29 Mar 2010
Daily Echo - Consider fluoride when you're voting
Consider fluoride when you're voting
THREE years ago the Rt Hon John Denham MP, Southampton's elected Parliamentary representative was, in his puppet ministerial position to Gordon Brown, fully in agreement and instigator of adding fluoride into Southampton's water supply. A governmental excuse for the extreme lack of proper NHS dental facilities.
Sodium fluoride is a highly toxic non-biodegradable industrial waste product, the main ingredient of rat poison which is forbidden by law to be deposited in landfill sites or the sea.
Medical research in countries throughout the world has shown that fluoride in the drinking water has resulted in an increase of diseases. Amongst them such developmental disturbances in bones as osteosclerosis, spndylosis and osteoporosis.
In 1984 Japanese research (Dr Taketi Tsutsui) found that fluoride added to water at a ratio of one part fluoride per million parts water caused cancer in cells. In 1989 the US National Toxicology Program found a significant increase of osteosarcoma - bone cancer. Alarmingly the same ratio is recommended by John Denham MP
Despite his recent pandering to the people of Southampton he is still in full agreement of adding fluoride into the drinking water supply. I doubt that because the Government has in place a quango of unelected members namely the Strategic Health Authority which is empowered to over-rule any vote or decision taken, democratic or otherwise.
I sincerely hope that the good citizens of Southampton consider very long and carefully whom they decide to be their future Parliamentary representative in the coming General Election.
JOHN HAYWARD, Southampton.
THREE years ago the Rt Hon John Denham MP, Southampton's elected Parliamentary representative was, in his puppet ministerial position to Gordon Brown, fully in agreement and instigator of adding fluoride into Southampton's water supply. A governmental excuse for the extreme lack of proper NHS dental facilities.
Sodium fluoride is a highly toxic non-biodegradable industrial waste product, the main ingredient of rat poison which is forbidden by law to be deposited in landfill sites or the sea.
Medical research in countries throughout the world has shown that fluoride in the drinking water has resulted in an increase of diseases. Amongst them such developmental disturbances in bones as osteosclerosis, spndylosis and osteoporosis.
In 1984 Japanese research (Dr Taketi Tsutsui) found that fluoride added to water at a ratio of one part fluoride per million parts water caused cancer in cells. In 1989 the US National Toxicology Program found a significant increase of osteosarcoma - bone cancer. Alarmingly the same ratio is recommended by John Denham MP
Despite his recent pandering to the people of Southampton he is still in full agreement of adding fluoride into the drinking water supply. I doubt that because the Government has in place a quango of unelected members namely the Strategic Health Authority which is empowered to over-rule any vote or decision taken, democratic or otherwise.
I sincerely hope that the good citizens of Southampton consider very long and carefully whom they decide to be their future Parliamentary representative in the coming General Election.
JOHN HAYWARD, Southampton.
26 Mar 2010
Lymington Advertiser
City council votes for fluoride referendum
COUNCILLORS have voted to demand a referendum to settle an NHS fluoride scheme affecting 8,000 Totton residents.
Southampton City Council agreed to call on the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) to put the issue to a public ballot, after it approved the plans last year.
Fluoridation will affect 190,000 people in total and includes Totton because of the layout of the pipes. It was proposed by Southampton City Primary Care Trust but is being fought in the courts and opposed by New Forest MP Julian Lewis and New Forest and Hampshire councils.
But the chairman of campaign group Hampshire Against Fluoridation, Stephen Peckham, said although he welcomed the city council's vote as a strong message against fluoride, he opposed a referendum.He said: "The SHA has already carried out a consultation and the majority of respondents rejected the proposal. "Therefore, a referendum would be unnecessary, impossible to administer, and a waste of even more NHS money. "The SHA is now in a rather isolated position as none of the local councils or MPs support the decision so the only course of action would be to scrap this unpopular scheme."
A SHA spokesperson told the 'A&T': "There is no mechanism by which South Central Strategic Health Authority is able to hold a referendum." Fluoridation was agreed in February last year by the SHA to tackle child tooth decay and at the time Southampton City Council was the only local authority to support the decision.
During consultation 72% of responses were against fluoride, but a Mori poll showed a different picture with only 38% opposed against 32% in support. The SHA is also facing a pending judicial review and complaints to the health service ombudsman.
COUNCILLORS have voted to demand a referendum to settle an NHS fluoride scheme affecting 8,000 Totton residents.
Southampton City Council agreed to call on the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) to put the issue to a public ballot, after it approved the plans last year.
Fluoridation will affect 190,000 people in total and includes Totton because of the layout of the pipes. It was proposed by Southampton City Primary Care Trust but is being fought in the courts and opposed by New Forest MP Julian Lewis and New Forest and Hampshire councils.
