Community Briefs: Jan. 30
Saturday, January 30, 2010 12:00 am
Free dental exams for children to be given Thursday
RACINE — The Racine County Dental Society will partner with the Health Care Network for the fifth annual Give Kids a Smile Day from 9 a.m. to noon and 1 to 4 p.m. Thursday at Health Care Network Inc., 904 State St.
The American Dental Association created Give Kids a Smile Day to build support for public and private solutions that will help under served children get regular oral health care. Despite advances in cavity prevention, 52 percent of 6- to 8-year-olds have tooth decay, however due to lack of access to care these children go untreated. Untreated tooth decay results in pain, dysfunction, reduced weight/poor nutrition and poor appearance.
For the fifth year children will be seen at the Health Care Network for a free dental exam, aftercare will be scheduled with Racine area dentists at no charge to the patient.
Children age 6 to 13 are eligible to receive free dental exams. Call (262) 632-2400 to schedule an appointment. Appointments are required. Arrangements for follow-up care will be made where needed.
After 65 years of water fluoridation in the U.S., 55 years of fluoridated toothpaste and a virtually 100% fluoridated food and beverage supply with up to 48% of US school children sporting fluoride overdose symptms (discolored teeth):NYSCOF
30 Jan 2010
Article in the Andover Advertiser 19th Jan
FLUORIDE: GET REAL! by Steve Dancey
The man who might be health secretary in a future Conservative government
has called for a referendum on water fluoridation.
Andrew Lansley described the public consultation carried out by South
Central Strategic Health Authority (SCSHA) into the controversial proposal
as "not real".
While the proposals do not encompass the Andover area, many worry that the
controversial material will be added to the water here if the south
Hampshire proposals are implemented after a judicial review.
The issue caused a furore in Andover in the 1950s when Andover Borough
Council added fluoride to the water.
Mr Lansley said: "A referendum is a simple way of giving the public a real
opportunity to make a decision about this. I think in Southampton and south
Hampshire the consultation was not real because effectively what happened
was that they (SCSHA) said 'We have looked at the evidence and we think we
should fluoridate the water'. "They (SCSHA) then had a consultation with
the public. About 75 per cent of the public said 'Actually we are against
this'. And they (SCSHA) said 'We know you said you are against it but we
have looked at the evidence and we think it's the right thing to do'. So
what was the point of the consultation?"
Liberal Democrat shadow health minister Sandra Gidley, who represents
Longparish, the Wallops and Stockbridge, welcomed the statement. She added
: "It is just a shame it has taken nearly a year for Tory party leadership
to make their opinion on a local referendum known."
The man who might be health secretary in a future Conservative government
has called for a referendum on water fluoridation.
Andrew Lansley described the public consultation carried out by South
Central Strategic Health Authority (SCSHA) into the controversial proposal
as "not real".
While the proposals do not encompass the Andover area, many worry that the
controversial material will be added to the water here if the south
Hampshire proposals are implemented after a judicial review.
The issue caused a furore in Andover in the 1950s when Andover Borough
Council added fluoride to the water.
Mr Lansley said: "A referendum is a simple way of giving the public a real
opportunity to make a decision about this. I think in Southampton and south
Hampshire the consultation was not real because effectively what happened
was that they (SCSHA) said 'We have looked at the evidence and we think we
should fluoridate the water'. "They (SCSHA) then had a consultation with
the public. About 75 per cent of the public said 'Actually we are against
this'. And they (SCSHA) said 'We know you said you are against it but we
have looked at the evidence and we think it's the right thing to do'. So
what was the point of the consultation?"
Liberal Democrat shadow health minister Sandra Gidley, who represents
Longparish, the Wallops and Stockbridge, welcomed the statement. She added
: "It is just a shame it has taken nearly a year for Tory party leadership
to make their opinion on a local referendum known."
22 Jan 2010
Lymington Times - Government urged by MP to clarify fluoridation policy
Government urged by MP to clarify fluoridation policy
CLARITY has been demanded by New Forest East MP Julian Lewis over the government's position on a fluoridation plan affecting 8,000 people in Totton.
Although prime minister Gordon Brown and cabinet member John Denham have noted the need for public support before adding the chemical, Dr Lewis highlighted a House of Lords government spokeswoman who said "we support" the plan.
