* UPDATE: In the April 30, 2013, Sebastopol City Council meeting agenda, Councilperson Patrick Slayter had a proposal to insert a pro-fluoridation flyer into the City of Sebastopol water bill. He said that this was because The Next STEP newsletter (a long-standing toxics newsletter) had provided (factual scientific) information on the toxics harm of this practice. He asserted that we needed to let the pro-fluoridation arguments be presented -- even though my point was that they've been disproven!
Because of community members' feedback before that meeting, he withdrew that proposal at the meeting. The comment period was still held and everyone who spoke said that they were strongly supportive of the STEP newsletter and thought the fluoridation article was fair, factual, and entirely appropriate for the newsletter's stated mission. Thank you so much to everyone who stood up for this newsletter and this article. I am deeply grateful!
For more information about this meeting, see www.healthyworld.org/SCFluoridationSebCC-043013R.htm. If you want to be kept informed about any future developments in this process, I invite you to sign up for priority action alerts at www.patriciadines.info/EList.
|
ORIGINAL ALERT >> Please read, act, and forward to your networks. Action by Sebastopol residents is especially useful, but anyone can comment and help out with this! Fluoridation, and misinformation about, risks harm to all of us in Sonoma County. It's also a chance to support The Next STEP newsletter for providing the information that DHS isn't about fluoridation -- that it is not proven safe and effective, and is actually toxic and harmful. Thank you for your assistance and support on this important issue! THE SITUATION: Sebastopol City Councilmember Patrick Slayter has proposed that the City put pro-fluoridation information in City water bills. He offers as "Background" mention of the community water fluoridation article in The Next STEP newsletter, and says his goal with his proposal is to give Sebastopol residents "as much information as possible." He offers a sample of the information he suggests including -- a 7-page pro-fluoridation flyer from the Department of Health Services (DHS). He says that this is not a discussion of fluoridating Sebastopol's water or a City of Sebastopol policy statement regarding Sonoma County's proposed fluoridation. (But clearly I think that people WOULD perceive it that way, no matter what he says.) To see the staff attachment with the proposal's specifics, click on this www.healthyworld.org/SebCCProFProposal043013.pdf To see the overall agenda (this is item #3), go to http://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/sites/default/files/events-and-meetings/april_30_2013_city_council_meeting_agenda.pdf MY RESPONSE/SUMMARY * My concerns are that: this would give residents disproven claims presented as fact, give the impression that the City supports fluoridation, go contrary to City policy on what goes in City water bills, disrespect the quality volunteer work being done on toxics issues by the Next STEP newsletter, let the PD and DHS set City policy, etc. * Everyone in this County would be harmed if Sonoma County's main water supply is fluoridated, even if you're on a well or in a town that doesn't get this water. We go to work, school, restaurants, events, etc. at other places. People we care about are in target areas. 99.9% of the fluoride gets into the environment, where it risks harm to creatures and ecosystems, and gets into our aquifers. It would harm the overall health of this country and our health care costs and well-being. It would get into the food and beverages we make here. Health-conscious tourists would be warned not to drink our water or consume our food and beverages. It would harm our reputation as a healthy place and destination. * Please read my key points below. WHAT YOU CAN DO 1) Tell the City Council what you think about the idea of City residents getting a pro-fluoridation flyer in their water bills. 2) Forward this information and otherwise tell other concerned folks that this is going on. Folks can communicate to the City Council two ways: 1) Attend the City Council meeting. 2) Email your views to the City Council members BEFORE
the meeting (ideally by Mon. April 29). If you send an
email, please bcc a copy to me (i.e. a hidden copy).