But the chairman of campaign group Hampshire Against Fluoridation, Stephen Peckham, said although he welcomed the city council's vote as a strong message against fluoride, he opposed a referendum.He said: "The SHA has already carried out a consultation and the majority of respondents rejected the proposal. "Therefore, a referendum would be unnecessary, impossible to administer, and a waste of even more NHS money. "The SHA is now in a rather isolated position as none of the local councils or MPs support the decision so the only course of action would be to scrap this unpopular scheme."
A SHA spokesperson told the 'A&T': "There is no mechanism by which South Central Strategic Health Authority is able to hold a referendum." Fluoridation was agreed in February last year by the SHA to tackle child tooth decay and at the time Southampton City Council was the only local authority to support the decision.
During consultation 72% of responses were against fluoride, but a Mori poll showed a different picture with only 38% opposed against 32% in support. The SHA is also facing a pending judicial review and complaints to the health service ombudsman.
Daily Echo - Now they want a referendum
Now they want a referendum
SOUTHAMPTON Liberal Democrats have declared they now "welcome" a referendum on adding fluoride to water supplies in the city - despite city councillors refusing to back the Conservative proposal.
Southampton City Council had previously narrowly voted in favour of the fluoridation, but ruling Tories last week called for local people to be given the final say after criticism of a consultation by health chiefs. While Lib Dems have
opposed adding fluoride to water supplies, group leader Councillor Jill Baston insisted during the council debate: "We don't think a referendum would work". Tory councillor Royston Smith called the U-turn "staggering
SOUTHAMPTON Liberal Democrats have declared they now "welcome" a referendum on adding fluoride to water supplies in the city - despite city councillors refusing to back the Conservative proposal.
Southampton City Council had previously narrowly voted in favour of the fluoridation, but ruling Tories last week called for local people to be given the final say after criticism of a consultation by health chiefs. While Lib Dems have
opposed adding fluoride to water supplies, group leader Councillor Jill Baston insisted during the council debate: "We don't think a referendum would work". Tory councillor Royston Smith called the U-turn "staggering
25 Mar 2010
Daily Echo - lib Dem claims 'incredulous'
lib Dem claims 'incredulous'
I FOUND the claims on the Southampton Lib Dem website that they have "always opposed the introduction of fluoride into our drinking water" utterly incredulous given the fact that several members of the Liberal Democrat group, including its leader Jill Baston, spoke out against a fluoride referendum at the last full council meeting.
Not only did the Liberal Democrats make it quite clear that are they are opposed to giving people a democratic choice on this
issue, but to then have the audacity to take credit for this decision on their website is utterly disgraceful.
The people of Southampton have a choice in the upcoming election, a Conservative Government which will grant them a referendum on fluoridation or five more years of Gordon Brown who has ignored the responses of public consultations.
CHRIS ROWLAND,
Conservative candidate for Millbrook Ward.
I FOUND the claims on the Southampton Lib Dem website that they have "always opposed the introduction of fluoride into our drinking water" utterly incredulous given the fact that several members of the Liberal Democrat group, including its leader Jill Baston, spoke out against a fluoride referendum at the last full council meeting.
Not only did the Liberal Democrats make it quite clear that are they are opposed to giving people a democratic choice on this
issue, but to then have the audacity to take credit for this decision on their website is utterly disgraceful.
The people of Southampton have a choice in the upcoming election, a Conservative Government which will grant them a referendum on fluoridation or five more years of Gordon Brown who has ignored the responses of public consultations.
CHRIS ROWLAND,
Conservative candidate for Millbrook Ward.
24 Mar 2010
23 Mar 2010
Daily Echo letters
We'll have to bill health authority for bottled water
I AM becoming increasingly incensed at the sheer arrogance and intransigence of the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA), in riding roughshod over public opinion, by refusing to accept that the majority oppose its plans to mass medicate the local populace.
Like thousands of fellow citizens, I certainly do not want this poison added to my water supply just because irresponsible parents choose to ply their children with chocolate, sweets and sugar-laden soft drinks.
If, despite the best efforts of the anti-fluoridation movement, the decision is made to pollute our supply with this chemical and we are forced to buy bottled water, for drinking or cooking use, to avoid ingesting it, I would like to make the following suggestion in respect of the increased cost of doing this.
Since the SHA would compel Southern Water to add it, it would be wrong to withhold payments to the supplier, who is not at fault. Instead, why don't all opponents simply obtain receipts for each purchase of bottled water and then attach them to an annual expense claim, which would be submitted to the SHA for reimbursement? We pay enough already to receive our presently untainted water and I fail to see why we should be obliged to spend hundreds more on the bottled variety
Finally, in order to "reassure" us, the SHA has said that there will be no risk of accidental over dosage when the equipment is installed at the treatment works, as suitable safe guards will be in place. Poppycock! Nothing technical can be made 100 per cent safe. I work in the field of industrial measurement and control, as an instrument technician and have first-hand experience of an incident where, despite many fail-safe systems being in place, catastrophic failure of plant occurred. Several months ago, one of our sites was hit by a bolt of lightning, which completely destroyed all the instrumentation and protective circuits. require monitoring and control, there is no way that anyone can guarantee that a similar occurrence would not lead to a massive overdose ending up in the supply After all, and assuming that each treatment plant is permanently manned, if the alarms/computers were totally wrecked, how would the shift operator know what was actually going on? RALPH FROST, Woolston,Southampton.
