation must be prohibited in all Member States of the EC

Doug Cross
20th January 2014

The last legal loophole that could be claimed to allow the continued imposition of water fluoridation in the European Community finally slammed shut today. Until today, the only remaining excuse that the rogue British and Irish governments could put up to justify their policy of illegal mass medication was that this product is not a medicine but a food - and the EC allows the addition of fluoride to food as (believe it or not) a 'mineral', so there!

No matter that this really is an unlicensed - and therefore illegal - medicinal product, or that these idiots claim that food law only applies after the water leaves the tap! (So what is it before, then?) From today it's no longer permissible to put any ingredient into any food unless it's on the definitive list of permitted source materials - and fluorosilicic acid is not o that list!

And it's not just a problem for the water providers, who have been forced to produce this controversial and deeply unpopular product by the Health Police. It's now illegal to market any food within the EC unless it's produced entirely in line with the legislation on 'minerals' - and that applies to imports even from outside the EC as well.

No matter that English and Irish fluoridation laws say they can - and even must - contaminate our drinking water with this toxic non-nutrient. Unlike the Directives, all EC Regulations MUST be enforced immediately, in every Member State. So now, if another State decides that it does not want our contaminated food products, they can refuse to allow them across their borders, and the EC can't stop them.

And there's plenty too to make the British Water Companies start asking questions about what their own position is, now that the final legal loophole has finally closed. But it doesn't just start and finish in our own backyard. This final shut-down poses a real threat to any of our Aussie, Kiwi, American and other friends who are exporting their own food products - many made with, or containing, fluoridated water - to any State within the EC.

If the lunatics in the British and Irish Parliaments can't be bothered with all that science and health nonsense, and refuse to abandon their irrational obsession with fluoride, then perhaps some of the more commercially savvy lobbyists will be able to persuade them that the time really has come to enter the real world, if only to protect our own food industry from sanctions within the EC.

Yes, I know you don't believe this - after all, I've been nagging on about the legal objections to fluoridation for years! But just take a little time out to read what's just happened, and then go out and get your lawyers in gear. This really does spell the end of the road for water fluoridation within the European Community.

I've put together enough evidence for you to get your local Trading Standards Officers and lawyers to cast their beedy eys on this charade and force the stuff off the market and out of our homes. If we can start the ball rolling now, then that will at last force the equally culpable European Commission to respect the legislation that its own Parliament has put in place.

We've got the power to give real teeth to Robert Pocock's long-delayed petition before the EC Petitions Committee, so let's use it as the vehicle to force this final challenge before the European Parliament. Send this around to Councils, MEPs and other influential politicians who are sympathetic to the cause, and let's see what we can do to finish this exhausted war, right now.

For the full story (references and all!)



Water fluoridation - the 'weapons' connection!

The panicky claim that ‘a chemical weapon’ (sodium fluoride) is put into public water supplies’
may be the latest 'Silly Season' myth - but there’s more to it than just rumour.

It's all gone viral! Hysterical reports are flooding the virtual world with the sensational news that the British government issued export licences to supply 'a chemical weapon', sodium fluoride, to the evil Assad regime in Syria. And this was even whilst Assad was actually engaged in a civil war against his own people.

The most excitable newspapers, clearly a little short of educated science writers and having just discovered that the same chemical is considered indispensible in dental products, are now even screaming that
'Syria is using toothpaste to make chemical weapons!'

But don't get too relaxed about this entertaining myth. Fluorosilicic acid could be coming to a neighbourhood near you - and not just in the water supply, either!

CLICK HERE for the full report!

Israeli Sureme Court has NOT banned
water fluoridation

The media are having a Fluoride Feeding Frenzy! "The Israeli Supreme Court has banned all fluoridation of the State's water supplies!" they shriek. Emails pour in from excitable Friends, Twitter and Facebook are awash with deranged predictions of the end of fluoridation, everywhere, really. Credit for persuading the highest Court in that turbulent land, about all of the terrible things that fluoride does to the human body, is grabbed by Wannabees, looking for glory.

And it's all one big fairy story, hype, misinterpretation, a glorious example of the Silly Season at its uproarious best. For the bad news is that the Supreme Court made no such ruling. It didn't happen - in fact the hearing was abandoned.

CLICK HERE for the real story!


A very British cover-up

Doug Cross
25th June 2013

We are surrounded by politicans who appear to have little or no scruples when it comes to acting with honour and decency. We have all watched with contempt the wriggling of executives accused of incompetence and negligence in the British National Health Service.

