Southampton fluoride decision is a travesty of local democracy.
Posted By: Philip Johnston at Feb 26, 2009 at 17:57:36 [General]
Fluoride is to be added to the water supply of Southampton - the first city in 40 years to adopt the policy. The decision has caused huge controversy in the south coast town. This is a key victory for those who believe in adding fluoride to the water and other cities are expected to follow suit, with Bristol among those looking to do so. While a lot of people think their supplies are fluoridated, only five million people live in areas where they are, mainly in the West Midlands and the east of England. For years ministers have wanted to see fluoridation expanded beyond the areas currently covered by natural and artificial schemes. But water companies were reluctant to fluoridate for fear of being sued and did not want responsibility for public health decisions. So the government brought in new legislation in 2003 to give the 28 strategic health authorities, rather than the water companies, the final say over whether fluoride should be added to the supply.
The health authorities now have the power to compel water companies - which will be indemnified against any legal liabilities - to put fluoride in the mains supply, though they are required to consult the local community before they do so. A consultation exercise found that around 75 per cent of the 200,000 residents were opposed to the plan -but they were overruled. After all, they only have to drink the water. All that was required was that a consultation was carried out: the local health authority did not have to abide by its findings. This is a travesty of local democracy.
Proponents maintain that since fluoride appears to reduce the incidence of dental caries and there is no evidence it is harmful, why should anyone object? Opponents say the risks from fluoride are unknown, the science is questionable and those studies that have been carried out have been equivocal in their conclusions about safety. I say that if people want to protect their teeth they should use fluoride toothpaste. Medication, beneficial or otherwise, should not be added to the water supply at all.
However it is dressed up, fluoridation is enforced mass medication and it is possible to object to such a programme whether you think it is good for you or not. The Government acknowledged this by allowing a free vote when the measure went through Parliament; but, in reality, ministers favour a move to wider fluoridation as part of their nanny state agenda.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I am appalled by the vote in favour of fluoridation for Southampton. Cllr Damani is evidently uninformed that the industrial grade hydrofluorosilic acid added to water supplies is one of the deadliest poisons on the planet, and unaware of the considerable evidence linking its toxicity to life threatening diseases such as cancer, osteoporosis, kidney disease and brain disease. Of course people have died and now the future health of the citizens of Southampton will be severely compromised as a result of this insane decision.
I do not intend to be one of them. As I already have poor bone density, it seems that in order to protect my health, I shall have to invest in an expensive water purification system or move away from the city where I have lived all my life.
The vote should have remained with the wise citizens of Southampton and the horrendous cost of poisoning them diverted to a programme of education and prevention for the families of children with tooth decay, for whom the dubious benefits of mass medication will surely have no impact as they do not drink water anyway!
Sad day for democracy, to be totally ignored when a large percentage of people do not want this is insulting. To add to the insult the Prime Minister said its up to the local people, but they went ahead anyway and ignored us. There is an e-petition on the Downing Street website against fluoridation which I have now signed, but I was surprised that only 120 people have signed. We must wake up from this apathy, myself included.
Where can we go from here?
I am pleased to hear that the fluoridation decision is being called into question by the ombudsman. I have always maintained that the money should be spent on the provision of more NHS Dentists so that families can have acces to dental care, that is what will reduce denatl disease.
Post a Comment