In the House of Commons, he called for a health minister to make a statement to explain the true position.
Fluoridation is meant to combat child tooth decay in the city and, if implemented, will affect 190,000 people in Southampton and surrounding areas. Totton will be included because of the layout of the pipes.
But opponents are fighting the plan in the High Court after it was approved last year by the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA). They resent "forced medication" and have safety concerns about the chemical.
In his latest attack, Dr Lewis targeted a written statement by Baroness Thornton in the House of Lords when she highlighted "unacceptably high" figures from 2006-09 showing an average of 500 children a year in the city had decaying teeth removed.
A statistical fall over recent years was because data was now only recorded with parental consent, she said, which meant children in deprived areas who were more likely to have tooth decay were actually less likely to be counted.
But she added: "We continue to support South Central Strategic Health Authority's decision to fluoridate a large part of Southampton and parts of south-west Hampshire."
In response to Dr Lewis's call for an explanation of the government's position, the leader of the House of Commons, Harriet Harman, said she would ask the health secretary, Andy Burnham, to write to him.
As reported in the 'A&T, the SHA is fighting the anti-fluoride campaign on several fronts after it approved Southampton Primary Care Trust's proposals.
A complaint by Dr Lewis has also been made to the NHS ombudsman complaining that the SHA's consultation was "biased" and it ignored residents' opinions. A more recent bid to block fluoride under European Union law failed.
CLARITY has been demanded by New Forest East MP Julian Lewis over the government's position on a fluoridation plan affecting 8,000 people in Totton.
Although prime minister Gordon Brown and cabinet member John Denham have noted the need for public support before adding the chemical, Dr Lewis highlighted a House of Lords government spokeswoman who said "we support" the plan.
In the House of Commons, he called for a health minister to make a statement to explain the true position.
Fluoridation is meant to combat child tooth decay in the city and, if implemented, will affect 190,000 people in Southampton and surrounding areas. Totton will be included because of the layout of the pipes.
But opponents are fighting the plan in the High Court after it was approved last year by the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA). They resent "forced medication" and have safety concerns about the chemical.
In his latest attack, Dr Lewis targeted a written statement by Baroness Thornton in the House of Lords when she highlighted "unacceptably high" figures from 2006-09 showing an average of 500 children a year in the city had decaying teeth removed.
A statistical fall over recent years was because data was now only recorded with parental consent, she said, which meant children in deprived areas who were more likely to have tooth decay were actually less likely to be counted.
But she added: "We continue to support South Central Strategic Health Authority's decision to fluoridate a large part of Southampton and parts of south-west Hampshire."
In response to Dr Lewis's call for an explanation of the government's position, the leader of the House of Commons, Harriet Harman, said she would ask the health secretary, Andy Burnham, to write to him.
As reported in the 'A&T, the SHA is fighting the anti-fluoride campaign on several fronts after it approved Southampton Primary Care Trust's proposals.
A complaint by Dr Lewis has also been made to the NHS ombudsman complaining that the SHA's consultation was "biased" and it ignored residents' opinions. A more recent bid to block fluoride under European Union law failed.
21 Jan 2010
Daily Echo - Shadow health boss calls for vote on fluoride
Shadow health boss calls for vote on fluoride
By Clare Kennedy
clare.kennedy@dailyecho.co.uk
THE SHADOW health secretary has backed calls for a referendum over plans to fluoridate Hampshire tap water.
Andrew Lansley described the public consultation carried out by South Central Strategic Health Authority (SCSHA) into the controversial proposal as "not real".
And Mr Lansley, who could be in charge of the country's health service if the Conservatives win the next election, said that a referendum would allow the public their say.
"A referendum is a simple way of giving the public a real opportunity to make a decision about this," said Mr Lansley "I think in Southampton and South Hampshire the consultation was not real because effectively what happened was that they (SCSHA) said, 'We have looked at the evidence and we think we should fluoridate the water.' "They (SCSHA) then had a consultation with the public. About 75 per cent of the public said, Actually we are against this.' And they (SCSHA) said, 'We know you said you are against it but we have looked at the evidence and we think it's the right thing to do.' So what was the point of the consultation?"
