Why does the Initiative to ban Fluoridation contain a fiscal summary that alleges there would be an additional $15,000.000 worth of expense to the tax payers of California if we are successful and pass this initiative?

The fiscal estimate was prepared for Attorney General Dan Lungren by the Legislative Analyst (LAO) and Department of Finance (DOF). We sued the Attorney General twice over what we termed a biased summary. Our motion was denied because the Judge ruled that if the state could find one expert to agree with their position, then he would not find them arbitrary or capricious. Lungren's reliance upon a pro fluoridation hypothesis and a fluoridation advocate for a fiscal estimate was deemed irrelevant for the purpose of this motion.

We did get the Legislative Analyst Office and Department of Finance into court where they explained how they used only a hypothesis that fluoride was of benefit, considered none of the evidence of harm or data from the actual cost of dental care in California, and used a complicated algebraic equation to estimate the alleged benefit. The equation was made up by Robert Isman, a thirty year advocate of mass fluoridation. The LAO estimate of fiscal effects claimed that decay rates would go up in San Francisco and other fluoridated counties (only 17% of California cities are fluoridated), and they alleged tooth decay would decline in the newly fluoridated areas like Los Angeles.

San Francisco was fluoridated in 1952 and Los Angeles is not fluoridated. The decay rate of children's permanent teeth in San Francisco is not statistically different than non fluoridated Los Angeles, and slightly higher than non fluoridated Lodi. Reduction in decay rates from fluoridated water has never been substantiated by any reasonable scientific method.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, we extracted the actual costs of welfare dental care from the California Department of Health database. Dr. Yiamouyiannis compared the 1994 cost of dental care per eligible welfare recipient in the fluoridated counties (60% or more) to the non-fluoridated counties (40% or less) and found that the fluoridated counties pay more per eligible welfare recipient for dental care. $110.63 vs. $93.21. We did the same analysis for 1995 and found the exact same result. No difference.

The Legislative Analyst Office could not explain why these figures were not representative of their hypothesis, except to say that the results were not weighted for population size.

In response, Dr. Yiamouyiannis then applied the "weighted method of least squares" to the 1995 data and again found that there is still no difference in the cost of dental care for fluoridated versus non fluoridated counties. All of the recent broad-based blinded studies of tooth decay in permanent teeth have found no difference in decay rates between fluoridated and non fluoridated. (See The Important Fluoride Facts for scientific references.)

The proponents of water fluoridation have been forced to testify under oath in court that they have no scientific studies of animals given 1 part per million fluoride in the drinking water where tooth decay was altered in any way. There are no animals studies that have found fluoride added to the diet is beneficial in any way.

The California Department of Health acknowledges that dental fluorosis is an adverse health effect. The LAO acknowledges that dental fluorosis will increase in California's children due to drinking water fluoridation. They deny that this disfiguring of the children's teeth will cost the State any additional dollars, since welfare dental care excludes treatment of cosmetic defects.

Dr. Phyllis Mullenix filed an affidavit with Judge John T. Ford in Sacramento Superior Court on behalf of our Writ of Mandate, which states in precise terms that dental fluorosis is indicative of a much greater injury to the children. Her research has linked dental fluorosis to severe neurological impairment in rats. Dr. Mullenix cites additional research which links fluoride to neurological impairment and lower IQ in children.

In their summary the LAO admits that fluoride in high doses is linked to cancer, thus acknowledging that fluoride is a carcinogen. However, they continued to make what Dr. Kennedy characterized before Judge Ford as "bold faced lies" in their fiscal impact estimate. Among those outright lies was the statement that they were not aware of any research linking levels of fluoride in water to cancers, when in fact they had been furnished three landmark studies which had linked water fluoridation to numerous cancers in Americans.

When the initiative qualifies for the ballot, the Court will use a different standard for the determination of the wording that will appear on the ballot. The standard for the ballot wording will be "would the average voter find the Title and Summary to be true and impartial." The court record of our lawsuit will certainly display that the LAO made no attempt to be true or impartial.