NOTICE TO NSF OF APPARENT LIABILITY
REQUEST FOR RESPONSE
February 8, 2013
NSF International World Headquarters 789 N. Dixboro Road Ann Arbor MI 48105 Tel: +1.734.769.8010 Fax: +1.734.769.0109
To the National Sanitation Foundation International, its affiliates, and its representatives:
I write as president of Fluoride Class Action, to warn NSF, its affiliates, and its representatives that NSF is apparently violating numerous state and federal laws and that NSF certification of materials such as fluorosilicic acid and sodium fluoride as being safe to add to drinking water appears to be a deception, a fraud, a common law battery, and a RICO Act scam.
Fluoride Class Action is demanding that NSF withdraw NSF/ANSI 60 certification as it applies to fluoridation materials. The fluoride, lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and thallium contained therein – particularly the lead – are slowly but surely harmful to health.
The most sensitive to these contaminants are fetuses and infants, because their cells are still dividing and because babies drink four times as much fluids per their body weight as do adults. Their kidneys are not mature and excrete only 20% of fluoride and other toxins consumed.
CDC, ADA, AMA, and the surgeon general have advised that if formula is mixed using fluoridated water fluorosis will result, an indication that other harms are being done.
Fetuses too are sensitive to fluoride.
Fluoride and lead penetrate the placental barrier and lower IQ. The FDA banned prenatal supplements containing fluoride.
Fluoride Class action is requesting that NSF respond to the allegations we advance herein. If we are incorrect, we will cease making such assertions. If NSF fails to respond, we will assume that NSF does not disagree with the assertions we make.
NSF is obligated to respond to an inquiry such as this because NSF has a special relationship with the EPA and is a quasi-public agency. NSF receives funds from EPA to approve fluoridation materials to be safe, something that the EPA itself cannot do without violating the Safe Drinking Water Act and which EPA administrators, despite the opposition of EPA scientists, authorize NSF to do in EPA’s stead.
NSF repeatedly represents on its web site and in the NSF 60 document entitled “NSF 60 Drinking Water Treatment Chemicals – Health Effects” that for fluoridation products to receive the NSF/ANSI Standard 60 mark of approval they must be subjected to toxicological “studies”, “toxicity studies”, “assays”, and “testing” of many types. Further, NSF represents that it requires “toxicology review to determine that the product is safe at its maximum use level”. Some of the studies to be done are:
“assays of genetic toxicity, acute toxicity (1 to 14 d exposure), short-term toxicity (14 to 28 d exposure), subchronic toxicity (90 d exposure), reproductive toxicity, developmental toxicity, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, chronic toxicity (including carcinogenicity), and human data (clinical, epidemiological, or occupational) when available”, “supplemental studies … including mode or mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, sensitization, endocrine disruption”, “studies using routes of exposure other than ingestion”, “structure activity relationships, physical and chemical properties, and any other chemical specific information relevant to the risk assessment”, “qualitative risk assessment approach … or a quantitative risk assessment approach”, “gene mutation assay and a chromosomal aberration assay”, “assays of genetic toxicity, and supplemental toxicity studies”, subchronic toxicity study”, “studies using alternate routes of exposure, alternate assays of genetic toxicity, and supplemental toxicity studies other than those specified”, “quantitative risk estimation”, “studies for the evaluation of reproductive and developmental toxicity”,
States make their decision to authorize – and sometimes to require – cities and water districts to fluoridate based on NSF assurances that fluoridation materials “comply” with NSF/ANSI Standard 60 and are therefore certified by NSF to be safe. States allow fluoridation to be done – some require it to be done – but only with fluoridation materials which “comply” with NSF/ANSI Standard 60 and are therefore certified by NSF to be safe. In turn, cities and water districts make the final decision to institute drinking water fluoridation, again based on NSF assurances that fluoridation materials “comply” with the NSF/ANSI 60 standard and are therefore certified by NSF, after extensive research, to be safe. See, for example, Washington Administrative Code 246-290-220, which is typical of state regulations.
However, NSF official Stan Hazen has admitted under oath that NSF does not perform toxicological studies or obtain them from the suppliers of fluoridation materials.