Mr Lansley said that even though he was personally in favour of fluoridation, the public had to be convinced of any benefits before a decision was made. "If the public cannot be persuaded that it is the right thing to do, I think you have to step back and ask, 'Well, what are we getting wrong?' "
Plans to add fluoride to tap water in two thirds of Southampton, plus parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams, are the subject of a judicial review. Later this year the High Court is due to consider a complaint that the health authority should not have approved the scheme last February because of public opposition.
A health authority spokesman said: "SCSHA remains confident that the decision made by the SHA Board was carried out in the best interests of the health of people living in the Southampton area."
By Clare Kennedy
clare.kennedy@dailyecho.co.uk
THE SHADOW health secretary has backed calls for a referendum over plans to fluoridate Hampshire tap water.
Andrew Lansley described the public consultation carried out by South Central Strategic Health Authority (SCSHA) into the controversial proposal as "not real".
And Mr Lansley, who could be in charge of the country's health service if the Conservatives win the next election, said that a referendum would allow the public their say.
"A referendum is a simple way of giving the public a real opportunity to make a decision about this," said Mr Lansley "I think in Southampton and South Hampshire the consultation was not real because effectively what happened was that they (SCSHA) said, 'We have looked at the evidence and we think we should fluoridate the water.' "They (SCSHA) then had a consultation with the public. About 75 per cent of the public said, Actually we are against this.' And they (SCSHA) said, 'We know you said you are against it but we have looked at the evidence and we think it's the right thing to do.' So what was the point of the consultation?"
Mr Lansley said that even though he was personally in favour of fluoridation, the public had to be convinced of any benefits before a decision was made. "If the public cannot be persuaded that it is the right thing to do, I think you have to step back and ask, 'Well, what are we getting wrong?' "
Plans to add fluoride to tap water in two thirds of Southampton, plus parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams, are the subject of a judicial review. Later this year the High Court is due to consider a complaint that the health authority should not have approved the scheme last February because of public opposition.
A health authority spokesman said: "SCSHA remains confident that the decision made by the SHA Board was carried out in the best interests of the health of people living in the Southampton area."
20 Jan 2010
Daily Echo - Prime Minister accused of making 'empty promises'
Prime Minister accused of making 'empty promises'
By Chris Yandell
chris.yandeU@dailyecho.co.uk
PRIME Minister Gordon Brown has been accused of making empty promises to the people of Southampton over plans to fluoridate their tap water.
Campaigners spoke out after Baroness Thornton, Labour's health spokesman in the House of Lords, said the Government "continues to support" the controversial scheme.
During a visit to Southampton last year Mr Brown said the people of Southampton should decide if fluoride should be added to drinking water. The city's two MPs, John
Denham and Dr Alan Whitehead, have called for the project to be shelved in the face of massive opposition.
But Baroness Thornton told the Lords that the number of children who needed general anaesthetic for tooth extractions remained unacceptably high. She added: "We continue to support South Central Strategic Health Authority's decision to fluoridate a large part of Southampton and parts of southwest Hampshire."
New Forest East MP Dr Julian Lewis, a leading anti-fluoride campaigner, said: "The Government has once again shown its true colours. "The statement made by Gordon Brown in Southampton last year was a meaningless pledge. "The Government has got a completely closed mind on this. They're hell-bent on fluoridation and always have been. They're not listening to the people -or their elected representatives."
But Mr Denham attempted to play down the remarks made by Baroness Thornton, describing them as "not particularly significant". He added: "The Government supports in principle the fluoridation of water but believes decisions should be taken at a local level. "I don't believe that fluoridation should go ahead unless there is public support for doing so."
Plans to add fluoride to tap water in two-thirds of Southampton, plus parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams are the subject of a judicial review.
Later this year the High Court is expected to consider a complaint that the health authority should not have approved the scheme last February because of public opposition.
More than 10,000 people took part in a public consultation exercise, with nearly three-quarters of those living in the areas to be fluoridated saying they were against the project.
In a separate phone poll 38 per cent opposed fluoridation compared to 32 per cent who voiced their backing.
However, the majority of Southampton city councillors supported the scheme when the authority held a free vote on the issue.
