HAF Newsletter

HAF July Newsletter

Letters in the Echo

I REALLY wish I could be surprised by the report in the Echo about the Health Secretary - Andy Burnham - failing to declare his interests or alliance with the British Fluoridation Society. Sadly, I'm not.
There is much information claiming that fluoridating the water could lead to many potentially serious illnesses such as an increase in cancer amongst young boys. It has also been linked to quite serious endocrine disorders which can often be difficult to diagnose. What will the total cost to the NHS be if this policy is carried out all over the country?
To make matters worse, this is being done at a time when we are being warned of major cuts in the NHS budget. What strange and uncomfortable times we live in.
KIM ATHERLEY.

THE government staled that £42,000,000 would be available to assist with implementing fluoridation.
Now the SHA (Echo, June 20) says it has 'set aside ' £400,000 to defend its botched consultation. It is time to ask where all this funding is coming from,
J PAYNE, Southampton.

Fluoride: where is the evidence?
What strange times we are all living in
I DO feel it is about time that the South Central Strategic Health Authority be applauded for their courage in making the right decision with regard to fluoridation and for giving a voice to children whose health will be massively improved. The well organised and well constructed campaign against fluoridation had very loud voices but no real evidence that the such small amounts of fluoride would be harmful.
Perhaps our leading public figures should also be applauding SHA for giving voice to those without one.
JOHN NOON, Southampton.

"massively improved"? no mention of fluorosis.

Southampton daily Echo - Fluoride referendum not possible says MP

Fluoride referendum not possible says MP
HOLDING a referendum on plans to fluoridate Hampshire's tap water is "unrealistic", a Southampton MP has warned.
There have been mounting calls for the public to be given a vote over the controversial scheme, after health chiefs backed it despite widespread public opposition.
But Southampton Test MP Alan Whitehead believes staging a single-issue referendum would not be possible because it would set a precedent that could then be applied to all sorts of issues.
"These suggestions are not realistic to where we are now," he said, adding that believes the legislation
needed would be fraught
with problems. Having a referendum on fluoridation would set a precedent for any aspect of British sub-national public life. "It would have to be followed up
with a referendum on any decision to build a road, where to put a walk-in centre, or what maternity facilities to provide, because these are all issues that are important to people involved."
Dr Whitehead has backed the scheme to add fluoride to the tap water delivered to nearly 200,000 homes in parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams, saying he believes it will improve children's teeth. However, he recently called for the process to be put on hold for an examination of the way the public consultation was carried out.

Australia - Official warning to Seqwater for fluoride overdosing incident

Official warning to Seqwater for fluoride overdosing incident
29 June 2009
QUEENSLAND Natural Resources Minister Stephen Robertson has issued an official warning to Seqwater over the company’s handling of the April fluoride overdosing incident.
The warning comes after Adjunct-Professor Mark Pascoe from the International Water Centre released an independent report into the North Pine Water Treatment plant.
The report found Seqwater had failed to properly manage fluoride levels, and the overdose was due to equipment failures, to which the company did not respond appropriately.
Professor Pascoe wrote that while the design of the fluoride dosing facility at North Pine was adequate, it did not adhere to the Water Fluoridation Regulation requirements
Seqwater also failed to immediately notify the Office of the Water Supply Regulator of equipment malfunctions at North Pine Water Treatment plant, which is a breach of the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2008.
Linkwater, which took the water samples, was criticised for taking too long to report the incident.
According to Minister Robertson, Seqwater was found in numerous breaches of the Water Fluoridation Act 2008. Seqwater and Linkwater must report on a monthly basis to the State Government to ensure they are implementing the regulator’s directions and the recommendations relating to them from the Pascoe report.

MP backs calls for a vote on fluoride

The public has not been convinced it's the right thing to do'
MP backs calls for a vote on fluoride
THE people should have the final say.
That is the message from a Hampshire MP backing calls for the public to be given a vote on plans to fluoridate Hampshire tap water.
Sandra Gidley, pictured, who represents Romsey and north Southampton, believes the people affected by the controversial scheme have not been convinced by the case favour of it.
And the Lib Dem MP says the decision on what goes in the water supply must be made by those who drink it.
"There's such a range of evidence out there that I could actually give you a very convincing argument both for or against fluoridation," she told the Daily Echo. "But ultimately I think the public has to have faith in what's being put in its water and if the people who are in favour cannot convince people it's the right thing to do then it shouldn't happen. "It's quite simple really" During last year's public consultation on the scheme to fluoridate the water supplies of nearly 200,000 homes in Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams, some 10,000 people had their say.
Of those who gave their views to South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA), some 72 per cent of people living in the affected area said they opposed the scheme.
In a separate phone survey of 2,000 people, 38 per cent were against fluoridation, compared to 32 per cent in favour. But in February the SHA's board unanimously approved the plans, saying they were convinced by the medical case.
The Daily Echo is backing calls for a referendum on fluoridation, because of the strength of opposition to the scheme, and Mrs Gidley agrees.
"I don't know if there's any precedent for doing it, but I can't see any problem with doing it and it would seem to be the most democratic way of doing it," she said. "One argument put forward by the SHA was that it was only those who are anti who were motivated to send in forms and when they did their separate call around they got a different view.
"But of those who had made up their minds there were certainly more against than in favour.
"I've always felt that the people should have the final say, and that's what the spirit of the legislation was meant to be."
Have your say
WRITE: Southern Daily Echo, Newspaper House, Test Lane, Reclbridge, Southampton S016 9JX. PHONE: Newsdesk 023 8042 4522, FAX: 023 8042 4545 E-MAIL: newsdesk@dailyecho.co.uk

Royston Smith - Why I am against fluoridation

THE vociferous minority protesting against the fluoridation

Majority realise benefits of fluoride
THE vociferous minority protesting against the fluoridation of our water supplies are unfortunately receiving all the publicity, to the usual detriment of the vast majority who have no axe to grind because they realise the great benefits of fluoride in preventing tooth decay. It is a well known, proven fact that in areas where water supplies are fluoridated, decay in teeth is far less, especially where children are concerned. Whereas in unfluoridated water, tooth decay is considerably worse.
In areas where fluoride is and has been used over many, many years, there is no evidence that the population has suffered in any way but there is overwhelming evidence that their teeth are much healthier and hardly any decay. Surely if there was it would have been headlines long ago.
Can we have some headlines promoting fluoridation to satisfy the needs of the majority rather than the paranoid minority
JOHN OLIVER, Hamble.

"vociferous minority" "paranoid minority" does that apply to the 15,300 who signed the petition?

Dog Food Contaminated with Levels of Fluoride Above EPA's Legal Limit for Humans

Fluoride Linked to Hormone Disruption, Thyroid Problems and Bone Cancer
CONTACT: EWG Public Affairs, (202) 667-6982
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 26, 2009
WASHINGTON, D.C -- Eight of 10 dog food brands tested by an independent laboratory commissioned by Environmental Working Group (EWG) contain fluoride in amounts up to 2.5 times higher than the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) national drinking water standard.
Study: http://www.ewg.org/pethealth/report/fluoride-in-dog-food
The eight dog foods, all of them major national brands, were found to contain significantly more fluoride than levels implicated by a 2006 Harvard study in bone cancer in young boys.

In all eight cases, the likely sources of excess fluoride were bone meal and animal byproducts.

“Due to a failed regulatory system and suspect practices by some in the pet food industry, countless dogs may be ingesting excessive fluoride that could put them at risk,” Olga Naidenko, Ph.D, lead researcher of the EWG-sponsored study, said.

Moreover, Naidenko said, the fact so many popular national pet food brands contain previously undetected health hazards is one more symptom of the federal food safety system’s overall laxity.

“Our findings point to the need for basic health protections that require companies to prove their products are safe before they are sold,” Naidenko said. “Bringing public health laws in line with the newest scientific research is a critical step in protecting the health of all members of American households, whether they walk on two legs or four.”

The eight high-fluoride brands disclosed contents including chicken by-product meal, poultry by-product meal, chicken meal, beef and bone meal. Any ingredient described as “animal meal” is basically ground bones, cooked with steam, dried, and mashed to make a cheap dog food filler. A small fraction of fluoride in dog food comes from fluoridated tap water added to solid ingredients at pet food plants.