THE vote by Southampton City Council in favour of a referendum on fluoridation will surely be the last nail in the coffin for the members of the Strategic Health Authority.
How on earth can they justify ignoring the wishes of democratically elected councillors and MPs who represent nearly 200,000 people? It almost defies belief that the SHA can continue to operate in splendid isolation, trotting out the same old cold press statement.
It largely ignores a campaign that has gone on for months and months. It has not responded to the excellent scrutiny work undertaken by Hampshire County Council. It arrogantly dismiss the views of parish, town, district and city councils. It thinks its will should prevail over local MPs and even the Prime Minister who said: "It is for local people to decide". For goodness sake, resign your unelected posts, stop spending our money on legal costs trying to force through something that is not wanted. The people will not accept this.
COUNCILLOR DAVID HARRISON, leader, New Forest District Liberal Democrats.
I AM becoming increasingly incensed at the sheer arrogance and intransigence of the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA), in riding roughshod over public opinion, by refusing to accept that the majority oppose its plans to mass medicate the local populace.
Like thousands of fellow citizens, I certainly do not want this poison added to my water supply just because irresponsible parents choose to ply their children with chocolate, sweets and sugar-laden soft drinks.
If, despite the best efforts of the anti-fluoridation movement, the decision is made to pollute our supply with this chemical and we are forced to buy bottled water, for drinking or cooking use, to avoid ingesting it, I would like to make the following suggestion in respect of the increased cost of doing this.
Since the SHA would compel Southern Water to add it, it would be wrong to withhold payments to the supplier, who is not at fault. Instead, why don't all opponents simply obtain receipts for each purchase of bottled water and then attach them to an annual expense claim, which would be submitted to the SHA for reimbursement? We pay enough already to receive our presently untainted water and I fail to see why we should be obliged to spend hundreds more on the bottled variety
Finally, in order to "reassure" us, the SHA has said that there will be no risk of accidental over dosage when the equipment is installed at the treatment works, as suitable safe guards will be in place. Poppycock! Nothing technical can be made 100 per cent safe. I work in the field of industrial measurement and control, as an instrument technician and have first-hand experience of an incident where, despite many fail-safe systems being in place, catastrophic failure of plant occurred. Several months ago, one of our sites was hit by a bolt of lightning, which completely destroyed all the instrumentation and protective circuits. require monitoring and control, there is no way that anyone can guarantee that a similar occurrence would not lead to a massive overdose ending up in the supply After all, and assuming that each treatment plant is permanently manned, if the alarms/computers were totally wrecked, how would the shift operator know what was actually going on? RALPH FROST, Woolston,Southampton.
THE vote by Southampton City Council in favour of a referendum on fluoridation will surely be the last nail in the coffin for the members of the Strategic Health Authority.
How on earth can they justify ignoring the wishes of democratically elected councillors and MPs who represent nearly 200,000 people? It almost defies belief that the SHA can continue to operate in splendid isolation, trotting out the same old cold press statement.
It largely ignores a campaign that has gone on for months and months. It has not responded to the excellent scrutiny work undertaken by Hampshire County Council. It arrogantly dismiss the views of parish, town, district and city councils. It thinks its will should prevail over local MPs and even the Prime Minister who said: "It is for local people to decide". For goodness sake, resign your unelected posts, stop spending our money on legal costs trying to force through something that is not wanted. The people will not accept this.
COUNCILLOR DAVID HARRISON, leader, New Forest District Liberal Democrats.
22 Mar 2010
Daily Echo
HAMPSHIRE: Greens say referendum would be unethical
Fluoride ballot 'a waste of time'
By Ion Reeve
jon.reeve@dailyecho.co.uk
A REFERENDUM on plans to fluoridate Hampshire's tap water would be "unethical".
That is the claim from the county's Green Party, which is arguing that a public vote on the controversial scheme would be littered with practical problems and an expensive waste of time.
The party, which has consistently opposed the plans - which would affect almost 200,000 people in and around Southampton - believes the people have already spoken on fluoridation, and delivered a resounding "no".
Parliamentary candidate for Southampton Itchen, John Spottiswoode, wants the city council to urge South Central Strategic Health Authority to scrap its £400,000 defence of a judicial review of its decision to give the scheme the go-ahead.