Because the above toxicological studies are not being done – neither by NSF nor by the suppliers of fluoridation materials – none of the fluoridation materials currently being used to fluoridate drinking water “comply” with NSF/ANSI Standard 60. This means that it is illegal under the laws of some 47 states, many Canadian provinces, and many foreign countries for said materials to be used as fluoridation materials. This in turn means that NSF is giving its approval to an illegal product and aiding and abetting suppliers of fluoridation materials to sell that illegal product for eventual use by trusting and unsuspecting cities, water districts, and consumers.
At the same time suppliers of fluoridation materials disclaim all liability for the product they are selling, although they know or should know that it is going to be used for ingestion by water drinkers, including various vulnerable populations.
Such disclaimers are completely ineffective. The suppliers apply for and receive the right to display the NSF/ANSI Standard 60 mark of approval on their advertisements, invoices, and certificates of analysis. In so doing they are assuming and making all the same representations that NSF makes, which means that they are thereby negating their lengthy disclaimers. Suppliers may be subject to the same liability as NSF and its representatives.
Making things look even worse for suppliers of fluoridation materials is the fact that “[t]he NSF Joint Committee … consists of … product manufacturing representatives”.
Manufacturer/suppliers of fluoridation materials are thus part of the group which writes and maintains the NSF/ANSI 60 standard. The fox is guarding the henhouse.
Large sums of money are involved in this apparent misrepresentation. NSF and suppliers of fluoridation materials are engaged in what is apparently a systematic swindle of local cities and water district. Because the fluoridation materials cause significant bodily harm to water drinkers, especially to sensitive populations such as fetuses and infants and those with thyroid disease and diabetes, NSF and suppliers of fluoridation materials are apparently committing common law battery, which is a felony. A felony committed across state lines is a violation of the RICO Act.
Silicofluorides and sodium fluoride contain and break down in to hydrogen fluoride, which is one of the most poisonous and penetrating of all toxins. Since 1996 the FDA has required that any drug that includes hydrogen fluoride obtain New Drug Application (NDA) approval before it is marketed. NSF and suppliers of fluoridation materials ignore this law.
Fluoridation started in 1945 with sodium fluoride (from the aluminum and uranium industry), but the supply was soon insufficient. Fluorosilicic acid, (from the phosphate fertilizer industry) was substituted, being cheaper and more abundant. Studies by Coplan, Masters, Maas, and Sawan show that there is much more lead in tap water fluoridated with fluorosilicic acid than with sodium fluoride. Why?
Fluorosilicic acid when diluted breaks down primarily into fluoride ion, hydrogen fluoride, and orthosilicic acid. Orthosilicic acid readily dissolves lead. Orthosilicic acid has an extremely low dissociation constant, meaning that the amount of soda ash (sodium carbonate) alkalinizer added to neutralize the fluoride ion is insufficient to neutralize the orthosilicic acid.
A 2005 letter from the FDA would imply that NSF and perhaps individuals within NSF could be subject to criminal liability for making untrue representations regarding the safety of fluoridation materials.
That brings me to the next apparent violation of law by NSF, its apparent usurpation of the role of the FDA. Fluoride is a drug, because it meets the definition of a drug, given that it is
… intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animal. 21 U.S.C. 321 (g)(1)(B).
Only the FDA can approve a drug for consumption. In approving fluoridation materials as safe and thus encouraging states, cities, and water districts to require and allow drinking water fluoridation, NSF has apparently become a sham FDA, and it has usurped the FDA’s jurisdiction over the approval of fluoridation materials as drugs.
Another reason why NSF should withdraw NSF/ANSI 60 certification as it applies to fluoridation materials is so that NSF can preserve its credibility regarding its certification of other, non-fluoridation products.
If what I am saying comes as a surprise to you, then you must study the issue. I suggest you read the following links:
To get the story of how this highly profitable practice of contaminating drinking water with hazardous waste got started and why it has persisted so long, follow this link:
For an analysis of the thoroughly unscientific proposals by HHS and EPA to reduce drinking water fluoridation to .7 ppm instead of eliminating the vice altogether, see the following two letters addressed to HHS and EPA:
NSF, its affiliates, and its NSF representatives may be subject to liability. If they would like to lessen their liability, NSF should withdraw NSF/ANSI 60 certification as it applies to fluoridation materials, and it should do so immediately.
I realize that putting an end to the trade in industrial grade toxic waste fluoridation materials for human consumption may be costly to suppliers of fluoridation materials. However, the cost is small compared to the many other lines of business which suppliers engage in and small compared to damage claims which suppliers might incur should they continue the trade.
