Lying to Voters on the Ballot

Anti-fluoridationists in Boulder got their proposal for repeal of water fluoridation on this year’s general-election ballot by petition. Their petition labelled this as a proposal for “drinking water standards.” However, its principal — if not only — effect is on just one additive: fluoride. The apparent hope is to convince Boulder voters to do unwittingly what they would be unlikely to do if asked directly … eliminate a safe and effective public health program that is objected to only by a very few having a fringe political and social agenda.

The true effects of this proposal can be seen by an analysis of its separate provisions. Unfortunately, they can’t be detected by reading the actual language of the proposal put on the ballot. Boulder voters will be faced with one of the most deceptive “ballot questions” ever put to anyone. Here is the actual wording of Ballot Issue #2B:

“Shall an ordinance be adopted that requires any substance used to treat or medicate humans that is added to the city of Boulder’s water supplies: (a) to have obtained US Food and Drug Administration approval, and (b) to contain no contaminants at concentrations that will cause drinking water to exceed the public safety goals for water established as the US EPA’s maximum contaminant level goals? The ordinance repeals conflicting ordinances, including a 1969 ordinance authorizing and regulating fluoridation, but does not forbid fluoridation done in compliance with the above.”

The lies in this ballot “question” are numerous. Significant among them are:

Ballot questions are supposed to be a question. Notice the sentence following the question. What’s that doing there? It gives the last word, right on the ballot, to the backers of #2B. It’s an untruthful last word, too.
Ballot questions are supposed to state what a proposal does, not what it doesn’t do. There can be an infinity of things that it doesn’t do. Saying that the ordinance “does not forbid fluoridation done in compliance” with the rest of the proposal is actually a lie. It doesn’t own up to the fact that fluoridation cannot comply with the other requirements of the ordinance.
In general, the ballot language does not explain that the requirements for FDA approval can never be achieved (legally or scientifically) and that EPA contaminant level goals are generally unattainable (because they are often zero), and specifically unattainable in the case of fluoridation. Also, it fails to disclose that it requires measurement of contaminants before dilution in the water supply instead of after, as other regulatory measures do.
It fails to disclose that the certain, significant effect of the proposal is to end fluoridation and permanently prevent its re-introduction, and that no other existing water treatment program is similarly effected.
It fails to mention that the repeal of fluoridation by the proposal is independent of the “drinking water standards” and those standards apply only to fluoridation additives. Because of that repeal the “standards” will have no further effect on Boulder’s water, and specifically will not further reduce the exposure to toxic substances in Boulder’s water.

Straightforward, truthful ballot language for Issue #2B would have been:

“Shall the ordinance authorizing fluoridation of Boulder’s water supply be repealed, and shall requirements be enacted for the resumption of fluoridation, though it is legally and scientifically impossible for such requirements to be met?”

That is the real question being voted on with 2B. It’s really all about fluoridation!

Lying to Voters on the Ballot

Don’t Be Deceived!! Vote no on Issue #2B!

Don’t Be Deceived!!
Vote no on Issue #2B!