Last week, the local authority voted to call on the SHA to hold a referendum on the plans, and ensure the public have the final say by abiding by the outcome, whichever way it went.
The move has been seen as a major boost for the campaign, spearheaded by the Daily Echo, for the controversial decision to be placed in the hands of the people, rather than health chiefs.
Southampton City Council was the only authority during the S H A' s public consultation, in which 72 per cent of respondents from the affected area saying they did not want fluoridation.
Mr Spottiswoode, the former chairman of Hampshire Against fluoridation, said the opposition to fluoride is beyond doubt.
He said: "Southampton City councillors need to oppose water fluoridation as it is wrong in principle, not fudge the issue by hiding behind a call for a referendum.
"We urge Southampton City Councillors to urge the SHA to stop squandering nearly half a million pounds of NHS funds on fighting the Judicial Review.
"This effectively is using the public's money to try to force us to take a chemical we have repeatedly said we do not want. "It is a shocking and criminal waste of our money. This should be spent on treatment and front line services."
Mr Spottiswoode said a referendum would be unethical because it "deprives the individual of the legal right to refuse medication". "What right do the majority have to overrule a minority's right not to have their water supply medicated?" he said.
"The policy is a violation of medical ethics and human rights."
After last week's vote, the- SHA said there is no mechanism that allows it to hold a referendum, and insisted the decision to fluoridate water supplies had been made in the best interest of residents.
Fluoride ballot 'a waste of time'
By Ion Reeve
jon.reeve@dailyecho.co.uk
A REFERENDUM on plans to fluoridate Hampshire's tap water would be "unethical".
That is the claim from the county's Green Party, which is arguing that a public vote on the controversial scheme would be littered with practical problems and an expensive waste of time.
The party, which has consistently opposed the plans - which would affect almost 200,000 people in and around Southampton - believes the people have already spoken on fluoridation, and delivered a resounding "no".
Parliamentary candidate for Southampton Itchen, John Spottiswoode, wants the city council to urge South Central Strategic Health Authority to scrap its £400,000 defence of a judicial review of its decision to give the scheme the go-ahead.
Last week, the local authority voted to call on the SHA to hold a referendum on the plans, and ensure the public have the final say by abiding by the outcome, whichever way it went.
The move has been seen as a major boost for the campaign, spearheaded by the Daily Echo, for the controversial decision to be placed in the hands of the people, rather than health chiefs.
Southampton City Council was the only authority during the S H A' s public consultation, in which 72 per cent of respondents from the affected area saying they did not want fluoridation.
Mr Spottiswoode, the former chairman of Hampshire Against fluoridation, said the opposition to fluoride is beyond doubt.
He said: "Southampton City councillors need to oppose water fluoridation as it is wrong in principle, not fudge the issue by hiding behind a call for a referendum.
"We urge Southampton City Councillors to urge the SHA to stop squandering nearly half a million pounds of NHS funds on fighting the Judicial Review.
"This effectively is using the public's money to try to force us to take a chemical we have repeatedly said we do not want. "It is a shocking and criminal waste of our money. This should be spent on treatment and front line services."
Mr Spottiswoode said a referendum would be unethical because it "deprives the individual of the legal right to refuse medication". "What right do the majority have to overrule a minority's right not to have their water supply medicated?" he said.
"The policy is a violation of medical ethics and human rights."
After last week's vote, the- SHA said there is no mechanism that allows it to hold a referendum, and insisted the decision to fluoridate water supplies had been made in the best interest of residents.
20 Mar 2010
Daily Echo letters
Strong fluoride objection
We protest most strongly to the fluoridation of the water being supplied in our homes and businesses and the decision of the Strategic Health Authority (SHA), to put that chemical into our water supply despite the very clear vote by the pubic who attended a meeting upon the subject, and by letters, articles and comments in the media that the majority of the public did NOT want fluoride added to the water supply
It would be so satisfying for democracy to come to the surface on this matter and for the SHA to wash their hands of it! In unfluoridated water of course.
MR & MRS ANDREW, Chandler's Ford.
Diet is the answer
I am NOT in favour of adding it to any water supply. It should be public vote to have the choice of something we all need to live. I feel there is already enough chemicals added to supply and fluoride will not cover up or take the place of bad diet. Good wholesome diet, plenty of fruit and veg and we hope good water is the answer. Leave chemicals alone. There are enough around already for our body to contend with in this modern age. C REED, Southampton.
Democracy's an illusion
YOUR campaign for a referendum on fluoridation, while admirable, has one flaw.
The Echo still believes we are a democracy!
As you report the health authority does not have to take notice of opinions when it undertakes consultation.
This is the same when objections are made at planning meetings. It is the same when the Government sets up inquiries and quangos to "advise government".
Our MPs do not take any considered decisions they just rubber stamp "independent reports" from many unelected professors and organisations.