Fluoride occurs naturally in some water supplies. But two-thirds of Americans -- and their pets and livestock-- drink water that has been artificially fluoridated on grounds it improves dental health.

Fluoride is also found in certain foods, those from plants grown in high-fluoride soils or those to which the chemical is introduced during processing. Once ingested with food or water, fluoride accumulates in the bones.

An average dog who drinks adequate water daily would be exposed to 0.05 to 0.1 milligrams of fluoride per kilogram of body weight, depending on the dog's weight and water consumption. But those dogs who eat food high in fluoride, day in and day out, may be exposed to unsafe levels of fluoride.

For example, a 10-pound puppy that eats about a cup of dog food a day would consume 0.25 milligrams of fluoride per kilogram of body weight per day, an amount five times higher than the ”safe” level set by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Pet food should be held to the same health and safety standards as human food and should be free of contaminants that may endanger pets' health. Yet, the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA)has little authority and few resources to ensure that products produced for pets are safe.

The bottom line: when it comes to dubious food additives, chemical pollutants or untested ingredients in pet food, pets and their owners are mostly on their own.

NOTE: If your dog’s food contains bone meal and other meat by-products, EWG recommends switching to brands free of these ingredients in order to minimize your dog’s exposure to harmful pollutants, including fluoride.

Give us a vote

GIVE us a vote. The Daily Echo today backs calls for a referendum on controversial plans to fluoridate Hampshire's tap water. By Jon Reeve
Campaigners argue that faith in democracy has been damaged by health chiefs approving the scheme to add fluoride to the water supplies of nearly 200,000 homes, despite widespread opposition.
Calls for a direct referendum on the controversial plans have been made by opponents of fluoride, and one of the city's most powerful politicians. Earlier this month campaigners delivered a 15,300-name petition to Downing Street, urging the Prime Minister to step into the row over fluoridation. During last year's public consultation, more than
10,000 responses were submitted to South Central Strategic Health Authority. Of those from people in the affected area, 72 per cent said they were against it. In a separate phone poll of 2,000 residents, 32 per cent said they would like to see fluoride added to tap water. But 38 per cent said they opposed the plans, affecting parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams. The SHA board approved the scheme, saying they had gathered opinion as required by law, but were convinced by scientific evidence showing fluoride will improve dental health in the city Southampton city council's deputy leader, Cllr Royston Smith, said he was normally opposed to using referenda, but wanted to see one on fiuoridation. "People are rightfully saying what's the point of asking me and us being part of the political system if we're just going to be ignored," said Cllr Smith, who is standing for the Tories in Southampton Itchen at the next election. "What annoys me is this is an act of political cowardice by the Government. They have devolved responsibility to the SHA and are then saying it's not us that made the decision. "Actually on this point, it is time we put it to a democratic vote and let the people have their say." Hampshire Against Fluoridation's chairman John Spottiswoode said his group had always favoured a referendum as the best way to decide on the subject.
"Why have a consultation if you're going to ignore what the people say and the other issue is it is fundamentally unethical to force people to take something without their consent," he said. "A referendum would properly sort that one out."But if you do have a referendum it has got to be done on a level playing field and people are given proper access to information on both sides." SHA campaigns manager Kevin McNamara said the authority has no view over what the law should be, but simply follows what it says. "The SHA is required to follow the law that's in place at this current time, and if the law was subject to any change we would follow that," he said. "The issue of what that law should be is for politicians to debate in Parliament and decide on, we just work within that law. "That's what the politicians have done with this legislation, which was decided through a free vote, and we're working within it."
COMMENT ONLINE dailyecho.co.uk

Daily Echo backing calls for referendum

Give US A FLUORID VOTE
Daily Echo backing calls for referendum
By Jon Reeve
THE Daily Echo today backs demands for a referendum on controversial plans to fluoridate Hampshire's tap water.
Campaigners say their faith in democracy has been damaged by health chiefs approving the scheme to add fluoride to the water supplies of nearly 200,000 homes despite widespread opposition.
Anti-fluoride activists have been joined by one of Southampton's most powerful politicians to call for a direct vote on the issue.
Nearly three-quarters of people who responded to a public consultation said they were against fluoridation. Full story on page 3

BBC - Fluoride move sparks review bid

Fluoride move sparks review bid
Campaigners handed a petition with 14,000 names to Downing Street
A judicial review has been initiated by a resident against a decision by health chiefs to add fluoride to tap water in Southampton, a law firm has revealed.
Leigh Day & Co solicitors said it had begun the legal challenge on behalf of Geraldine Milner against South Central Strategic Health Authority (SCSHA).
The SCSHA instructed Southern Water to fluoridate the water despite their consultation showing major opposition.
It said it was satisfied it was a "safe way" of tackling tooth decay.
The SCSHA board's decision was made in February despite 72% of 10,000 respondents in a public consultation opposing the move.
Health fears
It is the first time a health trust in England, rather than water companies, has been allowed to introduce fluoridation under new laws.
As a result of the authority's move, activists from Hampshire Against Fluoridation and other supporters delivered a petition with 14,000 signatures to Downing Street on 9 June.
On its website, a statement from Leigh Day & Co says: "Ms Milner is opposed to the proposals to fluoridate the water supply on account of the continuing uncertainties with regard to the long-term health risks associated with fluoridation."
The board is satisfied that, based on existing research, water fluoridation is a safe and effective way to tackle tooth decay
South Central Strategic Health Authority
It also stated that she was concerned "with regard to the possible adverse environmental effects".

Leigh Day & Co's legal challenge argues that the "SCSHA failed to have regard to the government's policy that mass fluoridation of drinking water should only go ahead in any particular area if a majority of the local people are in favour of it".
It also argues that the SCSHA "failed to follow the requirements set out in the regulations to evaluate arguments in the responses to the consultation for and against fluoridation".
John Spottiswoode, chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, said: "We fully support [Ms Milner] launching a judicial review."
Earlier, in a statement, the SCSHA said: "The board is satisfied that, based on existing research, water fluoridation is a safe and effective way to tackle tooth decay and that the health benefits outweigh all other arguments against water fluoridation."

Australia - Fluoride overdose piped to 400 homes

A MIX of mechanical and human error combined to overdose hundreds of southeast Queensland households with fluoride, a government report says.
The Queensland Government will apologise to about 400 households in the Brisbane suburb of Joyner after it piped drinking water containing around 13 times the maximum recommended dosage of fluoride in April.
Natural Resources Minister Stephen Robertson said a report into the incident by Associate Professor Mark Pascoe, of the public research body The International Water Centre, found that the responsible authority, SEQwater, had failed in its management role.
"SEQwater has breached the Water Supply and Reliability Act, they breached the Water Supply Safety Act,'' Mr Robertson said today.
"I've expressed in very strong terms I find this unacceptable.
"My expectation is the board will take appropriate action against those who have been found to be responsible.
"Should there be a repeat of this incident I will be moving very swiftly to take decisive action at the board level, and possibly senior management level.''
Mr Robertson said he was considering amending the law to give the Government powers to fine organisations that are similarly derelict in their duties.
The mix-up occurred on April 29 this year, but the incident began days before with the disabling of an erratic flow switch and a fluoride "hi-alarm''.
On April 27 the water treatment plant at North Pine was shut down, but the fluoride dosing plant was not turned off.
When, two days later, a fluoride analyser recorded an off-the-scale reading and an alarm was triggered, staff did not respond, assuming it to be a false alarm because the treatment plant was shut down.
At first it was thought as many as 4000 households were affected, but much of the overdosed water was isolated from the public when it was sucked back into the treatment plant as it was restarted.
Mr Robertson said he would write to the affected residents to apologise.
"I can only say how unacceptable I find this incident to be and I do apologise to the people who were concerned and possibly impacted by this episode, and ensure them we will be doing whatever we can to ensure that this is not repeated,'' Mr Robertson said.
Opposition Leader John-Paul Langbroek said delivering a secure water supply was core government business but the Bligh Government had overseen a "fluoride fiasco''.