Pressure group Hampshire Against Fluoride is encouraging voters to support only anti-fluoride candidates in this year's local and Parliamentary elections.
The Daily Echo has backed calls for a referendum on the fluoride issue.
Go to the Echo to vote for or against fluoridation
By Chris Yandell
chris.yandeU@dailyecho.co.uk
PRIME Minister Gordon Brown has been accused of making empty promises to the people of Southampton over plans to fluoridate their tap water.
Campaigners spoke out after Baroness Thornton, Labour's health spokesman in the House of Lords, said the Government "continues to support" the controversial scheme.
During a visit to Southampton last year Mr Brown said the people of Southampton should decide if fluoride should be added to drinking water. The city's two MPs, John
Denham and Dr Alan Whitehead, have called for the project to be shelved in the face of massive opposition.
But Baroness Thornton told the Lords that the number of children who needed general anaesthetic for tooth extractions remained unacceptably high. She added: "We continue to support South Central Strategic Health Authority's decision to fluoridate a large part of Southampton and parts of southwest Hampshire."
New Forest East MP Dr Julian Lewis, a leading anti-fluoride campaigner, said: "The Government has once again shown its true colours. "The statement made by Gordon Brown in Southampton last year was a meaningless pledge. "The Government has got a completely closed mind on this. They're hell-bent on fluoridation and always have been. They're not listening to the people -or their elected representatives."
But Mr Denham attempted to play down the remarks made by Baroness Thornton, describing them as "not particularly significant". He added: "The Government supports in principle the fluoridation of water but believes decisions should be taken at a local level. "I don't believe that fluoridation should go ahead unless there is public support for doing so."
Plans to add fluoride to tap water in two-thirds of Southampton, plus parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams are the subject of a judicial review.
Later this year the High Court is expected to consider a complaint that the health authority should not have approved the scheme last February because of public opposition.
More than 10,000 people took part in a public consultation exercise, with nearly three-quarters of those living in the areas to be fluoridated saying they were against the project.
In a separate phone poll 38 per cent opposed fluoridation compared to 32 per cent who voiced their backing.
However, the majority of Southampton city councillors supported the scheme when the authority held a free vote on the issue.
Pressure group Hampshire Against Fluoride is encouraging voters to support only anti-fluoride candidates in this year's local and Parliamentary elections.
The Daily Echo has backed calls for a referendum on the fluoride issue.
Go to the Echo to vote for or against fluoridation
14 Jan 2010
Test chemicals in fluoride, demand protesters
Test chemicals in fluoride, demand protesters
13th Jan 2010
The anti-fluoride lobby is calling for fluoride to be licensed as a medicine in another bid to ban it from the nation's tap water.
Campaigners have lodged this latest complaint while they await the outcome of a judicial review on adding fluoride to tap water in Southampton, prompted by a resident who was against the plans by the city's health bosses.
The fluoridation move itself followed a public consultation in 2008 in which more than 10,000 people had their say.
Earlier, health chiefs in Southampton had released pictures of children's rotten teeth to back up their plan and in the hope of improving the city's poor dental health statistics, especially in more deprived areas of the city.
Since then, campaign group Hampshire Against Fluoridation (HAF) has called on the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to examine whether fluoride needs to be treated in the same way as other medicines.
The MHRA rejected this, believing drinking water to be covered by different legislation and therefore not within its remit.
But politicians have now suggested the agency be censured for allegedly breaking the law by refusing to test the chemicals involved.
Hampshire MEP Caroline Lucas and New Forest East MP Julian Lewis have both written to the parliamentary and health service ombudsman, demanding an investigation.
If successful, it could mean fluoridation will be halted across the country while the chemicals are tested.
HAF chairman John Spottiswoode (above) says because health bosses argued fluoridation is needed to improve dental health, they have admitted it is being used as a medicine, adding that it is ‘immoral and illegal to medicate anyone without consent'.
Mr Spottiswoode said: ‘It is clearly being used for a supposedly medical reason (to reduce cavities) and Lord Jauncy some time ago ruled that this is a medicinal use.