Best of luck with your campaign but expect little result. If you do get one the SHA will be back and be looking to enforce its will at a later date.
KEITH WEBB, Chandler's Ford.
We protest most strongly to the fluoridation of the water being supplied in our homes and businesses and the decision of the Strategic Health Authority (SHA), to put that chemical into our water supply despite the very clear vote by the pubic who attended a meeting upon the subject, and by letters, articles and comments in the media that the majority of the public did NOT want fluoride added to the water supply
It would be so satisfying for democracy to come to the surface on this matter and for the SHA to wash their hands of it! In unfluoridated water of course.
MR & MRS ANDREW, Chandler's Ford.
Diet is the answer
I am NOT in favour of adding it to any water supply. It should be public vote to have the choice of something we all need to live. I feel there is already enough chemicals added to supply and fluoride will not cover up or take the place of bad diet. Good wholesome diet, plenty of fruit and veg and we hope good water is the answer. Leave chemicals alone. There are enough around already for our body to contend with in this modern age. C REED, Southampton.
Democracy's an illusion
YOUR campaign for a referendum on fluoridation, while admirable, has one flaw.
The Echo still believes we are a democracy!
As you report the health authority does not have to take notice of opinions when it undertakes consultation.
This is the same when objections are made at planning meetings. It is the same when the Government sets up inquiries and quangos to "advise government".
Our MPs do not take any considered decisions they just rubber stamp "independent reports" from many unelected professors and organisations.
Best of luck with your campaign but expect little result. If you do get one the SHA will be back and be looking to enforce its will at a later date.
KEITH WEBB, Chandler's Ford.
18 Mar 2010
Southampton City Council calls for fluoride referendum
Campaigners handed a petition with 14,000 names to Downing StreetSouthampton City Council calls for fluoride referendum
Southampton City councillors have voted to call on the South Central Strategic Health Authority to hold a referendum on its move to add fluoride in water.
Health bosses agreed the plans for the city's water in February last year despite 72%of 10,000 respondents in a public consultation opposing the move.
The move is the subject of a judicial review after a resident launched a private legal challenge last June.
But the health authority said it "has no mechanism to hold a referendum".
It said mass fluoridation was a "safe way" of tackling tooth decay.
A spokesman said it was confident the decision was "in the best interests of the health of local people".
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 last year.
Resident Geraldine Milner is behind the legal challenge against the decision by the SCSHA.
The judicial review will be based on government policy, which states most residents need to be in favour of the move.
17 Mar 2010
15 Mar 2010
Daily Echo
SHA arrogance is stunning
IT was disgusting that only one person was allowed into the Southern Health Authority's Newbury Headquarters to deliver an open letter signed by 170 concerned people including doctors and dentists against this senseless scheme of putting fluoride in our water supply
It just proves how arrogant the SHA really is. Do we really want this fluoride to go in passed by such arrogant people?
When are they going to listen to the people? We pay our water rates for water that is clean for human consumption, but to put something in to treat teeth or anything else is another matter. That in my book is forced medication.
Let's stop this madness now before it's too late. If the SHA gets away with putting a toxic waste fluoride into our water supply they will not stop there, they will think that they have the right to do whatever they want.
You, the people, pay for your water. It is your right to keep it as pure as possible for yourself and the people you love that have to drink it. We have rights. Keep together and carry on the good fight. NAME & ADDRESS SUPPLIED.
IT was disgusting that only one person was allowed into the Southern Health Authority's Newbury Headquarters to deliver an open letter signed by 170 concerned people including doctors and dentists against this senseless scheme of putting fluoride in our water supply
It just proves how arrogant the SHA really is. Do we really want this fluoride to go in passed by such arrogant people?
When are they going to listen to the people? We pay our water rates for water that is clean for human consumption, but to put something in to treat teeth or anything else is another matter. That in my book is forced medication.
Let's stop this madness now before it's too late. If the SHA gets away with putting a toxic waste fluoride into our water supply they will not stop there, they will think that they have the right to do whatever they want.
You, the people, pay for your water. It is your right to keep it as pure as possible for yourself and the people you love that have to drink it. We have rights. Keep together and carry on the good fight. NAME & ADDRESS SUPPLIED.
14 Mar 2010
13 Mar 2010
12 Mar 2010
Daily Echo
FLUORIDE REFERENDUM?
Councillors prepare to vote on whether health authority should ask residents if they want fluoride in their water
A REFERENDUM on controversial plans to fluoridate Hampshire water supplies could be a step closer.
By Jon Reeve
Councillors in Southampton will next week vote over whether to call on South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) to ask affected residents if they want fluoride added to their water supplies.
The move is a major boost for the Daily Echo-backed campaign for a public vote on fluoridation to let the people have the final say on the highly-contentious plans.
