… In particular, unlicenced manufacture of fluoridated drinking water apparently
would constitute a separate offence against
s. 41A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) …
Water Fluoridation: Risky Business for Council
– Address to Oberon Council (New South Wales, Australia)
Presentation (PDF Available) · March 2018
Meeting of Oberon Council, 7 March 2018,
DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.29145.01121 – Cite this publication
See full original text → HERE ←
My address places Council on notice that the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989
(CTH) (“TG Act”) regulates manufacturing in Australia of fluoridated drinking water.
The TG Act applies because several government agencies and two industry lobby groups represent that fluoridated drinking water is for the therapeutic use of preventing dental caries.
That brings fluoridated drinking water within the TG Act’s definition of “therapeutic goods”.
According to the TG Act, it is an offence to manufacture therapeutic goods without a corresponding manufacturing licence (“TGA manufacturing licence”).
The Therapeutic Goods Administration (“TGA”) is required to prosecute such manufacturing offences.
In addition, any person may institute corresponding criminal proceedings under s. 13 of the Crimes Act 1914 (CTH). Council is cautioned not to assume that an approval or direction to fluoridate a public water supply, such as the NSW Secretary of Health may purport to grant or make pursuant to ss. 6 or 6A of the Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Act 1957 (NSW) (“FPWS Act”), would be legally effective.
It is self-evident that ss. 6, 6A and 6B of the FPWS Act are inconsistent with the TG Act. By virtue of s. 109 of the Australian Constitution, it follows that ss. 6, 6A and 6B of the FPWS Act are invalid. The logical effect of the invalidity of ss. 6 and 6A of the FPWS Act is that approvals or directions purportedly granted or made under those provisions are void. The evident invalidity of s. 6 of the FPWS Act points to further regulatory risks for Council. In particular, unlicenced manufacture of fluoridated drinking water apparently would constitute a separate offence against s. 41A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). That provision forbids a person from introducing any poison into a water supply. In relation to civil liability, it appears that the common law duty of care to avoid personal injury foreseeably caused by exposure to fluoridated drinking water continues to apply. Council is referred to the notorious failure of Commonwealth and State agencies to furnish legal reasons in support of the TGA’s public statement asserting that fluoridated drinking water is not therapeutic goods. Before manufacturing fluoridated water without a TGA manufacturing licence, Council is responsible for ensuring that it can explain to itself and to its constituents the legal reasons why it believes a TGA manufacturing licence is not required. In case Council is not able to do that, it should first apply for a TGA manufacturing license (which, as Council has seen, could not be granted) or else seek legal advice. Council is informed with respect to the applicable law.
It would be unreasonable for Council now to seek to rely upon political assurances asserting that ss. 6, 6A and 6B of the FPWS Act are valid. It has powerful reasons to believe that the contrary is the case. Presentation published as DOI10.13140/RG.2.2.29145.01121
[ All councils please take note! ]
Thanks Michael Lusk !
See full original text → HERE ←
See also → Dr. Richard Sauerheber-Formally apologises to the European Union
FLUORIDATION – LEGAL WINS AND ARGUMENTS +
Leave a ReplyWant to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!