Southampton Daily Echo

Southampton Daily Echo - Fluoride decision: the people NEVER had a choice

Fluoride decision: the people NEVER had a choice
SO the cat is out of the bag - or the dentures are out of the glass.
In her response to the 15,000-name petition calling for the plan to add fluoride to Southampton's drinking water to be scrapped, health minister Ann Keen finally nails any misconception that there had been any hope that the public's views would be listened to.
Mrs Keen, pictured, confirmed that the Government was in favour of fluoride and the Strategic Health Authority did not in law have to pay any attention to what the people of the city thought or wanted.
That's that then - and makes a mockery of her own Prime Minister's view relayed to the Daily Echo - that this should be a matter for the citizens of Southampton to decide.
It also undermines her Cabinet colleague, Southampton MP John Denham, who has gone on
record in calling for the plan to be shelved, although he also says he supports the principle of fluoride in drinking water.
What concerns Mr Denham, local politicians and this paper, is not so much that fluoride is . necessarily dangerous, but that mass medication should be something people agree with and not something forced upon them.
It is not too late. The SHA can still reign back from this plan and instead of pouring public cash into fighting any legal challenges in the pipeline agree to a referendum. If, as the STA says, there is no firm evidence that the majority of residents are against the plan then they should have nothing to fear.
If they go ahead now with a discredited and deeply unpopular scheme they risk alienating a whole population.

.... but show sympathy for the poor minister
Mind you, I do have some sympathy for junior Health Minister Ann Keen (see left) for her daft decision, she is, after all, under a lot of pressure.
It must be terrible for her having to fend off the national press after it was revealed she and her husband have claimed £140,000 for a second home flat that is ten minutes walk from Parliament while their "main" home is boarded up ten miles away.
Difficult to get a grip of such a complicated issue as dental health in Hampshire when you've been threatened with having your boarded-up "main" home seized by the council after you admit you haven't lived there for months. Poor luv.

Comment from New Zealand

Fluoridation issue is about human rights
Thursday, 25 June 2009, 9:07 am
Press Release: Fluoride Action Network
Fluoridation issue is now about democracy and human rights
From the UK to Australia, State attempts to force water fluoridation on the population is meeting with extreme resistance on the ground it breaches human rights. Even those who believe fluoridation helps teeth are joining in the resistance on human rights grounds.

In Australia, following a directive to forcibly fluoridate Queensland’s public water supplies against the wishes of residents, residents have sent a demand to the Australian Human Rights Consultation Secretariat of the Attorney-General’s Department that it “publicly acknowledge that forced fluoridation of the massed population is a serious breach of [] human rights”.

“Artificial Fluoridation is direct VIOLATION of Human Rights and an epic detriment to health” the Australian petitioners state.

Campaigners from Hampshire, UK, presented a 15,000 signature petition to 10 Downing Street. They were supported by a Member of Parliament, who noted after helping collect signatures “what was interesting was that some people who signed were not necessarily anti fluoridation but strongly objected to the way that the decision makers rode roughshod over the wishes of the local people.”

During consultation, the vast majority of residents, and all but one Council, were opposed to proposed fluoridation. Yet the Strategic Health Authority, equivalent to a District Health Board in NZ, used its new powers to vote unanimously to force fluoridation on the population. “This is exactly the power local DHBs would like” points out Mark Atkin, Fluoride Action Network representative on the Fluoridation-free NZ Coalition.

The NZ Human Rights Commission was asked to address fluoridation in 1980, though outside its jurisdiction. “The Commission concluded that enforced mass medication by way of water fluoridation was acceptable on the same basis that we forcibly medicate mental patients!” exclaims Mr Atkin incredulously.

“The Commission had an office junior prepare a scant 3 page report that essentially summarised the pro-fluoridation mass medication ideology. No independent ethics advice was obtained, and no legal analysis was done of any case law” says Mr Atkin, a trained lawyer, who analysed the Commission’s report and relevant case law as part of his Honours degree research. “The Commission, which can now look at such Bill of Right issues, has recently been asked to look again at the fluoridation issue, but has declined” he advises.

The coalition for a fluoridation-free New Zealand opposes the faulty fluoridation policy on a number of grounds. That it is enforced mass medication breaching civil liberties is just one of them” says Mr Atkin. The majority of the continent of Europe has rejected fluoridation on the same grounds. “It is only the United States (and countries strongly influenced by the US) that remain persistent in what most of Europe calls an unethical practice. It’s high time we in New Zealand joined the enlightened” he says.

ends

Daily Echo Comment

Arrogance of health bosses ignoring the PM
SO now we know that when the Prime Minister says a decision on fluoride should be up to local people, what he really means is only if they agree with health chiefs. Gordon Brown told this paper earlier this year that local opinion counted in the debate over whether the chemical should be added to Southampton's water supply. A 15,000-name petition calling for the project to be scrapped was even handed in to Number 10 only last week. Yet today this paper reveals how the Department of Health has no qualms whatsoever in riding roughshod over the opinion of the people, their MPs - both of whom have called for the plan to be shelved - and even the PM. In a display of arrogance this whole debate has reached new levels.
The whole health establishment has shown itself to be unable to listen to the public -and afraid to put this matter to a real vote.

Kicked in the teeth

KICKED IN THE TEETH
Anger as Government refuses to review decision to put fluoride in our tap water
Report by Jon Reeve
GOVERNMENT ministers have ignored pleas from thousands of Hampshire residents to look again at controversial plans to fluoridate their tap water.
In what has been branded "a kick in the teeth", ministers have said they will not step in to re-examine the move.
Health minister Ann Keen said the government remained firmly in favour of fluoridation to improve people's dental health.
Her comments come just a month after Hampshire Against Fluoridation campaigners delivered a 15,300 signature petition to the Prime Minister calling for him to take action

• For the full story see pages 2&3,(Daily Echo)

SOUTH EAST EURO-MP CHALLENGES HEALTH SECRETARYS VESTED INTERESTS IN SOUTHAMPTON'S WATER FLUORIDATION SCHEME

NEWS RELEASE
From the office of South-East Englands Green MEP Caroline Lucas
24 June 2009
SOUTH EAST EURO-MP CHALLENGES HEALTH SECRETARYS VESTED INTERESTS IN SOUTHAMPTON'S WATER FLUORIDATION SCHEME
Green MEP for the South East Caroline Lucas has challenged the Secretary of State for Health Andy Burnham over his position as vice president of the British Fluoridation Society at a time when health authorities in Southampton were giving the green light to a mass medication water fluoridation scheme.
The Health Secretary was instrumental in proposing the inclusion of compulsory water fluoridation in the Governments 2003 Water Act. He resigned from this position in recent weeks, but Dr Lucas MEP today joined with UK Councils Against Fluoridation (UKCAF) to question why Mr Burnhams links with the Society were not included in his register of interests, despite strict Parliament regulations stating such interests must be declared.
Dr Lucas MEP said: It is of great concern that the Health Secretary was able to closely align himself with a body whose sole business it is to promote water fluoridation, at the same time that he was due to make key decisions about the future of the UKs water supply. Parliaments regulations on MPs interests are supposed to prevent alliances which can fundamentally inform policy but clearly they are not fit for purpose.
Earlier this year, the Green MEP warned that the regions health authorities were setting a reckless precedent" for future fluoridation schemes in the South East with their decision to press ahead with fluoridation plans in Southampton.
Although 72% of people in Southampton voted against fluoridation in a poll conducted by the Strategic Health Authority, the SHA is pressing ahead with the scheme. A legal case regarding the highly criticised consultation process has been announced and legal aid has been obtained by the person bringing the case against South Central SHA.
Dr Lucas MEP commented: "The ill-advised decision to implement water fluoridation in Southampton demonstrates contempt for the views of many local people - and for the evidence against fluoridation itself.
"Water fluoridation has simply not been proven to be effective for teeth, and some studies have indicated links between fluoridation and serious ill health effects, including thyroid problems, skeletal fluorosis, bone cancers and mental problems.
"The scheme in Southampton amounts to a mass medication of the population. I have made a formal complaint to the European Commission regarding the failure of the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to properly classify hexafluorosilic acid, used in fluoridation of drinking water under the UK Water Act 2003, as a medicinal product. The correct classification would likely mean the UKs water fluoridation schemes would contravene EU law.
In place of mass fluoridation, the UK Government could be improving the health of our teeth through targeted schemes such as providing free toothpaste for poor families. This decision in Southampton sets a reckless precedent for future fluoridation plans in the South East, and we must be vigilant of further attempts to affect our water in this way."