Thanks! ** IMPORTANT NOTED ABOUT YOUR MESSAGES 1) Please, please, please do NOT use fringe arguments against fluoridation. This undermines our credibility with mainstream folks, is very hard to prove, and is NOT necessary. Really, the science against fluoridation is enough and is effective. So please don't mention a conspiracy, the Nazis, controlling a population, etc. 2) I'd also suggest focusing on community water fluoridation and NOT demeaning topical fluoridation in toothpaste or dentistry. We can all make our personal choices on those uses, but the evidence for topical applicaiton is stronger. Also, I think that lumping them together is part of what confuses people and makes people defend water fluoridation more strongly than they otherwise would. 3) Indicate if you are a resident of Sebastopol, and perhaps for how long. I think residents will have more weight in this discussion. 4) Please stay on point by specifically saying WHY you object to this going in the water bills. It's NOT enough to say why you don't want fluoridation! They'll likely claim that this is to "balance" the information in our STEP newsletter. So please reflect the history of this in your comments. I've including that information in my summary below, with links. Also please don't say that putting in the flyer is unbalanced or one-sided, as that's what they're asserting about the newletter's original fluoridation article. This is a confusing framework. Rather, I looked at both sides to draw my expert conclusion in the context of the newsletter's mission: alerting folks to hidden toxics and how they can avoid exposure. No one has contested any of my facts. I even offered a link with more information and citations for all points! 5) I've put more information and background below. Here is how I might organize the key points; please don't just copy it. Use it as inspiration! SAMPLE LETTER Dear City Councilmembers - I am against putting DHS pro-fluoridation PR in the City of Sebastopol water bills, because: a) I think the STEP newsletter's article alerting us to the toxic and harmful aspects of fluoridation was fair, factual, and completely appropriate for its mission to educate people about how to protect ourselves from hidden toxics. b) I think that it gave some balance to the DHS' 100% pro-fluoridation case has already been well-promoted, including before the Board of Supervisors, and has NOT been letting us know the important science that challenges the practice of fluoridation at its foundation. The lack of balance is in the DHS presentation. c) I don't think it's appropriate to pass along DHS PR in the water bill, especially since so much has been disproven. The water bill is not a general vehicle for every topic that comes along. d) Also, does that mean that every toxic producer that STEP alerts us to will get to put their advertising in our water bill? e) I value that the City of Sebastopol has committed to be a "Voluntary Toxics-Free Zone" and educate its citizens about toxics and alternatives. I hope that we will retain that commitment to our people and our future. Signed, XX
TEN KEY REASONS NOT TO PUT PRO-FLUROIDATION INFORMATION IN THE SEBASTOPOL WATER BILL Note: These are my reasons. Please reflect this information but use your own words. 1) DO WE WANT TO PROMOTE FLUORIDATION AND ITS CLAIMS? Sebastopol residents WOULD perceive this as a City of Sebastopol policy statement in support of Sonoma County's proposed fluoridation, even if it's stated otherwise. Many folks WOULD also get concerned that this is planned for our City. STEP newsletter readers know that this is a newsletter about toxics; that's why we brought it up there. But if you independently put in pro-fluoridation information, it will look like City support of this practice. Why would we want to present this image to our people and the world? And does the City Council feel that it understands enough to present the DHS information as true? 2) THIS PROPOSAL IS CONTRARY TO CURRENT CITY POLICY AGAINST USING THE WATER BILL AS GENERAL COMMUNICATION MEDIUM. Thus it would open a "can of worms" regarding this policy. In 2010, the City Council decided that the water bill was just not a place for assorted flyers about events and educational information. It did so because the water bill had become flooded with various flyers, and residents were complaining about the clutter. In this decision, it affirmed its prior decision that the two pages which the mailing equipment can insert mechanically (and without added postage costs) were reserved for (a) The City newsletter and (b) The Next STEP newsletter. For the two months a year the City newsletter doesn't get inserted, I believe that that was to be used only if needed for priority City business or events. It is NOT a general outlet for general information. Do we want to open up and change that policy now? In what way? And what compelling argument would warrant doing so? "Offering more information" doesn't seem strong enough. There are many things we could offer "more information" about. What warrants us basically one-sided advertising for fluoridating our water, especially when I can provide solid evidence that disproves its assertions? 3) THIS PROPOSAL DOESN'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF "THE NEXT STEP" NEWSLETTER. THIS IS A TOXICS NEWSLETTER, CREATED TO FULFILL CITY POLICY, POPULAR WITH RESIDENTS, WITH A DESIGN THAT'S BEEN CO-CREATED COLLABORATIVELY WITH ALL ITS STAKEHOLDERS. This City-community collaborative project was specifically created to educate people about how to avoid toxics use and exposure. It's been put into water bills since 2001 (a) to help protect the city's water supply; and (b) to fulfill the Council's commitment to educate people on avoiding toxics as part of its 1999 declaration of Sebastopol as a "Voluntary Toxics-Free Zone." It's implemented by volunteers, as it clearly states in each edition. In creating each edition, I as (volunteer) Editor and Lead Writer look at a wide range of information and make an expert assessment and summary of the key points and actions for its readers. The newsletter has also always talked about actions we can take to protect ourselves at both the individual and community levels. Its approach has been overtly approved by the City Council and in the newsletter's recent 92% approval rating from readers. This is a project that's working for its stated goals! PD NOTE: If you want to see more on this, see www.healthyworld.org/STEP-HistoryDesign.html 4) PRO-FLUORIDATION INFORMATION IS EASY TO GET AND ALREADY VERY MUCH DOMINATES THE PUBLIC CONVERSATION ON THIS TOPIC. We don't have a shortage of this information. The DHS is presenting only the pro-fluoridation PR to the Board of Supervisors and the Press Democrat has an editorial stance supporting it. This viewpoint is also easily found online. 