It is perhaps not too late for current NSF representatives to avoid liability, perhaps by asserting that they had no knowledge of the harmful nature of fluoridation materials and the apparent deception made by NSF regarding their safety. Current NSF representatives may possibly be able to excuse themselves by saying that it was previous NSF representatives who were the ones who instituted these illegal activities and that current NSF representatives have not been aware of the problem until their receipt of this letter.
However, if NSF representatives are to avoid liability, they must renounce their certification of fluoridation materials immediately. If they delay, they may lose any ability to claim they had no knowledge of legal violations – because Fluoride Class Action has now put NSF representatives on notice.
This letter is written to alert NSF, its affiliates, and its representatives of probable and reasonably apparent liability.
Although this letter is strongly worded, it is not an accusation of actual civil or criminal wrong. It is a statement that violations of law appear to the reasonable observer to be occurring.
This letter is a demand that NSF provide a response to the matters discussed herein. Fluoride Class Action would welcome proof that the apparent violations of law listed herein are not true. However, there is enough evidence of violations of law that it is appropriate for Fluoride Class Action to give NSF and its affiliates and representatives notice of possible violations of law and ask for proof that we are wrong.
Fluoride Class Action is a loosely knit group of attorneys and scientists who share ideas regarding the legal and scientific aspects of drinking water fluoridation. It is the role of Fluoride Class Action to research legal issues relating to the artificial fluoridation of drinking water and to inform environmental, personal injury, class action, and toxic tort lawyers regarding those issues. It is not the role of Fluoride Class Action to conduct lawsuits. In writing this letter Fluoride Class Action is not threatening suit. Instead Fluoride Class Action is warning that NSF, its affiliates, and its representatives appear to be legally liable and that the lawsuits are sure to come unless they change their ways.
I want to leave you with some final thoughts: It is possible for polluting companies to retool themselves into clean, non-polluting companies, and make the same or greater profits. Digging up phosphate rock containing heavy metals and acids, producing super phosphate fertilizer, and making mountains and lakes of toxic waste which are disposed of by dumping them into drinking water is a crude and unsustainable practice.
Organic farmers get along just fine without superphosphate fertilizer. Most soils contain sufficient phosphorous; to release it only requires acidifying the soil slightly. Continuous application of phosphate fertilizer produces dead soil, devoid of beneficial microbes and insects and choked with too much phosphorus. It is not just fluoridation which must cease; it is superphosphate fertilizer production which must cease.
Poisonous minerals, as much as possible, should be left in the ground. The fertilizer company of the future will make as much or more money than it does today. But instead of making mountains and lakes of toxic chemicals it will deliver organic soil fertility services. Soils deficient in phosphorus will receive phosphorus the same way organic farms receive it, through amendments of composted phosphate rock or seaweed.
The fight over fluoridation is part of a greater fight, whether we will cease to be a chemically irresponsible nation and become instead a chemically responsible nation. We should avoid the use of toxic chemicals wherever possible. Everything which can be grown or manufactured organically should be grown or manufactured organically. We should be an organic nation to the greatest extent possible. Organic products will command a higher price and give workers a healthy work environment.
I am a strong believer in private enterprise. It is fine to make money as long as doing so does not deface the creation. There is plenty of profit to be made delivering chemically responsible products and foods.
I am a strong believer in private enterprise, but not in the crony capitalism we have now. Companies must accept responsibility for the harm they cause and avoid causing harm.
If corporations are to have some of the rights of persons, they must develop a code of ethics like that of a person and abide by them. States should insist that corporations submit an ethical plan as a condition to doing business therein. Just as lawyers, accountants, and physicians are members of professional associations which create and enforce codes of ethics, business above a certain size should be members of a professional association, and executives and board members should be bound to abide by such codes.
The change I am suggesting is not going to be easy. The most difficult step is to start, and after that the rest will get easier.
Ending the slow poisoning of people with toxic waste from unnecessary superphosphate fertilizer production is a good place to start.
James Robert Deal, Attorney
WSBA # 8103
President, Fluoride Class Action
P.S. To facilitate following the links this letter, please go to www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/notice-to-nsf.
I am sending a copy of this letter to Stan Hazan at firstname.lastname@example.org and asking him to see to it that NSF leaders receive this letter and seriously consider its contents.