‘It is also clearly a medicinal use under the European law (applicable in the UK). Therefore, the MHRA is required to licence fluoride for use in water to medicinal standards. This, in turn, means that the fluoride needs to pass medicinal standard test to prove that:
• it works to reduce cavities significantly in the population, with a controlled dosage level
• it is safe without any dangerous side effects, even for ‘at risk' people (young, old, kidney patients, thyroid patient, etc.)
• it is supplied to medicinal purity standards (without the radionuclide and arsenic contamination currently common).'
He adds: ‘Incredibly, fluoride has never been subjected to these tests. Therefore, everyone drinking fluoridated water is being experimented upon and there could be serious health side-effects as have been identified in research. It is a major health scandal that so many people are being put at risk.'
In a response to the call, a spokesperson for the MHRA said: 'The MHRA is aware of a complaint that has been made to the health ombudsman about the MHRA's decision not to classify fluoridated water as a medicinal product.
'The MHRA believes that drinking water clearly falls within the definition of food and notes that there is specific legislation to control drinking water which is administered by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. That legislation is not part of medicines legislation.
'The MHRA considers that neither the fluoride added to drinking water nor the resulting fluoridated water is a medicinal product. Claims made for non-medicinal products fall outside the MHRA's jurisdiction.
She added: 'The MHRA will await communication from the health ombudsman on this issue if necessary.'
The government is keen to roll out the fluoridation of the UK's tap water in areas not already affected – but this latest move could stall plans.
The anti-fluoride complaints are gathering momentum elsewhere in the country.
Joy Warren, of West Midlands Against Fluoridation (WAAF), waded into the debate.
She said: ‘I heard today that my MP has sent my complaint about the MHRA's high-handedness to the health service ombudsman. The complaint has been registered. I can only hope that others in the anti-fluoridation networks throughout England have also done the same and that some of their MPs have also forwarded their complaints to the ombudsman's office.'
Author
Julie Bissett
13th Jan 2010
The anti-fluoride lobby is calling for fluoride to be licensed as a medicine in another bid to ban it from the nation's tap water.
Campaigners have lodged this latest complaint while they await the outcome of a judicial review on adding fluoride to tap water in Southampton, prompted by a resident who was against the plans by the city's health bosses.
The fluoridation move itself followed a public consultation in 2008 in which more than 10,000 people had their say.
Earlier, health chiefs in Southampton had released pictures of children's rotten teeth to back up their plan and in the hope of improving the city's poor dental health statistics, especially in more deprived areas of the city.
Since then, campaign group Hampshire Against Fluoridation (HAF) has called on the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to examine whether fluoride needs to be treated in the same way as other medicines.
The MHRA rejected this, believing drinking water to be covered by different legislation and therefore not within its remit.
But politicians have now suggested the agency be censured for allegedly breaking the law by refusing to test the chemicals involved.
Hampshire MEP Caroline Lucas and New Forest East MP Julian Lewis have both written to the parliamentary and health service ombudsman, demanding an investigation.
If successful, it could mean fluoridation will be halted across the country while the chemicals are tested.
HAF chairman John Spottiswoode (above) says because health bosses argued fluoridation is needed to improve dental health, they have admitted it is being used as a medicine, adding that it is ‘immoral and illegal to medicate anyone without consent'.
Mr Spottiswoode said: ‘It is clearly being used for a supposedly medical reason (to reduce cavities) and Lord Jauncy some time ago ruled that this is a medicinal use.
‘It is also clearly a medicinal use under the European law (applicable in the UK). Therefore, the MHRA is required to licence fluoride for use in water to medicinal standards. This, in turn, means that the fluoride needs to pass medicinal standard test to prove that:
• it works to reduce cavities significantly in the population, with a controlled dosage level
• it is safe without any dangerous side effects, even for ‘at risk' people (young, old, kidney patients, thyroid patient, etc.)
• it is supplied to medicinal purity standards (without the radionuclide and arsenic contamination currently common).'
He adds: ‘Incredibly, fluoride has never been subjected to these tests. Therefore, everyone drinking fluoridated water is being experimented upon and there could be serious health side-effects as have been identified in research. It is a major health scandal that so many people are being put at risk.'
In a response to the call, a spokesperson for the MHRA said: 'The MHRA is aware of a complaint that has been made to the health ombudsman about the MHRA's decision not to classify fluoridated water as a medicinal product.