ENDS

Answers to Julian Lewis's questions in the House

Fluoride: Drinking Water
Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance he issues to strategic health authorities on the proportion of representations required in opposition to fluoridation of tap water in a particular community in order for the authority to withdraw its proposals for fluoridation of the water supply to that community; [281140]

(2) for what reasons strategic health authorities consult local communities on whether their tap water should be fluoridated. [281141]

Ann Keen: Under regulation 5 of the Water Fluoridation (Consultation) (England) Regulations 2005, a strategic health authority (SHA) considering the outcome of a consultation on water fluoridation is required to take into account both the extent of support for the proposal and the cogency of the arguments advanced. In so doing, the authority has to be satisfied that the health arguments in favour of proceeding with the proposal outweigh all arguments against proceeding with it before it takes any steps regarding fluoridation arrangements.
22 Jun 2009 : Column 722W
Accordingly, guidance on the application of the regulations, issued by the chief dental officer in February 2008, advised that:

“a SHA cannot base its decision solely on a simple count of the representations for or against the proposal”.

Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussion he has had with the Prime Minister on his recent statement in Southampton that the people should decide whether the city's water should be fluoridated. [281142]

Ann Keen: The Prime Minister's statement serves to highlight the legislative requirements contained in section 89 of the Water Industry Act 1991 whereby a strategic health authority must "consult and ascertain opinion" before requesting a water undertaker to increase the fluoride content of a water supply.

Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on Ministerial statements for or against fluoridation during a period of public consultation on whether or not to fluoridate a water supply. [281143]

Ann Keen: The Government support the fluoridation of water because of the potential it offers for reducing inequalities in oral health. To help inform public consultations, Ministers will, if asked, explain the reasons for their support.

Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will call in for examination the decision of South Central Strategic Health Authority to introduce fluoridation in Southampton and Totton. [281146]

Ann Keen: This would not be appropriate as an application has been made for a judicial review of the decision the South Central strategic health authority to fluoridate Southampton and parts of south west Hampshire.

Bottled water from AquAid for Dr Whitehead

Daily Echo Parliamentary Correspondent Andy Tate
continues to examine the
expenses of our local MPs
with a look through the
published accounts of
Southampton Test
MP Alan Whitehead
AN MP who billed taxpayers for the cost of maintaining a water cooler in his Southampton office has complained about being "tarred with the same brush" as politicians who broke or stretched the rules on expenses.
Alan Whitehead, Labour MP for Southampton Test, said he and some of his colleagues had been unfairly "swept up" in the campaign to expose members' misdemeanours, and insisted his own claims were modest.
They included, between 2004/5 and 2007/8, annual claims for £91 for the cost of hiring a water dispenser and regular claims for £7 for bottled water from AquAid.
Dr Whitehead, who claimed for the dispenser under his office and incidental expenses allowance, said: "The water cooler is in the office area where people come and visit, so it's for anyone who is visiting or waiting - constituents as much as staff. It's a reasonable office accoutrement."

No it isn't reasonable when he supports fluoridation for all of us.

Daily Echo

SHAs breathtaking conceit
IN the fluoride debate (Daily Echo, June 5), an SHA spokesman said the board was confident that the decision to fluoridate the water supply was taken "in the best interests of the local people.
This despite the local people legitimately voting against it. The introduction of a fluoride substitute is all about medicating us whether we want it or not, so whichever way they put it, if it is allegedly for our health, it has to be construed as a form of medication. Medicated water is not wholesome drinking water, and therefore unlawful.
We now read that the SHA has set aside £400,000 of our money (which could be better used within the National Health Service) to fight a legal claim against it for a judicial review at London's Royal Courts of Justice. The overbearing conceit that they are right in this matter is utterly breathtaking.
Prime Minister Brown said it in a nutshell on a recent visit to Southampton - "the decision was up to the local people". We decided. M A Clements, Mill Road, Southampton.

Apart from the last part of this film it is very good investigation.

No it isn't.

Daily Echo - Don't tamper with water

Don't tamper with water
SURELY, the Strategic Health Authority will now put plans to add fluoride to our water on hold. The unelected board is facing pressure on all sides, not least because the so-called consultation has proved totally flawed.
It is clear that most people don't want it. All Hampshire MPs seem to be of the same mind, that the scheme should be put on hold.
This whole sorry affair has been a tremendous waste of money, a distraction from the best
methods of tackling tooth decay, and a very poor public relations exercise for the SHA, which clearly failed to remember that it is the taxpayers and elected representatives whose views should be respected. Mass medication against the wishes of the population is something that should never be tolerated. Keep our water clean please, but don't tamper with it.
CLLR DAVID HARRISON, New Forest Liberal Democrats.

Rae Nadler Olenick on Alex Jones Tv 2/2 Toxins in Our Water Supply & Big Money

Australia - MP delivered death threat over fluoride in water debate

Rick Wallace, Victorian political reporter June 22, 2009
A VICTORIAN Cabinet Minister had a death threat delivered to her home over the weekend amid a debate over adding fluoride to Geelong's water supply. A threatening note scrawled on an water bottle was left on Geelong-based Community Services Minister Lisa Neville's verandah on Saturday night. The note read: "Thanks for the poison bitch - ready to kill you slowly." Ms Neville spoke out today to condemn the threat, which she blames on the anti-fluoride lobby. "What we have seen is some extremists who have threatened the water supply of Geelong as well as made threats against Barwon Water staff. Unfortunately on the weekend they crossed another line and threatened myself personally by delivering a message on the front verandah of my property. "That is a signifncant line to cross and I am particularly concerned that my son, like every other child in the communtiy, is safe in their own home. "Extremist behavour like this is completely unnacceptable and we would expect that Victoria Police will use the full force of the law against these people.'' Ms Neville did not know if the substance in the bottle was water or not but said police have seized it as evidence. Over the next few weeks Barwon Water is scheduled to begin adding fluoride to the city's water supply to improve dental health following an 18 month debate.

Australia - MP delivered death threat over fluoride in water debate

Rick Wallace, Victorian political reporter June 22, 2009
A VICTORIAN Cabinet Minister had a death threat delivered to her home over the weekend amid a debate over adding fluoride to Geelong's water supply.
A threatening note scrawled on an water bottle was left on Geelong-based Community Services Minister Lisa Neville's verandah on Saturday night.
The note read: "Thanks for the poison bitch - ready to kill you slowly."
Ms Neville spoke out today to condemn the threat, which she blames on the anti-fluoride lobby.
"What we have seen is some extremists who have threatened the water supply of Geelong as well as made threats against Barwon Water staff. Unfortunately on the weekend they crossed another line and threatened myself personally by delivering a message on the front verandah of my property.
"That is a signifncant line to cross and I am particularly concerned that my son, like every other child in the communtiy, is safe in their own home.
"Extremist behavour like this is completely unnacceptable and we would expect that Victoria Police will use the full force of the law against these people.''
Ms Neville did not know if the substance in the bottle was water or not but said police have seized it as evidence.
Over the next few weeks Barwon Water is scheduled to begin adding fluoride to the city's water supply to improve dental health following an 18 month debate.

Daily Echo

When integrity is down the list
IT is apparent reading of the duplicity of Mr Burnham with regard to the fluoride debate why the populace considers politicians to be 'beyond the pale' and he seems to be totally unmoved by any thoughts of probity.
Not only do some Members of Parliament take taxpayers' money, on the premise they
are entitled to take it but, they also fail to disclose where they have pecuniary interests in decisions they take!
Integrity appears to be far down the list of items which one would assume is required for selection as a Member of Parliament.
BARRY BURTON, Fareham.

Daily Echo - Good things can come out of bad experiences

Good things can come out of bad experiences
AS expected, there was a depressingly low turnout for the recent local and Euro elections. It would seem that a lot of people have rather lost faith in democracy and politicians.
Things were not looking too good even before the MPs' expenses scandal unfolded. I have noticed that many younger people seem a jot less inclined to take an interest in politics. Older people are more likely to vote, but many of them are turned off when they see important planning decisions removed from locally elected councillors.
On a really important health matter, the decision on whether to add fluoride to tap water has not been taken by councillors, or even MPs. It was taken by 12 unelected Government appointed officials, only one of which lives in this area.
As you might expect, people are reacting in different ways. Some are getting apathetic and not even bothering to vote. Others are angry and expressing this by voting for fringe parties. I personally think the best way is to get active and try and change the system.
I was really pleased to join about 30 members of the campaign group Hampshire Against Fluoride recently. We all went up to London, handed in over 15,000 signatures to Downing Street, a protest letter to the Department of Health and were able to meet with and lobby MPs in Westminster.
Although not all MPs agreed with our position on fluoride, they could all understand that there is no popular mandate to impose these changes to our drinking water. I'm very pleased that they have all agreed to try and put a halt to it. It will be very difficult now for the Strategic Health Authority to ignore the will of all local MPs.
The key thing here is that we have to restore democracy where it has been lost. If the power to change things rests with the people you can vote for, there is more point in putting a cross on a ballot paper.
It's interesting that a pressured Prime Minister is at long last talking about the sort of reforms we Liberal Democrats have been pushing for a long time. Good things can come out of bad experiences. Democracy is not yet dead.