We learn with disgust of attempts by undercover police officers to collect dirt on the family of mudered Stephen Lawrence. And we watch with disgust, tinged perhaps with amusement, the revelation of the obsessive intrusion into our personal privacy by the British and American Security Services, apparently listening to and recording our every private thought, word and activity on the Internet.

This pervasive lack of morality and obsession with secret intrusion reveals a sickening world-wide culture of institutional corruption and decay that threatens us all. Now, yet another scandal is about to break into the public domain, and it's a particularly vile example.

July 6th marks the 25th Anniversary of the one of the longest-operating medical cover-ups in recent British history. In 1988, twenty thousand people were at severe risk of being poisoned by accidentally contamination of the public water supply to North Cornwall - and the British government has done everything in its power to conceal its despicable role in trying to keep the effects of that incident safely under wraps.

Now we ask if it is time to start rooting out this sickness in our society, and to bring those in government and the Civil Service to trial over their deliberate obstruction to justice for the people of North Cornwall.

If you wonder what the poisoning of a public water supply has to do with water fluoridation, just pause a moment and read on. Residual aluminium left over from water treatment is the primary environmental cause of the epidemic of Alzheimer's Disease that is now sweeping the

country. Adding fluoride to such drinking water may accelerate the rate at which that aluminium moves into the brain. It seems that it can speed up the 'ticking clock' of aluminium deposition in our brains that leads inexorably towards dementia in old age.

The Camelford Poisoning was an accident, and no deliberate experiment could ever be sanctioned to expose people to such a toxicological insult. The evidence of what happened to the 20,000 human guineapigs in this 'experiment' would be of immense value in improving our understanding of this devastating disease.

But the British government is determined that the results of that accidental 'experiment' shall never be salvaged. It is attempting to conceal its own culpability over the way in which it put political concern (for the impending sale of the water industry) before the welfare and health of the public. Now, people are dying from conditions caused by the heavy build-up of aluminium in their brains - but still the official obstruction to the essential reseacrh continues.

I am trying to force the government to hold an inquiry into the ways in which its own Department of Health has deliberately obstructed all efforts to help the people of my former home community, and have published a commentary on its latest attempt to deceive the public. Please go to this page to learn the background to this scandal, then access the British Medical Journal page with my own and other expert commentary, read the articles.

If you agree with what I and others have written, tick the 'Like' boxes. The more support these responses get, the stronger will be the pressure on our reluctant government to bring its own Department under control, and at last provide some measure of justice to my community.

The commentary is HERE


Fluoridation in the UK - the end of an era.

Whilst three of the four national entities that make up the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland resolutely refuse to allow water fluoridation, only the lunatic English allow their government to poison their kids on the pretext of ‘public health’.

Yet things are not what the health police would have you believe. Behind the scenes a bitter war of attrition is going on, between the health and water sectors. Unless you’re in the know, you won’t see it, you won’t even suspect it. But here, for the first time, is the inside story of how fluoridation is being successfully opposed by those most at risk - the commercial sector water companies.

Read on and be astonished!

That European Court of Justice ruling on ‘functional drinks’
- does this really apply to fluoridated water?

The Queensland Dept of Health (QDH), bless ‘em, has been getting pretty hett up recently about the analysis that I put out in 2009 on the case of Warenvertriebs and Orthica, before the European Court of Justice (ECJ). I was first alerted to this fascinating case by our very own Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency - known to, and despised by, millions here in the UK - as the MHRA. They were alarmed that this ruling might be seen as prohibiting the non-consensual administration of fluoridated water to the complaining masses of - well, England, really, as the rest of the UK has quite sensibly told them where to put their unlicensed medicine!

So, no, dear QDH, I admit that I really am not a lawyer - but then, I never said I was, of course. So do stop trying to run my reputation down and deal with the actual message - shooting messengers is a violation of our human rights. Folk from your neck of the woods have been asking me if the ECJ ruling really does apply to fluoridated water. And as far as I can see, from my miserably deprived perspective as a mere biologist, it sure looks that way to me. The ECJ ruling dealt with the application of food and medicinal law to all consumable products that fall into the class of ‘functional foods. Claiming that this concoction prevents tooth decay is a medical claim - so it has both a nutritional value (although many now dispute that!) and a medical use. It’s a functional food, and as such, comes under the ECJ ruling.

So read my recent letter to Merilyn Haines in Oz, and make up your own minds.
Then go and see a lawyer, and get some
proper legal advice!


Back to content | Back to main menu