'The MHRA believes that drinking water clearly falls within the definition of food and notes that there is specific legislation to control drinking water which is administered by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. That legislation is not part of medicines legislation.
'The MHRA considers that neither the fluoride added to drinking water nor the resulting fluoridated water is a medicinal product. Claims made for non-medicinal products fall outside the MHRA's jurisdiction.
She added: 'The MHRA will await communication from the health ombudsman on this issue if necessary.'
The government is keen to roll out the fluoridation of the UK's tap water in areas not already affected – but this latest move could stall plans.
The anti-fluoride complaints are gathering momentum elsewhere in the country.
Joy Warren, of West Midlands Against Fluoridation (WAAF), waded into the debate.
She said: ‘I heard today that my MP has sent my complaint about the MHRA's high-handedness to the health service ombudsman. The complaint has been registered. I can only hope that others in the anti-fluoridation networks throughout England have also done the same and that some of their MPs have also forwarded their complaints to the ombudsman's office.'
Author
Julie Bissett
Daily Echo - Activists will contest the seats of fluoridation supporters
SOUTHAMPTON: Activists will contest the seats of fluoridation supporters
'Oust those who backed fluoride'
By Jon Reeve
jon.reeve@daily echo.co.uk
ANTI-fluoridation activists have launched a campaign to stop politicians who
backed the Hampshire scheme being re-elected.
They want to see anyone who supported plans to add the chemical to the tap
water supplies of nearly 200,000 residents in and around Southampton booted
out of office.
The No F in Southampton campaign encourages voters to support only
candidates who are fighting the scheme in this year's local and
Parliamentary elections. It is the brainchild of the Green Party, whose
candidate for John Denham's Southampton Itchen seat is John Spottiswoode,
chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, which has led the battle to stop
health chiefs adding fluoride to the water.
"We need to get rid of all those F politicians who voted for fluoridation,"
said Mr Spottiswoode.
"We need people to vote only for candidates who will commit themselves to
stopping water fluoridation in Southampton."
The plans to add fluoride to water delivered to homes in two-thirds of
Southampton and parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams, are
currently the subject of a judicial review.
The high court is later this year expected to consider a complaint that
South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) should not have voted
unanimously in favour of the scheme last February because of public
opposition.
More than 10,000 people responded to the SHA's public consultation, with
nearly three-quarters of those living in the area to be fluoridated saying
they were against the project. In a separate phone poll, 38 per cent opposed
fluoridation compared to 32 per cent who backed it. Southampton City Council
held a free vote on the plans, which saw a majority of councillors back
fluoridation. Their colleagues at Hampshire County, New Forest District,
Eastleigh Borough and Test Valley Borough councils all opposed the scheme.
New Forest Bast MP Julian Lewis, Romsey and Southampton North's Sandra
Gidley, and Chris Huhne, who represents Eastleigh, have all supported
campaigners fighting fluoridation. Mr Denham and Southampton Test MP Alan
Whitehead both say they agree with the principle of adding fluoride to water
supplies, but have called for the scheme to be put on hold in the face of
public opposition.
'Oust those who backed fluoride'
By Jon Reeve
jon.reeve@daily echo.co.uk
ANTI-fluoridation activists have launched a campaign to stop politicians who
backed the Hampshire scheme being re-elected.
They want to see anyone who supported plans to add the chemical to the tap
water supplies of nearly 200,000 residents in and around Southampton booted
out of office.
The No F in Southampton campaign encourages voters to support only
candidates who are fighting the scheme in this year's local and
Parliamentary elections. It is the brainchild of the Green Party, whose
candidate for John Denham's Southampton Itchen seat is John Spottiswoode,
chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, which has led the battle to stop
health chiefs adding fluoride to the water.
"We need to get rid of all those F politicians who voted for fluoridation,"
said Mr Spottiswoode.
"We need people to vote only for candidates who will commit themselves to
stopping water fluoridation in Southampton."
The plans to add fluoride to water delivered to homes in two-thirds of
Southampton and parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams, are
currently the subject of a judicial review.