Rae Nadler Olenick on Alex Jones Tv 1/2 Toxins in Our Water Supply & Big Money

Questions for Monday

102 Notices of Questions: 15 June2009 4351
MONDAY 22 JUNE
5 Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East): To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what guidance he issues to strategic health authorities on the proportion of representations required in opposition to fluoridation of tap water in a particular community in order for the authority to withdraw its proposals for fluoridation of the water supply to that community. (281140)
6 Dr Julian Lewi$ (New Forest East): To ask the Secretary of State for Health, for
what reasons strategic health authorities seek the views of local communities on
whether their tap water should be fluoridated. (281141)
7 Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East): To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what
assessment he made of the statement made by the Prime Minister in Southampton
that the people should decide whether the city's water should be fluoridated.
(281142)
8 Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East): To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what
his policy is on Ministerial statements in favour of fluoridation during a period of
public consultation on whether or not to fluoridate a water supply.
(281143)
9 Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East): To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he
will call in for examination the decision of South Central Strategic Health Authority to introduce fluoridation in Southampton and Totton.
(28U46)

Court challenge to stop fluoride plans

Court challenge to stop fluoride plans
By Jon Reeve
A LEGAL challenge to the controversial decision to fluoridate Hampshire tap water has been lodged with the courts, the Daily Echo can reveal.
Lawyers acting for a Southampton woman have launched a claim for a judicial review into the way health chiefs backed the scheme.
If the decision is ruled unlawful, it could mean plans to add fluoride to the water supplies of almost 200,000 homes in parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and 1 Rownhams have to be scrapped.
The body that gave fluorida-tion the green light, South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA), has set aside £400,000 to fight the challenge, saying it has done nothing wrong.The challenge is based on claims the SHA should not have approved fluoridation because public opinion was against it, and that evidence from opponents was not properly considered.
"The legal challenge itself is not about the pros and cons of the fluoridation, it's about the fact that they have messed up how they have gone about the process," said Sean Humber, of Leigh Day and Co, the solicitors handling the bid.
"The judge has to decide if we have raised issues that need to be looked at further. If he does grant permission for a judicial review, that's the first hurdle done.
"That decision should be made in the next few weeks."
The Daily Echo's coverage of the fluoride debate forms part of the challenge, which has been lodged at London's Royal Courts of Justice by Southampton resident
Geraldine Milner and is being funded by legal aid.
Comments made to this newspaper by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, in which he said the decision was "up to the local people are being used to show the importance the Government placed on popular support for any scheme. More than 10,000 responses were submitted to the SHA during its consultation. Of those from people in the affected area, 72 per cent were against.
In a separate phone poll of 2,000 residents, 38 per cent opposed fluoridation, compared to 32 per cent supporting it.
The SHA last night said it believes it fulfilled ' and exceeded its legal requirements during the consultation.
"South Central SHA will defend the challenge and we are confident that the decision that has been made was carried out in accordance with the relevant legislation and in the best interests of the health of local people," said a spokeswoman.

Daily Echo

A LEGAL challenge has been launched to stop the controversial fluoridation of Hampshire tap water, the Daily Echo can reveal.
Lawyers acting for a Hampshire woman have launched a claim for a judicial review at London's Royal Courts of Justice into the way health chiefs backed the scheme.
They say that fluoridation should not have been approved because of the weight of public opinion against the plan.
But health bosses insist they have done nothing wrong and have set aside £400,000 to fight the case.If the legal challenge is successful it could mean plans to add fluoride to the water supplies of almost 200,000 homes are scrapped.

FAN Bulletin 1078: Still waiting for Chester "Godot" Douglass

FAN Bulletin 1078: Still waiting for Chester "Godot" Douglass
It has now been over three years since Professor Chester Douglass of the Harvard Dental School trashed Bassin's (his own student!) study associating fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma, with the promise that his paper (to be co-authored by Robert Hoover and Gary Whitford) - to be published in the Summer of 2006 - would refute her findings. We've been waiting and waiting, but still no paper has appeared. Meanwhile, proponents of fluoridation like, 1) Dr. Peter Cooney , the chief dental officer of Canada, 2) the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC, 2007) and 3) the South Central Strategic Health Authority in the UK, continue to cite his letter as if it were a fully fledged article scientifically rebutting Bassin's findings. So much for authorities who insist upon "peer-reviewed and published" science!
Click title to see FAN site

Daily Echo

Late support from MPs is still welcome
IT is very encouraging to see Southampton's two Labour MPs Alan Whitehead and John Denham deciding to intervene in the campaign to stop fluoride being added to drinking water.
I have two questions for them. Firstly, why has it taken you so long to react? And secondly what exactly are you intending to do?
It has been clear since the South Central Strategic Health Authority's February to add fluoride to drinking water that its members had ignored the outcome of the public consultation, which clearly showed most people opposed the plan.
Why didn't Mr Denham and Mr Whitehead speak up then and offer to help with the campaign at that point?
I suggest they have realised at last that many people in the city are angry with the way the health authority acted, and they know that if they don't wake up and say something they will lose votes.
We now need the health authority to listen and accept that the people of Southampton do not want fluoride in their drinking water.
DAVID CALLAGHAN, Liberal Democrat Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Southampton Test

Daily Echo Letter

Political expediency?
JOHN Denham says the Strategic Health Authority should put its plan to fluoridate our water 'on hold'. He concedes that he still agrees with mass medication of our water against our wishes but in this instance he wants to listen to public opinion.
On the face of it this looks like a classic case of political opportunism. If he was so concerned about public opinion wouldn't he be lobbying his friend Gordon Brown for an early general election?
We know that only 15 per cent of people voted Labour in the last election so what's the difference?
He obviously only wants to listen to his constituents when it's politically expedient to do so.
ROYSTON SMITH, Conservative Parliamentary Candidate, Southampton Itchen.

Obesity, tooth decay and teen births plague Aussie kids

Australia is about 75% fluoridated: "ALMOST one-quarter of Australian children are overweight or obese, while tooth decay in six-year-olds is on the rise"

Southampton Daily Echo

This decision is an act of dictatorship
THE SHA decision to poison all our water with the chemical fluoride is dictatorial. Cracking a nut with a sledge hammer comes to mind.
If they're concerned about the health of children's teeth, then tackle the problem at source.. Stop sweets manufacturers putting so much sugar in fizzy drinks, cakes, chocolate, biscuits. Make sure all toothpaste contains fluoride. The amount of water children drink is negligible. In excess of 90 per cent of water used in the average household is flushed/poured down the drain (is that cost effective).
Bring back free milk at schools for children, educate parents and children in the benefits of brushing teeth, eating less sweet foods. In my opinion the only reason fluoridation is supported by the dental industry is that dentists get paid a lot less for treating children. The water authorities have an obligation to supply safe drinking water for all not just a minority, fluoridation does not benefit all.
What about our human rights?
P VERRALL, Southampton.

Daily Echo

Encouraged by fluoride protesters
IT is very encouraging to see the efforts that are being made by those protesting against the possible introduction of fluoride into our excellent water supply and also the fact that this concern has at last got through to our local MP's who are suggesting that it should be put on hold. (Echo June 10) Great!
Research into the results of the use of fluoridation in various parts of the world has shown up some very disturbing problems affecting the health of those obliged to consume this contamination. In fact, one wonders whether the members of South Central Strategic Health Authority have looked any further into this other than the fact that it could be of benefit to children's teeth; even this seems to be in doubt.
If, by some unfortunate means, this should ever be adopted, it cannot be made compulsory by parents the children or anyone else. It's hardly likely that the majority of children these days would go to their tap for a drink when there is such a wide variety of soft drinks available for them - Coke, etc.
Referring to the old adage, "You may lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink". In my opinion, this virtually sums up the outcome which indicates that this scheme would be a complete failure in more ways than one and an utter waste of time and money.
B SHERGOLD, Southampton.