Anti-fluoridation campaigners have hailed the move as a hugely significant in the fight against the scheme because Southampton City Council was previously the only local authority to support fluoride. But the health authority insists it will make no difference to the decision, which was made unanimously by its 12 board members last February
The move follows complaints that public opinion was ignored when the SHA approved the scheme, which will affect nearly 200,000 homes in parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netiey and Rownhams.
The plans are currently on hold while the High Court considers a judicial review of the decision, because 72 per cent of people from the affected area who responded to a consultation told the health authority they are against fluoridation.
The SHA argues it followed Government guidelines, which say it only had to consider public opinion through a consultation, but not be tied to it.
Deputy council leader Royston Smith, who is behind Wednesday's vote, believes it is essential the people have a definitive say on such an emotive issue, with health chiefs bound by the outcome of any vote.
If it is successful, Southampton City Council would add its voice to those, including the Daily Echo, who have argued a referendum is the only sensible way to provide a mandate for or against fluoridation.
During the consultation, the authority backed the plans to add the chemical to tap water in a bid to reduce tooth decay in children. But Cllr Smith, who voted against giving that support, says holding a referendum has nothing to do with whether the move is right or wrong.
He said: "I think it's well documented that people agree, quite rightly, that they haven't had their say and they don't think their views have been taken into consideration. "Having a referendum once and for all on what is put in the water is the right thing to do."
Hampshire Against Fluoridation chairman John Spottiswoode said: "Southampton's was the key decision during the consultation, that meant the SHA felt they could proceed.
"This would say they no longer support fluoridation. The SHA is gradually losing every shred of support or evidence they ever had for doing it."But an SHA spokesman said a successful council vote would have no impact on the decision He said: "There is no mechanism which South Central Strategic Health Authority is able to hold a referendum"
Fluoride information event
Find out more about the campaign to stop fluoride being added to the tap water delivered to almost 200,000 Hampshire homes at a special information event this weekend.
Hampshire Against Fluoridation, the group which has led the fight to oppose the scheme adopted by health chiefs as a way of improving dental health of kids in Southampton, holds its AGM tomorrow.
Members of the public are invited to meet those behind the organisation, to discuss why they don't want fluoridation and how they are trying to stop it becoming a reality.
Campaigners argue fluoridation is an unethical form of mass-medication and raises fears over side effects including mottled teeth, brittle bones and cancers.
Saturday's free event, which is open to all, runs from 2pm to 4pm at St James Methodist Church Hall, St James Road, Shirley, Southampton. As well as the group's AGM, it will include a talk by Stephen Peckham, a reader in health policy at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical medicine along with music, poetry and refreshments.
Councillors prepare to vote on whether health authority should ask residents if they want fluoride in their water
A REFERENDUM on controversial plans to fluoridate Hampshire water supplies could be a step closer.
By Jon Reeve
Councillors in Southampton will next week vote over whether to call on South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) to ask affected residents if they want fluoride added to their water supplies.
The move is a major boost for the Daily Echo-backed campaign for a public vote on fluoridation to let the people have the final say on the highly-contentious plans.
Anti-fluoridation campaigners have hailed the move as a hugely significant in the fight against the scheme because Southampton City Council was previously the only local authority to support fluoride. But the health authority insists it will make no difference to the decision, which was made unanimously by its 12 board members last February
The move follows complaints that public opinion was ignored when the SHA approved the scheme, which will affect nearly 200,000 homes in parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netiey and Rownhams.
The plans are currently on hold while the High Court considers a judicial review of the decision, because 72 per cent of people from the affected area who responded to a consultation told the health authority they are against fluoridation.
The SHA argues it followed Government guidelines, which say it only had to consider public opinion through a consultation, but not be tied to it.
Deputy council leader Royston Smith, who is behind Wednesday's vote, believes it is essential the people have a definitive say on such an emotive issue, with health chiefs bound by the outcome of any vote.
If it is successful, Southampton City Council would add its voice to those, including the Daily Echo, who have argued a referendum is the only sensible way to provide a mandate for or against fluoridation.
During the consultation, the authority backed the plans to add the chemical to tap water in a bid to reduce tooth decay in children. But Cllr Smith, who voted against giving that support, says holding a referendum has nothing to do with whether the move is right or wrong.
He said: "I think it's well documented that people agree, quite rightly, that they haven't had their say and they don't think their views have been taken into consideration. "Having a referendum once and for all on what is put in the water is the right thing to do."
Hampshire Against Fluoridation chairman John Spottiswoode said: "Southampton's was the key decision during the consultation, that meant the SHA felt they could proceed.
"This would say they no longer support fluoridation. The SHA is gradually losing every shred of support or evidence they ever had for doing it."But an SHA spokesman said a successful council vote would have no impact on the decision He said: "There is no mechanism which South Central Strategic Health Authority is able to hold a referendum"
Fluoride information event
Find out more about the campaign to stop fluoride being added to the tap water delivered to almost 200,000 Hampshire homes at a special information event this weekend.