The high court is later this year expected to consider a complaint that
South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) should not have voted
unanimously in favour of the scheme last February because of public
opposition.
More than 10,000 people responded to the SHA's public consultation, with
nearly three-quarters of those living in the area to be fluoridated saying
they were against the project. In a separate phone poll, 38 per cent opposed
fluoridation compared to 32 per cent who backed it. Southampton City Council
held a free vote on the plans, which saw a majority of councillors back
fluoridation. Their colleagues at Hampshire County, New Forest District,
Eastleigh Borough and Test Valley Borough councils all opposed the scheme.
New Forest Bast MP Julian Lewis, Romsey and Southampton North's Sandra
Gidley, and Chris Huhne, who represents Eastleigh, have all supported
campaigners fighting fluoridation. Mr Denham and Southampton Test MP Alan
Whitehead both say they agree with the principle of adding fluoride to water
supplies, but have called for the scheme to be put on hold in the face of
public opposition.
9 Jan 2010
Greens launch ‘No F in Southampton’ campaign
Greens launch ‘No F in Southampton’ campaign
SW Hampshire Green Party announced that it is launching a ‘No F in Southampton’ campaign to tie in with the various elections in 2010. Not only will this support the campaign of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, but this campaign will focus on the political aspects.
John Spottiswoode, Green Party Parliamentary Candidate for Southampton Itchen said: “As the decision to fluoridate our drinking water in Southampton was a political decision made by the government in Westminster, which the Strategic health Authority felt obliged to follow, therefore it needs a political solution. We need to get rid of all those F politicians who voted for fluoridation. We need people to vote ONLY for candidates who will commit themselves to stopping water fluoridation in Southampton.”
The Green Party will seek to replace those politicians who voted for fluoridation in the Southampton area both at the General Election and at Council elections in May. John Spottiswoode continued “It is completely morally unacceptable for elected people to try to force everyone in Southampton to drink fluoridated water, especially when 72% rejected the proposal in the Public Consultation. This is forced medication of a whole population for trivial reasons. What will they vote to put in our water next? Do our current politicians not realise the damage putting a toxin in water does not only to people but to the whole local environment?”
“The Green Party has set up a new web site for the ‘No F in Southampton’ campaign, http://www.nofinsouthampton.co.uk/ which has Twitter and RSS feeds so people can be kept continuously up to date with the campaign. We need politicians to realise that they cannot cut across people’s rights to have unadulterated drinking water without losing their seats. Politicians must not be allowed to get away with this sort of behaviour which is not only immoral but against the wishes of the vast majority of people in Southampton.”
Notes:
See web site http://www.nofinsouthampton.co.uk/ for more details.
SW Hampshire Green Party announced that it is launching a ‘No F in Southampton’ campaign to tie in with the various elections in 2010. Not only will this support the campaign of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, but this campaign will focus on the political aspects.
John Spottiswoode, Green Party Parliamentary Candidate for Southampton Itchen said: “As the decision to fluoridate our drinking water in Southampton was a political decision made by the government in Westminster, which the Strategic health Authority felt obliged to follow, therefore it needs a political solution. We need to get rid of all those F politicians who voted for fluoridation. We need people to vote ONLY for candidates who will commit themselves to stopping water fluoridation in Southampton.”
The Green Party will seek to replace those politicians who voted for fluoridation in the Southampton area both at the General Election and at Council elections in May. John Spottiswoode continued “It is completely morally unacceptable for elected people to try to force everyone in Southampton to drink fluoridated water, especially when 72% rejected the proposal in the Public Consultation. This is forced medication of a whole population for trivial reasons. What will they vote to put in our water next? Do our current politicians not realise the damage putting a toxin in water does not only to people but to the whole local environment?”
“The Green Party has set up a new web site for the ‘No F in Southampton’ campaign, http://www.nofinsouthampton.co.uk/ which has Twitter and RSS feeds so people can be kept continuously up to date with the campaign. We need politicians to realise that they cannot cut across people’s rights to have unadulterated drinking water without losing their seats. Politicians must not be allowed to get away with this sort of behaviour which is not only immoral but against the wishes of the vast majority of people in Southampton.”
Notes:
See web site http://www.nofinsouthampton.co.uk/ for more details.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
