Director of communications and corportate affairs at the South Central Strategic Health Authority
The facts on fluoridation'
IN response to the In My View piece by Chris Barker (Daily Echo, April 6) I think it would be useful to set out some of the facts relating to the decision to add fluoride to the local water supply made by the board of South Central Strategic Health Authority.
The issues surrounding the public consultation are more complex than Mr Barker indicates in his article and he has not reported the results of the consultation in their entirety.
In 2003 MPs in a free vote in Parliament passed legislation which gave powers to strategic health authorities to make decisions on increasing the level of fluoride in water supplies following a public consultation.
South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) carried out a consultation in line with the relevant legislation and the results of that consultation show that there is no clear majority view on this issue amongst the people who would be affected in the area.
Yes, 72 per cent of those people who chose to respond in writing to the consultation were opposed to it. However, responses to public consultations are not representative of the views of everyone in an area.
As is normal in any consultation, regardless of the issue, those people who either strongly support or strongly oppose an issue are likely to respond in writing. That is why the SHA commissioned an independent phone survey of a large sample of randomly selected local people to gather their views on this issue.
Phone surveys carried out in this way are far more representative and give a better indication of local opinion than written responses to a consultation. The results showed that there was no majority view on this issue among local people -despite many claims by groups that there is. 32 per cent of people surveyed supported the proposal, 38 per cent opposed it whilst the remainder either did not know or neither supported or opposed it.
The survey showed that a quarter of those opposed to water fluoridation did so because of concerns it causes long-term side effects, something which is not backed up by any of the reputable, systematic reviews.
It is evident that there are small numbers of people in the local area who, during the consultation and since the decision was made, are intent on generating fear.
The conclusion was that the health arguments in favour of water fluoridation outweigh all other arguments against it.
There are some people dissatisfied with the decision the SHA has made given the polarising nature of the issue.
However the SHA is satisfied, along with major professional health organisations such as the World Health Organisation, the British Medical Association and the British Dental Association, that water fluoridation is safe and effective.
2 comments:
38% of the random phone survey said NO to fluoride. This was the majority. That's how democracey works. You should therefore not go ahead.
Why doesn't Olga Senior just say "Our opinion matters more than yours, you little people who know nothing". There is no complexity in the decision-making process. The SHA Board members did exactly as they were told to do by those higher up the food chain than them.
Post a Comment