The Role of EPA in Provision of Safe Drinking Water

The Role of EPA in Provision of Safe Drinking water and Environmental Protection
Mr. Dara Lynott
Director-Office of Environmental Enforcement, Environmental Protection Agency

CC:      Department of Taoiseach

Minister for Health

            Minister For Agriculture, Food and Fisheries

            Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government

           

26^th March 2012

Response to my Report on Human Toxicity, Environmental impact and Legal Implications of Water Fluoridation.

Dear Sir,

I wish to acknowledge your reply to my letter and submission of my report to the Environmental Protection Agency.

As you have noted the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are the supervisory authority over water services in respect of the quality of drinking water and the role of the EPA is to ensure that the Irish fluoride drinking water standard of 0.8mg/l is adhered to and where it is breached that appropriate corrective action is taken.

As I have outlined in my report, the legislation relating to water fluoridation predates Ireland joining the European community. As you may be aware there is no EU legislation or policy that supports the fluoridation of drinking water supplies. As I have noted in my report, Ireland is the only country in Europe that accepts and pursues this policy. That is, the Government of Ireland accepts this position, not the citizens of Ireland, as they were never consulted on this policy.

It is evident the environmental impact of such a policy has not been adequately considered in examining the environmental impacts of fluoride emissions on the environment.  It is apparent that the intended public health benefits of fluoridation, which have been found to be negligible by the EU Commission, continue for some reason to be regarded as sacrosanct by Irish Authorities. Yet the direct and indirect environmental consequences of this policy human health on the environment remain uninvestigated. It is clearly evident that the impact of water fluoridation is unsustainable and not without consequence. In any matters addressing this subject local authorities and the Department of Environment pass the responsibility onto the Department of Health as the Department with responsibility for Fluoridation Regulations, yet the Department of Health are not the regulatory authority with responsibility to safeguard the environment or prevent pollution.

My report details the various legal and environmental policy violations that exist regarding water fluoridation. From your response to me and noted above, it appears that you infer that the only responsibility the EPA have, in this respect, is to ensure that the drinking water standard is enforced.  I believe that I am correct in stating, that primarily the Agency is the competent authority for the protection of the environment - as noted in the Protection of the Environment Act, 2003.  As you are aware, this includes the prevention, limitation, elimination, medium and abatement or reduction of environmental pollution and the preservation of the quality of the environment as a whole. The Agency are responsible for the management of environmental pollution, including any anthropogenic discharges of fluoride compounds from wastewater treatment plants or from sewage sludge disposal as well as the protection of consumers from contamination of drinking water with any substances that may be harmful to human health or the environment. 

For example, the EPA is concerned with the long-term exposure of the population to the health effects of trihalomethanes and monitors drinking water for these compounds. Similarly the Agency has issued guidance and enforcement proceeding on local authorities with respect to lead contamination in drinking water.  I would assume that the Agency is likewise concerned about the long-term exposure of the population to silicafluoride compounds used in drinking water, as well as their co-toxicity with other compounds such as aluminum and lead. It is important that the agency are aware, as noted in my report, that the health hazards associated with the enhanced incorporation of lead and aluminum are increased by the addition of silicafluorides to our drinking water supplies.

Within Europe the Agency are advised legal precedence exists establishing clearly that fluoridated water is defined as a medicinal product. The State is required under EU law-  European Council Directive on Medicinal Products for Human Use (2004/27/EC) to undertake detailed risk assessment and performance of tests and clinical trials including toxicological and pharmacological tests to demonstrate the effectiveness and risks associated with water fluoridation for the protection of public health. Despite this, the Government of Ireland or its agencies have never undertaken risk assessments on the fluoridation products in use in Ireland.

This would constitute a flagrant and serious violation of Directive 2001/83/EC.

In respect of EU Food law the Agency are advised that fluoridated drinking water is not safe for consumption for infants, as it results in contamination of baby infant formula milk with fluoride levels far in excess of recommended safety standards.