Fluoride - IQ

The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) is an international comparison of 15-year-olds conducted by The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that measures applied learning and problem-solving ability. In 2006, U.S. students ranked 25th of 30 advanced nations in math and 24th in science. McKinsey & Company, in releasing its report "The Economic Impact of the Achievement Gap in America's Schools" (April 2009) said, "Several other facts paint a worrisome picture. First, the longer American children are in school, the worse they perform compared to their international peers.............

Anybody looked at fluoridated West Midlands exam results compared to the rest of the UK?

Daily Echo - New health boss had fluoride link

HAMPSHIRE: Anger at 'partisan' Cabinet appointment
New health boss had fluoride link
ANTI-FLUORIDE campaigners in Hampshire have reacted with anger at the news the country's new health boss held a leading role in the group that promotes fluoridation nationally.
Andy Burnham, who was last week handed the Cabinet post of health secretary, resigned his role as vice-president of the British Fluoridation Society (BFS) on Friday. He insisted he was leaving the position to avoid any "perceived conflict of interest".
But activists fighting plans to introduce fluoridation in and around Southampton are disgusted that someone with such a partisan stance on an issue so contentious can now be in charge of the body that made the initial decision. They also allege that Mr Burnham had failed to declare his role on the register of MPs' interests, so his position on fluoridation was not known until he was promoted to the head of the Department of Health (DoH).
Earlier last week, Hampshire Against Fluoridation (HAF) hand-delivered a letter to the department's Whitehall offices, calling on Mr Burnham to personally step in to the row over the Southampton scheme. But chairman John Spottiswoode said he now believes there is no way Mr Burnham can act objectively over the issue.
"We can hardly expect to get a fair hearing from someone who was vice-chairman of the BFS and does not declare this to other MPs until after he is made Health Minister," he said.
"It is a clear conflict of interest to be vice-chairman of a pressure group when he is being required to judge fairly over questions of health policy and the right of local people to have a say in whether they are fluoridated or not."
HAF had urged Mr Burnham to call on South Central Strategic Health Authority to rethink its decision to approve fluoridation "because there is no local mandate".
With 72 per cent of responses to the public consultation from those in the affected area opposing flupridation, and 38 per cent against it in a separate phone poll (compared to 32 per cent in favour), they argue it is clear the public don't want it. But SHA chiefs unanimously approved the scheme, citing evidence showing it should reduce tooth decay.
Announcing Mr Burnham's resignation from the BSF, a DoH spokesman said there was "no question" of fluoridation being imposed by Government.
"Decisions should be taken locally following consultations conducted in accordance with procedures approved by Parliament," she said.

Anti Fluoride Protesters at Westminster

Echo New health secretary quits fluoridation post

New health secretary quits fluoridation post
THE new health secretary last night resigned as vice president of the British Fluoridation Society.
Andy Burnham, pictured, says he has stepped down from the honorary posi-tion with the group, which promotes adding fluoride to water as a way of improving dental health, to avoid any per-ceived conflict of interest.
But claims have already been made he had failed to register his role on the list of MPs' interests, and his former posi-tion will inevitably lead to protests from those opposed to the practice that he should not remain in his Cabinet post.
Earlier this week, campaigners fighting fluoridation in and around Southampton delivered a letter to Mr Burnham, calling on him to step in to force a rethink of the controversial scheme.
A Department of Health spokeswoman said Mr Burnham had held his role with the BFS since 2004. "Following his appointment as Secretary of State for P- Health, he will be relinquishing this position as he appreciates "that there could be a perceived conflict of interest," she said.

Southampton fluoridation challenge launched

Southampton fluoridation challenge launched
11 June 2009
Leigh Day & Co has commenced a judicial review challenge on behalf of Ms Geraldine Milner, a life long resident of Southampton, against the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SCSHA) in relation to its recent decision to instruct Southern Water to fluoridate the local water supply in Southampton and parts of South West Hampshire.

Ms Milner is opposed to the proposals to fluoridate the water supply on account of the continuing uncertainties with regard to the long term health risks associated with fluoridation, as well as concerns with regard to the possible adverse environmental effects. She also considers that more targeted and less intrusive measures should be used to deal with problems of tooth decay in the Southampton area.

Failure to have regard to Government policy
The legal challenge argues that the SCSHA failed to have regard to the Government’s policy that mass fluoridation of drinking water should only go ahead in any particular area if a majority of the local people are in favour of it.

During the passage of the relevant parts of the Water Bill (which became the Water Act) during 2003, Lord Warner, the Junior Health Minister, stated in Parliament that it was Government policy that:

“no new fluoridation scheme would go ahead without the support of the majority of the local populations determined by local consultations conducted by strategic health authorities …”

During consideration in Parliament of the Regulations made under the Act in 2005, Lord Warner repeated that:

“it is fundamental to our policy that a strategic health authority should only arrange for its drinking water to be fluoridated where the local population is in favour … Let me dispel any suggestion, however, that we have diluted out commitment that fluoridation schemes would only be introduced where the local population were in favour.”

On 26th February 2009, the very day that the SCSHA took the decision to proceed with fluoridation, the Department of Health’s Customer Service Centre confirmed that:

“It is the Government’s policy that no new fluoridation schemes should be introduced unless it can be shown that the local population is in favour … Moreover, the Department considers that fluoridation is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights because new schemes could not be introduced unless consultations showed that [it] has local support.”

The SCSHA conducted a consultation of the population affected by the proposal between September and December 2008. Overall, 72% of those responding (including Ms Milner) were opposed to fluoridation with only 28% supporting the proposal. In a separate telephone survey commissioned by the SCSHA, 32% of people supported adding fluoride to water, 38% were opposed and 29% were unsure or did not have a view.

Despite the results of the consultation confirming the local population to be clearly against the proposal, the SCSHA decide to proceed with the proposals.

Failure to properly consider arguments against fluoridation
The legal challenge also argues that the SCSHA failed to follow the requirements set out in the Regulations to evaluate “the cogency of the arguments advanced” in the responses to the consultation for and against fluoridation.

A number of bodies submitted detailed responses setting out a range of arguments against fluoridation. These included Hampshire County Council, who submitted a 56 page response, and Hampshire Against Fluoridation who submitted a detailed 39 page response. These responses raised detailed arguments, supported by references, questioning the effectiveness of fluoridation, concerns about the long term health risks associated with fluoridation and the failure to adequately investigate alternatives.

The actual responses appear not to have been reviewed by the SCSHA Board before reaching their decision to proceed with fluoridation. Instead, the Board simply considered a report prepared by The Evidence Centre, an independent body commissioned by the SCSHA to summarise the responses (and which, for example, appears to have considered Hampshire Against Fluoridation’s response in two short paragraphs). The report explicitly stated that “the compilation does not judge or weight the responses”. Much of the information provided by bodies such as Hampshire County Council and Hampshire Against Fluoridation was never properly considered by the SCSHA Board.

For more information please contact Sean Humber or Benjamin Burrows on 020 7650 1200.

Information was correct at time of publishing. See terms and conditions for further details.

Daily Echo letter

How smug an attitude
MEMBERS of the SHA (Echo, June 5) adopt a very smug attitude towards fluoridation, having totally disregarded the Government's specific promise to the local population. In order to be of much use, the consultation booklet should have been produced by an independent organisation having no axe to grind on either side. The one issued was unnecessarily glossy and fancy, with a number of wholly irrelevant pictures.
It featured an inaccurate map (highlighted by the Echo several weeks ago), besides using misleading terminology, and misrepresentation of the existing research.It was a propaganda exercise, aimed at gullible people who had neither prior knowledge nor desire to look further.
G PAYNE, Southampton.