Hampshire Against Fluoridation, the group which has led the fight to oppose the scheme adopted by health chiefs as a way of improving dental health of kids in Southampton, holds its AGM tomorrow.
Members of the public are invited to meet those behind the organisation, to discuss why they don't want fluoridation and how they are trying to stop it becoming a reality.
Campaigners argue fluoridation is an unethical form of mass-medication and raises fears over side effects including mottled teeth, brittle bones and cancers.
Saturday's free event, which is open to all, runs from 2pm to 4pm at St James Methodist Church Hall, St James Road, Shirley, Southampton. As well as the group's AGM, it will include a talk by Stephen Peckham, a reader in health policy at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical medicine along with music, poetry and refreshments.
10 Mar 2010
Opposition Parties Challenged By Southampton’s Green Euro-MP On Water Fluoridation Plan
Opposition Parties Challenged By Southampton’s Green Euro-MP On Water Fluoridation Plan
05 March 2010 - Caroline Lucas MEP has written to the health spokespeople of the two Opposition parties demanding to know whether or not they would scrap the plan to fluoridate Southampton’s drinking water when most of the people affected oppose it.
In her letter to Tory Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, the Green Euro-MP for Hampshire and the South East said:
“During a recent visit to Hampshire, your leader, David Cameron, was reported as saying that ‘I have always taken the view that [fluoridation] is something that should be decided locally and I don’t believe in compulsory fluoridation of water…In the last vote we had, I think I voted against that idea. But if there is a local process in place and a local decision can be made, I think that seems a fair way of doing it’.
“Given that 72% of the people who responded to the public consultation on the Southampton scheme opposed it, I would like to know whether or not your Party would allow this scheme to go ahead regardless of the controversy.”
Sandra Gidley, Shadow Health Minister for the Liberal Democrats, is also put on the spot about the issue.
Caroline Lucas and the Green Party have led opposition to drinking water fluoridation, warning that it amounts to mass medication without consent. Lucas says:
“The science is simply not good enough yet to feel confident about putting this chemical into drinking water supplies, leaving a whole population exposed to it – including babies and the unborn. The Strategic Health Authority (SHA) itself acknowledges that the scheme could lead to an increase in dental fluorosis in children. Further health effects are also a major concern.”
ENDS
05 March 2010 - Caroline Lucas MEP has written to the health spokespeople of the two Opposition parties demanding to know whether or not they would scrap the plan to fluoridate Southampton’s drinking water when most of the people affected oppose it.
In her letter to Tory Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, the Green Euro-MP for Hampshire and the South East said:
“During a recent visit to Hampshire, your leader, David Cameron, was reported as saying that ‘I have always taken the view that [fluoridation] is something that should be decided locally and I don’t believe in compulsory fluoridation of water…In the last vote we had, I think I voted against that idea. But if there is a local process in place and a local decision can be made, I think that seems a fair way of doing it’.
“Given that 72% of the people who responded to the public consultation on the Southampton scheme opposed it, I would like to know whether or not your Party would allow this scheme to go ahead regardless of the controversy.”
Sandra Gidley, Shadow Health Minister for the Liberal Democrats, is also put on the spot about the issue.
Caroline Lucas and the Green Party have led opposition to drinking water fluoridation, warning that it amounts to mass medication without consent. Lucas says:
“The science is simply not good enough yet to feel confident about putting this chemical into drinking water supplies, leaving a whole population exposed to it – including babies and the unborn. The Strategic Health Authority (SHA) itself acknowledges that the scheme could lead to an increase in dental fluorosis in children. Further health effects are also a major concern.”
ENDS
9 Mar 2010
FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
http://www.FluorideAlert.Org
FAN Bulletin 2013: Stockin strikes at the heart of the beast
March 9, 2010
Please drop everything you are doing and watch the TV news story, "Dangerous Fluoride," from the CBS affiliate in Atlanta, Georgia at http://www.cbsatlanta.com/video/22781769/
Remember Atlanta is the home of the CDC: the biggest promoter of fluoridation in the US and the world. Dan Stockin has struck at the heart of the beast of fluoridation in its home town. Neither the ADA nor the CDC could provide answers to the CBS news team. Surprise, surprise.
We need to get the link to this videoclip (transcript below) on as many websites and other outlets as possible. Please put it on your facebook, your twitter or whatever internet system you use. Please send it to any media contacts you have and ask them to follow up on this story.
Meanwhile, Dan Stockin, and the Lillie Center for which he works, are in desperate need of funds to keep this project going. FAN is sending $5000 but this is only a fraction of what he needs. Please use the donate button on his website: http://spotsonmyteeth.com/ He also needs more photos of those with dental fluorosis to send in pictures of their teeth to this same website.