While my report addresses these concerns and much more in detail, I look forward to any recommendations the Agency may make to address these issues.

In relation to chemical compounds used for drinking water, as the supervisory authority over water services, I wish for clarification from the agency on the following. 

In quantifying the potential public health risk from fluoridation of drinking water, the Agency may be aware that in excess of fifty comprehensive epidemiological, toxicological, clinical medicine, and environmental exposure assessments were identified requiring further testing by the U.S. National Research Council (NRC) and the European Commission‘s Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER). The undertaking of these studies is regarded as of paramount importance for the protection of public health in communities where water fluoridation in practised, the details of which have been examined in my report. The completion of these studies are also a requirement of EU law, as noted previously.

In response to parliamentary questions the Minister for Primary Health Care Deputy Shortall T.D. has confirmed the findings of my report, that the Department of Health has no information on the mutagenic, teratogenic, developmental neurotoxicity, cytotoxicity, carcinogenic effects, cogenotoxicity, short-term and sub-chronic exposures or synergistic/antagonistic effects of fluoride or Hexafluorosilicic acid or silicafluoride compounds on human beings. This is despite the numerous recommendations from scientific bodies that efforts be made to determine the toxicity of fluoride and silicafluoride products. 

As the supervisory agency over water services, can the EPA advise that they have such information on file ?

Furthermore, the Department of Health have confirmed that no human or animal health risk assessments have ever been completed on its behalf on silicofluorides and that the biological or toxicological impacts have never been fully examined by the Department.

As the supervisory agency over water services, can the EPA advise that they have such information on file ?

In addition, the Department of Health have confirmed that no studies have been undertaken examining the interactive co-toxicity public health risks associated with silicafluoride compounds when mixed with other water treatment chemicals such as aluminium compounds.

As the supervisory agency over water services, can the EPA advise that they have such information on file?

If the Agency does not have this information, then it is clear that the State is continuing to use untested chemical compounds without undertaking the necessary precautions to protect public health, consumers or the environment.

If the Government is to continue with the policy of mandatory fluoridation of drinking water supplies, a thorough examination of the scientific recommendations requiring further study must be undertaken immediately demanding comprehensive and costly research, as outlined in my report.

In the interim, it is clear that in the absence of any such data or completion of the required toxicological assessments, a moratorium on water fluoridation must be put in place to protect consumers and the environment.

It is simply unacceptable that the State or the EPA would continue to allow untested chemicals to be added to public drinking water supplies.

Finally can the Agency advise as the regulatory authority with responsibility for environmental protection, how the Agency may support, in violation of EU law, any policy that results in the indirect release of significant quantities of fluoride (a persistent toxic bio-accumulative environmental pollutant) into soils, groundwater and surface waters, with little or no controls at concentrations that have been found to be harmful to ecosystems, protected fisheries as well as a potential risk to human health (as identified by the U.S.A EPA)?

I look forward to your reply

Yours sincerely

Declan Waugh

Constitutional Challenge to Euro Bailout

Last week the German Constitutional Court made a very important ruling that may have long lasting consequences for Europe and the survival of the euro. What is particularly interesting in an Irish context is that their Courts examined the constitutionality of the Euro bailout with respect to German basic law and the federal powers of the German Government.

Notably the Constitutional Court ruled that the eurozone bailouts were compatible with German Basic Law, since they do not provide an excessive burden on the German budget, do not constitute a significant transfer of power away from the federal government, the Bundestag nor impact negatively on the euro’s purchasing power.

Interestingly the Court also ruled that, in order to conform to the German constitution, “the Federal Government is in principle obliged to always obtain prior approval by the German Parliamentary Budget Committee before giving guarantees.” and“The Bundestag, as the legislature, is also prohibited from establishing permanent mechanisms…which result in an assumption of liability for other states’ voluntary decisions, especially if they have consequences whose impact is difficult to calculate”.