Local resident seeks judicial review of planned fluoridation of Southampton water supply

INFORMATION RELEASE
12th June 2009
Local resident seeks judicial review of planned fluoridation of Southampton water supply
An application has been filed with the High Court for a judicial review of the decision made in February 2009 to fluoridate the water supply of Southampton. The decision was made by the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SCSHA) of the National Health Service www.southcentral.nhs.uk. The application challenges the decision on the grounds that: it is Government policy that fluoridation should only go ahead if the local population is in favour and the evidence if it is not; and that the regulations for the consultation undertaken by the SCSHA required an assessment of the cogency of the arguments for and against fluoridation and this did not occur.
If the application is upheld by the court, the SCSHA will be required to quash its decision.
The challenge has been made by a resident living in the area to be fluoridated, legally represented by Leigh Day & Co Solicitors. Details of the legal challenge are given on their website
A local group Hampshire Against Fluoridation (HAF) www.hampshireagainstfluoridation.org involved in the consultation has been asked by the legal representatives to submit a witness statement describing certain aspects of the consultation process. The statement sets out: examples of what HAF considers to be misleading information put forward by SCSHA during and after the consultation process; and examples of evidence put forward in response to the consultation that was not properly considered by the SCSHA Board.

For more information, contact:
John Spottiswoode Chairman, Hampshire Against Fluoridation 023 8078 9230 john.spottiswoode@btinternet.com
Sean Humber Partner, Leigh Day Solicitors 020 7650 1200 shumber@leighday.co.uk

Andy Burnham gives up fluoride post over 'perceived conflict of interests'

06/12/2009
Andy Burnham gives up fluoride post over 'perceived conflict of interests'
It's not quite a ministerial resignation, admittedly - but an interesting realignment of Andy Burnham's extra-curricular roles following inquiries by The Times. The Health Secretary, who has battled through a hefty workload this week of NHS budget cut rows and swine flu (and his heavy head cold), talked in strong terms about the importance of the 'prevention agenda' in his crusade on public health in his first speech (and striking call for a targets clear out) on Thursday. His audience of health service managers at the NHS Confederation's annual conference in Liverpool were told that putting fluoride in water supplies was a must for tackling poor rates of tooth decay in the young (read more here soon). The strategy remains highly divisive, with critics arguing that it's 'mass medicating' without any high-quality evidence of efficacy.
But Mr Burnham, hardening his predecessor Alan Johnson's support for more fluoridation, took the opportunity to call on health trusts to pursue fluoride where needed (it is a choice to be made by local authorities, supported by a recent law change that forces water companies to comply). But what of that vice president's position he has held with the British Fluoridation Society since 2004? The society may have thought he was still with them, but by this afternoon - and after a call from The Times - the position had been "relinquished" in case of any "perceived conflict of interests". One fears such a gesture won't appease the vocal members of the anti-fluoridation lobby, who claim that their groundswell of support is regularly ignored.

Andy Burnham’s speech to NHS Confederation Annual Conference

12/06/2009 - Andy Burnham’s speech to NHS Confederation Annual Conference

"Let’s press ahead with fluoridation of water supplies, given the clear evidence that it can improve children’s dental health."

Andy has been Vice President of the British Fluoridation Society for a number of years so he is bound to say that.

Romsey Advertiser

MPs join anti-fluoride lobby
3:31pm Thursday 11th June 2009 ANTI-FLUORIDE campaigners took their protest to the corridors of power this week. At No 10, Downing Street, members of Hampshire Against Fluoridation (HAF) handed in a petition bearing the names of the 15,000 people who had signed up to oppose plans to add fluoride to tap water supplies in Southampton and surrounding areas, including Nursling and Rownhams. Banner-carrying campaigners then marched to the Department of Health before moving on to the Houses of Parliament to lobby MPs. The 30 members of Hampshire Against Fluoridation received an unexpected boost when Southampton Test MP, Alan Whitehead, told the All-Parliamentary Group Against Fluoridation that he, too, believed that the unpopular fluoride plans should be put on hold. Despite being personally in favour of fluoridation to improve children’s teeth, his calls for a rethink mirrored those of fellow city MP, John Denham. Almost three-quarters of respondents living in the affected area were against fluoridation, while 38 per cent opposed it in a separate phone survey, compared to 32 per cent in favour. “I don’t think the balance that was arrived at by the SHA actually stands in line with the legislation,” said Dr Whitehead. “Therefore, it would be a good idea for the implementation at least to be put on hold until there is a better balance.” Mr Whitehead’s U-turn means all the MPs representing areas affected by the fluoridation plans are now united in calling for South Central Strategic Health Authority’s decision to be reviewed. Romsey MP, Sandra Gidley, the Lib Dem public health spokesperson, said: “The health authority were very selective with the evidence they took account of, ignoring much good evidence which proves that fluoride is good for teeth, but doesn’t have to be put into the water. “They also seemed to have ignored the fact that even the British Dental Association advise against giving fluoridated water to babies. “The cost of fluoridation would also be huge. It would be far cheaper and more effective to provide toothpaste and brushes to those who can’t afford, it rather than introducing a mass medication programme.” A delighted HAF member, Stephen Peckham, commented: “Not only did we get the chance to take 15,000 local people’s signatures up to Number 10 to show their disgust at what is happening, but we forged some really good alliances and this is a platform for taking things forward. “Particularly, Alan was saying he’s willing to work together with the other MPs to bring this to the attention of the Department of Health and put pressure on the SHA.” Health chiefs at the SHA unanimously backed fluoridation for nearly 200,000 homes earlier this year, in a bid to improve Southampton’s poor dental health record. The decision came after a 14-week public consultation, in which the SHA says it listened to residents and examined all the scientific evidence as it was legally required to. But opponents say the public will was ignored. Almost three-quarters of respondents living in the affected area were against fluoridation, while 38 per cent opposed it in a separate phone survey, compared to 32 per cent in favour. “I don’t think the balance that was arrived at by the SHA actually stands in line with the legislation,” said Dr Whitehead. “Therefore it would be a good idea for the implementation at least to be put on hold until there is a better balance.”

Lymington Times - Anti-fluoride campaign takes 15,000 name petition to No. 10

PETITION with over 15,000 signatures against fluoride being added to the water supply to Totton and Southampton was delivered to Campaign group Hampshire Against Fluoridation (HAF) was joined on their trip to London by 30 loyal supporters including New Forest East MP Julian Lewis anrl Totton councillor David Harrison.
The controversial decision to add fluoride to the water supply was unanimously made by the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) in February after proposals from Southampton Primary Car Trust, which said it would fight tooth decay in children. Objectors fear fluoridation has harmful side effects.
The measure is targeted at the city but will affect about 8,000 Totton residents if it comes into force in 2010 due to the layout of the pipes. It will mean an increase in fluoride from its current level of 0.08 parts per million to one part per million.
During the trip they also handed over a letter of protest to the Department of Health, calling on it to intervene and reverse the decision. Southampton MP John Denham, promoted to communities secretary in the cabinet reshuffle last week, met the group on the trip. Despite being in favour of fluoridation to improve children's dental heath, he said it needed public support.
They then moved on to the Palace of Westminster where they met with the All Party Parliamentary Group Against Fluoridation to discuss what could be done.
Coun. Harrison told the 'A&T': "The suggestion that the scheme be put on hold is a very good one. It will enable places like the Sure Start Centres to make an effective difference by educating parents as to the importance of children brushing their teeth, a far more effective method than mass medication by tap water."
Health watchdog the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is currently deciding whether to investigate the SHA's public consultation on the scheme following complaints of bias.

Advertiser free paper report on fluoridation

FLUORIDE Plea TO PM
CAMPAIGNERS fighting plans to add fluoride to Hampshire's tapwater have delivered their views to the Prime Minister.
Members of Hampshire Against Fluoridation took a petition with 15,300 names calling for the controversial scheme to be scrapped to Downing Street on Tuesday.
The activists were joined by Hampshire MPs Chris Huhne, Julian Lewis and Sandra Gidley as they handed over the signatures urging Gordon Brown to personally step in and order health chiefs to reverse their backing of fluorida-tion. The 30 campaigners then delivered a letter to new Health Secretary Andy Burnham calling on him to order South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) to drop its plans to add fluoride to supplies for 200,000 homes in Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton and Netley.
Caroline Place, one of the petition organisers, said: "We are hoping that the pol icy will be changed, that they will change the law about it. Overwhelmingly, as you can see from 15,000 people who have spoken by signing to say they don't want it, there is a majority against."
It came after Southampton Itchen MP John Denham joined calls for fluoridation to be put on hold.
Making his first public comment on the issue, Mr Denham warned against enforced fluoridation against such opposition. He said: "There is a real danger of proceeding with fluoridation against the wishes of too many people. "It would be better if the SHA were to place the implementation of its decision on hold. It needs to have a fresh-look at the situation and see how it might be possible to win greater public support. "The SHA should be prepared to say that, even if the health benefits are clear, it cannot ignore issues of public opinion or confidence."
Mr Denham, who was last week promoted to Communities Secretary in the Cabinet reshuffle, is himself in favour of fluoridation to improve children's dental health, but says any plan needs to command public confidence.
The SHA board unanimously approved the fluoridation scheme in February. Their decision came despite a 14-week public consultation showing overwhelming opposition to the scheme with 72 per cent of responses from people living in the affected area saying they were opposed to the plan.
Health watchdog the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is currently deciding whether to investigate the SHA's public consultation on the scheme. A SHA spokesman said it was satisfied evidence showed fluoridation was "a safe and effective way to tackle tooth decay" and that the health benefits outweigh all other arguments against water fluoridation.

