UKCAF website

Letter to a Friend

Doug Cross, 9th March 2009

Is there a contract between the State and the public to supply water that is 'water for human consumption', and is it enforceable?

9th March 2009

Dear John,

You ask if there is a contract between the State and the public for the supply of 'water for human consumption'? Without doubt, there is.

What is 'Drinking water'?

The Drinking Water Directive requires Member States to ensure that the public is supplied with water that is fit for human consumption. The Directive specifically excludes 'medicinal waters' from regulation - they are not a food but a medicine. Equally, the EC Food Regulations also exclude medicinal products from regulation as drinking water. Finally, the European Court of Justice has ruled that all products described as having medicinal properties must be regulated as medicines, 'even if they are generally regarded as foods' .

If a Member State supplies drinking water to the public for its normal drinking, cooking and washing purposes, then it must comply with the definition of 'water for human consumption'. The necessary composition, with regard to its chemical and biological standards, is set out in the Drinking Water Standards. But this is not the whole story.

'Medicinal waters' are not drinking water.

Water may indeed be chemically and biologically compliant with the Drinking Water Directive, but if any substance has been added (even within the limits of the parametric water quality standards laid down in the Directive) with the intent to use the product for a medicinal intervention, then it is no longer a food. Although it is regulated as a food once it comes out of the tap, this does not mean that it is not a food before this point.

So when fluorosilicic acid is added to water, it instantly becomes a medicine at the treatment works. It cannot magically be re-invented as a food as it emerges from the customers' taps!

If the State supplies such a 'medicinal water' for the purpose of domestic use, then it is in clear violation of the Directive. Indeed, in some relevant English legislation, any water that can be described as a 'medicinal waters' is no longer 'water' at all! The Food Safety (General Hygiene) Regulations specify that 'water' that is a medicinal product is not 'water' in the sense of drinking or 'potable water'. And, of course, as a medicinal product, because fluoridated water has no licence, it is even an offence for the State to supply the product for the purpose of preventing dental decay.

The State's duty to supply drinking water, directly or through Agents.

In this respect, the State may be considered to have a contractual obligation to the public, since the EC legislation establishes the right of the public to be supplied with a product that meets specific quality standards and is of the required nature - i.e one that is a food and not a medicinal product.

In the UK, the Government has a clear duty to ensure that water undertakers, acting as its Agents, provide a product that is fully compliant with the over-riding requirements of the Drinking Water Directive. In Ireland, that duty applies directly to the actions of the State itself, since it is the primary supplier of water to the public. In practical terms, not only has the State a duty to comply fully, it also has a duty to ensure that any legal entity acting on its behalf (for example, a water company) also complies with the legislation.

If the State orders a water company to fluoridate its product, then it is the State that supplies a product that is not as described in the legislation, and the State that is therefore in violation. There may, of course, also be a contractual obligation on the part of the water company to supply the public with a legitimate product.

Effect on commercial food processors.

So in fluoridated water areas, not only is the public deprived of its statutory entitlement to a supply of drinking water, but anyone preparing food for commercial trading or supply is also not in receipt of the product that must be used for this purpose. Every cafe, fast-food outlet, restaurant or hotel, selling directly to the public, and every supermarket, food manufacturer (and this may well include petfood manufacture), bottled drinks manufacturer or brewery is also supplied with a product that is prohibited for use in the preparation of their consumable products.

The State's Duty of Care – fluoridated water as a 'rogue medicine'

The issue is so basic and far-reaching that it could well bring the entire process of fluoridation to a halt, even in those locations where it is already implemented. Governments and their Agents supplying water for human consumption have a Duty of Care to comply with the relevant legislation, as implemented in the European Community Legislative Code. All legislative provisions designed to protect the public against defects in the quality of drinking water are void - only medicinal law applies.

But also, because the product has no medicinal Licence, there is NO protection of the public for any defect that may occur in its quality - it is quite literally a rogue medicine. So if there were to be some other biological or chemical defect in a fluoridated water supply - Cryptosporidium, or aluminium and lead are good examples - there is no provision for the protection of the public, nor any for the apportionment of blame and responsibility for legal redress.

So - is there a contract?

Of course there is! It is established that Member States have a legal obligation to implement EC laws. Where such legislation establishes a public right, as here,any violation or evasion that prevents the public enjoying that right consitutes a breech of contract on the part of the State. In some circumstances it may also constitute a breach of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EC.

Enforcement.

In a case of such critical importance, the appropriate authority for the restoration of this public right must be the European Court of Justice. The inexplicable refusal of both the Irish and the UK Regulators of medicinal products to subject fluorosilicic acid to the mandatory process of Licencing cannot be due to anything other than improper political pressure, since the medical, scientific and legal arguments against its continued use are over-whelming. No other National Court is able to deal with the evident corruption in Governments that has allowed this deplorable situation to develop.

Application of the Precautionary Principle

In any case such as this, it is essential that the EC's Precautionary Principle be applied to stop the practice as rapidly as possible. Given the rapidity with which infants may develop the clear signs of fluoride poisoning - a matter of a few months appears to be sufficient - any further delay in halting fluoridation in Britain and Ireland is completely unacceptable.

Both States must be brought before the ECJ as quickly as possible, to prevent yet more avoidable damage to children. The issue of the glaring breech of contract between the States and the public is probably the single most powerful lever that can be employed to bring an end to this discredited parody of responsible medical practice.

Regards

Doug

(http://www.ukcaf.org/letter_to_a_friend_-_contract_to_supply_drinking_w.html)
__________________________________________________________________________________________