What is evident is that the burden of the euro bailout on German taxpayers can be challenged in their Constitutional Courts and that those same courts can set the legal parameters on which any bailout must comply. How unfortunate that no such Court in Ireland similarly examined the constitutionality of the banking guarantee imposed on the Irish citizen and the transfer of billions of euros of private debt created by voluntary institutions, developers and limited companies both at home and abroad onto the Irish taxpayer.

I wonder is it not too late to still challenge the constitutionality of the Irish Banking Bailout? It is clear given the verdict of the German Courts that the banking bailout imposed on Ireland would be regarded as incompatible with German basic law if it was imposed on the German State given that in Ireland it has created an excessive burden on State and society, the State budget resulting in loss of economic sovereignty and the transfer of power from the nations parliament to the IMF and ECB; violating the very conditions imposed by the German Constitutional Court last week.

What a pity that we do not apparently have laws similar to those of the German legislature despite our common membership of the European Union. It appears that it’s one law of one member state and no law for another. In Germany their parliament is prohibited from establishing permanent financial mechanisms, which assume liability for other states decisions, including decisions to loan to private banks in Ireland. While in Ireland the taxpayer is instructed that we must assume liability for all private banking debt including voluntary decisions made by European banks to loan to private banks in other jurisdictions, an action that has resulted in an unsustainable level of debt burden with disastrous social and economic consequences both in Ireland and other peripheral European countries such as Greece. Impacts we unfortunately are only beginning to witness that will last for perhaps generations to come. In my mind there is no doubt that we must challenge the constitutionality of the Irish banking bailout and where the constitution may be seen to be weak in protecting the rights of Irish citizens it must to be changed to reflect the challenges that we now face.

Zombie Government

We’ve heard a lot about zombie banks in recent months but what got us into this crisis is a zombie government. A government that appears to be staggering aimlessly from one crisis to the next, cannibalising the economy to feed its insatiable addiction to saving the private banking sector at the cost of our economic sovereignty.

The primary responsibility for what has happened in Ireland lies with our own political, administrative and banking sectors. Fianna Fail have been in power for 18 of the past 20years. They represent the Anglo Irish bank of Irish politics. Their political manifesto is one of party cronyism-appointed supporters to key positions in all sectors of the economy from the Financial regulator, to the boards of banks, FAS and 800 other quangos. These are appointments not based on skills or experience but on the basis of who they know. Through these appointments they control the avenues of power in this state.

Nor does it stop there. They have wrecked our health system, mismanaged our education system, destroyed our banking system and now handed over our National Pension Reserve Fund to further bail out the failed banks. Money which should be used for strategic investment will now be used to further bankrupt the state and wreck any opportunity of recovery. This is the latest in a long line of disastrous decisions that have had catastrophic impacts on the state. This government has utterly failed to take responsibility or accept the consequences of their actions and incredibly continue to speak for and represent the nation in negotiations with the IMF and the EU. Slowly but surely it is dawning on intelligent, responsible and productive adults everywhere that the people they have elected to run the country on their behalf are simply running it for themselves.

The political ideology of the past has failed. Today, we as a nation look into a financial abyss brought about by a total failure of authority and democracy. We urgently need political reform based on a new vision for the 21st century. A political system fit for purpose, one that looks to the future not the past, one that encourages people with real skills and experience into politics, not seeking a lifetime career but a period of national service where they have a responsibility to the citizens of the state first and foremost. The time for civil war and trade union politics routed in the 1920s is long gone.

As a people we have evolved but not our government and political system. Unless our political system is radically changed nothing will change. We need to change the political system before this county turns into a zombie retirement village, run by a zombie government in a nation cannibalised by a failed capitalist and political system.

Over 50,000 people turned out in Dublin last Saturday; I was among them. Having talked and listened on the day to a lot of people of all ages from college students to pensioners, everyone had one common belief. We need political reform. It's time we said "Enough!"