ANH Press Release: Hampshire MPs pledge to put fluoridation decision on hold in Southampton

ANH Press Release: Hampshire MPs pledge to put fluoridation decision on hold in Southampton
LONDON, 9th June 2009.
Yesterday, opponents of fluoridation met in Westminster to discuss the South Central Strategic Health Authority’s decision to fluoridate the water supplies of nearly 200,000 people in the Southampton and South West Hampshire area. Campaigners from Hampshire Against Fluoridation were able to cite 15,348 objections to the fluoridation plan from the local area.

If implemented, Southampton and environs will become the first area of the UK to fluoridate following a law change in 2003. The Water Act 2003 gives health chiefs the power to instruct water companies to mass medicate their customers with fluorosilicic acid via their water supplies. The Southampton case is seen widely as a ‘test case’ which will significantly influence the decisions of other Strategic Health Authorities around the country. Opponents of fluoridation, including a contingent of some 35 concerned citizens from Hampshire Against Fluoridation were hosted by the All Party Parliamentary Group Against Fluoridation. Present were three Hampshire MPs, Julian Lewis (Conservative) Sandra Gidley (Lib Dem) and Alan Whitehead (Labour).

Lone pro-fluoridation proponent, Alan Whitehead, surprised the meeting, saying that he agrees with fellow pro-fluoride Southampton Labour MP John Denham that the decision to fluoridate should be put on hold until public confidence has been restored.

Mr Whitehead explained that he was concerned about due process and the fact that 72% of respondents to the Consultation were opposed to fluoridation. Despite his belief that the benefits of fluoridation outweighed the risks, he said any decision by the Strategic Health Authority to implement fluoridation “would need to command public confidence”. He said, “it would not be right to take this decision in full defiance of the 72% who had said no when asked for their opinions.”

Sandra Gidley, Shadow Public Health Minister for the Liberal Democrats, emphasised the weakness of the science used to justify fluoridation by the health authorities and said that she felt mass medication was inappropriate for vulnerable groups like babies and pregnant women particularly because it was difficult to estimate total fluoride intake from other sources.

Julian Lewis, MP for Totton, one of the areas near Southampton that will be affected by the decision, vowed to work to stop the Strategic Health Authority from fluoridating the Hampshire water supply. He said he’d raise relevant questions to Harriett Harman, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. To applause from the audience present, he indicated that he “would bang the drum for as long as was needed”.

Robert Verkerk PhD, executive and scientific director of the international campaign group, the Alliance for Natural Health, also a Hampshire resident, said he was greatly concerned about the risks of artificial fluoridation on the most vulnerable, namely babies and infants. He explained that a one-month-old baby fed with infant formula made with fluoridated tap water would consume approximately twice the level considered safe. He went on to say that European laws on food and drugs would ultimately make fluoridation illegal because “fluoride used to treat or prevent tooth decay can no longer escape medicinal classification. Fluorosilicic acid has never been evaluated or approved as a drug. An opinion on this by a top flight European law barrister would confirm this view and make possible a case for legal action if South Central decides to proceed with the fluoridation proposal from Southampton City PCT.”

A spokesman for National Pure Water Association indicated their hope that the political parties would come together and investigate the scientific issues properly free from bias. He said, “We are delighted that Julian Lewis is taking a lead on this and will be pushing to get his party (Conservative) to consider the issues and hopefully take a stand against fluoridation”.

Robert Pocock, an Irish campaigner against fluoridation representing the Voice of Irish Concern for the Environment (VOICE), spoke about the dire consequences of Ireland’s 40-year history with fluoridation. He said, “fluorosis (tooth mottling, discolouration or pitting) caused by fluoride has increased 700% since we started fluoridating the water supply. We now have a staggering 37% of teenagers suffering from dental fluorosis of concern.”

After the meeting, the Alliance for Natural Health, the National Pure Water Association and VOICE committed themselves to collaborating with a view to exploring the potential of a legal challenge as means of halting deliberate fluoridation of the public water supply in both the UK and Ireland. It was agreed that any effective challenge would likely need to be referred to a European court and be headed by a leading barrister in European law.

Fluoride in our water is industrial waste

Daily Echo Westminster View

Fluoride issue is now about democracy
By Romsey MP Sandra Giddley
Earlier this week I joined campaigners from Hampshire Against Fluoridation to present a petition to 10 Downing Street. The petition had been signed by approximately 15,000 people. I collected some of the signatures and what was interesting was that some people who signed were not necessarily anti fluoridation but strongly objected to the way that the decision makers rode roughshod over the wishes of the local people.
So, I am pleased to witness the late conversion to the cause of John Denham and Alan Whitehead. John outlined his position earlier this week in the Echo and Alan attended the Westminster meeting which followed the presentation of the petition. He was clear that he was not opposed to fluoride but supported John Denham's call for a hold on the procedure because of concerns about the consultation.
So we now have a situation in which the majority of people who responded to the consultation objected to fluoridation and all but one of the local councils objected to the proposals. With the latest conversions to the cause we also have a situation in which MPs of all political parties have raised serious concerns about the biased nature of the consultation. Maybe, like me, you are wondering where the democratic processes are in all of this?
National significance
Now, this may seem like a relatively local issue but what is happening in Southampton actually has national significance because Southampton is the first area in which fluoridation has been proposed under relatively new Government legislation. Health Trusts all around the country are carefully watching what is happening in Southampton. If all goes smoothly here then it is only a matter of time before a large number of other areas of the country have fluoride added to their drinking water whether the people want it or not.
The law is clear. It states that there should be due regard to public opinion unless there is overwhelming scientific evidence against that opinion. The trouble is that both sides cherry pick the papers that best suit their argument and it's hard to access unbiased, dispassionate material of high quality.
The review should have been conducted by a neutral third party, such as the authors of the independent York review, and I personally would like to see the consultation rerun in this way. Meanwhile, we are all trying everything we can think of to challenge the decision. This is no longer just about teeth - it's about democracy.

Daily Echo video

Fluoride Protest In Downing Street
7.00pm Tuesday 9th June 2009 Hampshire Against Fluoride campaigners deliver a petition against adding the substance to water supplies in Southampton to Downing Street.

Hampshire's fluoride campaigners take protest to Downing Street

Hampshire's fluoride campaigners take protest to Downing Street
1:25pm Tuesday 9th June 2009
By Jon Reeve »
CAMPAIGNERS fighting plans to add fluoride to Hampshire's tap water today delivered their views to the Prime Minister.
Members of Hampshire Against Fluoridation took a petition containing 15,300 names calling for the controversial scheme to be scrapped to Downing Street this morning.
The activists were joined by Hampshire MPs Chris Huhne, Julian Lewis and Sandra Gidley as they handed over the signatures urging Gordon Brown to personally step in and order health chiefs to reverse their backing of fluoridation.
The 30 campaigners then delivered a letter to new Health Secretary Andy Burnham calling on him to instruct South Central Strategic Health Authority to reverse its plans to add fluoride to 200,000 homes in Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton and Netley.
Caroline Place, one of the petition organisers, said: "We are hoping that the policy will be changed, that they will change the law about it. Overwhelmingly, as you can see from 15,000 people who have spoken by signing to say they don't want it, there is a majority against."

BBC

A petition with 14,000 signatures has been delivered to Downing Street by protesters calling for a decision to add fluoride to water in Southampton to be reversed.

Handing in the petition to No: 10