5) THE STEP NEWSLETTER SERVED ITS READERS BY PRESENTING THE IMPORTANT BUT LESS COMMONLY-KNOWN CONTRARY SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT FLUORIDATION'S TOXITY THAT UNDERMINES DHS' CLAIMS. The newsletter helped bring a little BALANCE to a conversation that was very much out of balance towards the pro-fluoridation claims. PD NOTE: If you want to see more on this, see www.healthyworld.org/SCFluoridation-About.html 6) THE DHS INFORMATION IS NOT QUALITY EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION BUT DISPROVEN PR OR ADVERTISING. Their soothing claim that it's fact doesn't make it so. Top experts and a vast amount of science has disproven the claims DHS is making. That is why most of the world doesn't fluoridate their water. I would be glad to share more of what I found. The DHS information doesn't even acknowledge any of that. They are the ones not giving us both sides of the picture in making this decision for our community. We have a right to hear the evidence that they refuse to provide to us. 7) WHAT CHANGE AND PRECEDENT WOULD THIS ESTABLISH WITH THE STEP NEWSLETTER? ARE WE STILL COMMITTED TO PROTECTING OUR CITIZENS FROM TOXICS? OR WILL WE NOW LET ANY TOXICS PRODUCER PUT ITS ADVERTISING IN OUR WATER BILLS? Does this mean that any time the STEP newsletter alerts people to a toxic (no matter what evidence we provide to support that conclusion) that the promoter of that toxic can get its one-sided promotional PR inserted into the City water bill (without anyone assessing whether the information is true or not)? Including Monsanto? From the start of this newsletter, the City asked us to be responsible for the editorial content of the newsletter, because they don't have the toxics knowledge to assess it, and didn't want to be responsible for it. That is the arrangement we've had for over 12 years. The article we presented wasn't a partisan view but an expert assessment and conclusions as a result of our research into many perspectives. This was an alert about a source of toxics. In the 12-year history of this newsletter, no one has provided contrary facts to any toxics article in it. And no one has presented contrary evidence to what we wrote here! We do our homework. One time, Monsanto even sent a letter in response to an article about the toxics in Roundup and City staff took no action on it, not even forwarding it to the newsletter team, because they saw that the article was factual and within the newsletter's mission. If this proposal passes, I would wonder if the City would then distribute Monsanto's pro-Roundup advertising in the water bill, including its disproven claims? Or any other toxic product? And doesn't that undermine the whole point of doing a toxics newsletter? Or perhaps we need to have a pro-toxics newsletter also, to present that point of view? 8) WHAT MESSAGE DOES THIS SEND TO OTHER CITY VOLUNTEERS? The City's operations rely on the volunteer time and energy of various volunteers. Will they also find that they offer their time and efforts towards a clearly-defined task, but that task is not understood by a decision-maker and they're not supported in doing this work? 9) THE VAST MAJORITY OF FOLKS THAT WE'VE HEARD COMMENT FEEL THAT THE STEP NEWSLETTER'S FLUORIDATION ARTICLE WAS FAIR, FACTUAL, AND APPROPRIATE FOR THE NEWSLETTER'S STATED GOAL. THEY UNDERSTAND THE NEWSLETTER'S MISSION. AND NO ONE HAS DISPROVEN ANY INFORMATION WE PROVIDED. We did our job in alerting our readers to this proposed toxic going in our community's water and environment.We provided vital proven information that folks were not getting from the official authorities. Our article gave a link with further information and citations for every statement, and no one has contested any facts stated there. We have done the job that we were tasked with. (For representative responses, see www.healthyworld.org/SCFluoridation-Responses.html.) 10) DO WE REALLY WANT TO LET THE PRESS DEMOCRAT OR DHS DIRECT CITY POLICY? The Press Democrat article was not an accurate reflection of newsletter, or of the views of the Sebastopol residents I heard from. They didn't even seem to understand that this is a toxics newsletter, written by volunteers, as it says in each issue. And I'm astonished that DHS can't allow us to have our own conversation in our own town, based on our own values and priorities. It makes them seem like bullies, muscling into our town's conversation. We are not a pro-toxics town, and we have a right to make that choice. PD NOTE: The Press Democrat called this article into question based on two people's complaints to them, one of whom is a former employee of the DHS that is presenting one-sided PR for fluoridation to the Board of Supervisors. Hardly a neutral observer! However, the vast majority of people we've heard from felt that our article was fair, factual, and appropriate for our newsletter. If you want more on this aspect, see www.healthyworld.org/SCFluoridation-APD.html. === 11) IF THE CITY WANTS TO PURSUE THIS, I ENCOURAGE THE COUNCIL TO FIRST EDUCATE THEMSELVES ON THE EVIDENCE THAT UNDERMINES THE PRO-FLUORIDATION CASE. I would be glad to help with that. Also ask yourself if it's really worth the hassle and confusion it would create to try to take this on? What compelling reason would there be for doing so? But at least this structure would be more consistent with the claimed goal of providing useful information to residents on this topic. I suggest that instead we stay committed to the choices we made as a town, to protect our citizens from toxics. We have a right to make that choice. We don't need to let the PD or DHS boss us around. |
This entire website is (c) Community
Action Publications, 1998-2013. All rights reserved.
Page last updated 5/28/13
www.healthyworld.org/SCFluoridationSebCC-043013.html