Not only is the CDC the heart of the beast, but we know that dental fluorosis is its Achilles heel. They cannot deny that fluoridation increases the risk of dental fluorosis. They cannot deny that it is a huge problem in the US. Their own figures show that at least 32% of American children suffer from this condition. Moreover, even though they have advised that fluoridated tap water should not be used to make up baby formula, they have not taken aggressive steps to get this message out to parents. Nor are they warning vulnerable sub-groups of the population that they are more vulnerable to fluorosis than others.
Even more serious is that the US Public Health Service, the CDC's parent body, has nurtured a huge gamble since 1950. They have assumed - and hoped - that while fluoride is damaging the growing tooth cells that it wasn't harming any other tissue in the infant's body. This was a reckless gamble in 1950. They didn't have the evidence to support that gamble in 1950, and they haven't shown much inclination to collect any evidence since: the absence of study does not mean the absence of harm. The CDC is not exercising due diligence on the dangers of fluoridation and it is failing to protect the public health. Now the mainstream media in its home town knows about it. Thanks Dan.
Paul Connett
March 8, 2010, CBS-TV in Atlanta
Fluoride: Friend Or Foe?
Fluoride Opponent Says Chemical Is Harmful To Our Health
By Stephany Fisher, CBS Atlanta Anchor
Excerpt: "... The American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control have endorsed water fluoridation since 1950 and while they admit that fluoride can be toxic in excessive quantities, the ADA maintains that at optimal levels, water fluoridation is a safe and effective way to prevent dental decay.
But, when we tried to ask the tough questions, the CDC and State Dental Director Elizabeth Lense, denied our requests for interviews..."
Read full article at http://www.cbsatlanta.com/health/22776266/detail.html
###
http://www.FluorideAlert.Org
FAN Bulletin 2013: Stockin strikes at the heart of the beast
March 9, 2010
Please drop everything you are doing and watch the TV news story, "Dangerous Fluoride," from the CBS affiliate in Atlanta, Georgia at http://www.cbsatlanta.com/video/22781769/
Remember Atlanta is the home of the CDC: the biggest promoter of fluoridation in the US and the world. Dan Stockin has struck at the heart of the beast of fluoridation in its home town. Neither the ADA nor the CDC could provide answers to the CBS news team. Surprise, surprise.
We need to get the link to this videoclip (transcript below) on as many websites and other outlets as possible. Please put it on your facebook, your twitter or whatever internet system you use. Please send it to any media contacts you have and ask them to follow up on this story.
Meanwhile, Dan Stockin, and the Lillie Center for which he works, are in desperate need of funds to keep this project going. FAN is sending $5000 but this is only a fraction of what he needs. Please use the donate button on his website: http://spotsonmyteeth.com/ He also needs more photos of those with dental fluorosis to send in pictures of their teeth to this same website.
Not only is the CDC the heart of the beast, but we know that dental fluorosis is its Achilles heel. They cannot deny that fluoridation increases the risk of dental fluorosis. They cannot deny that it is a huge problem in the US. Their own figures show that at least 32% of American children suffer from this condition. Moreover, even though they have advised that fluoridated tap water should not be used to make up baby formula, they have not taken aggressive steps to get this message out to parents. Nor are they warning vulnerable sub-groups of the population that they are more vulnerable to fluorosis than others.
Even more serious is that the US Public Health Service, the CDC's parent body, has nurtured a huge gamble since 1950. They have assumed - and hoped - that while fluoride is damaging the growing tooth cells that it wasn't harming any other tissue in the infant's body. This was a reckless gamble in 1950. They didn't have the evidence to support that gamble in 1950, and they haven't shown much inclination to collect any evidence since: the absence of study does not mean the absence of harm. The CDC is not exercising due diligence on the dangers of fluoridation and it is failing to protect the public health. Now the mainstream media in its home town knows about it. Thanks Dan.
Paul Connett
March 8, 2010, CBS-TV in Atlanta
Fluoride: Friend Or Foe?
Fluoride Opponent Says Chemical Is Harmful To Our Health
By Stephany Fisher, CBS Atlanta Anchor
Excerpt: "... The American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control have endorsed water fluoridation since 1950 and while they admit that fluoride can be toxic in excessive quantities, the ADA maintains that at optimal levels, water fluoridation is a safe and effective way to prevent dental decay.
But, when we tried to ask the tough questions, the CDC and State Dental Director Elizabeth Lense, denied our requests for interviews..."
Read full article at http://www.cbsatlanta.com/health/22776266/detail.html
###
8 Mar 2010
Echo Letter - I say no to fluoride too
I say no to fluoride too
FURTHER to the letters about adding fluoride to the public water supply. I would like to add my vote against this unethical medication to the public.
I had suffered for sometime last year from mouth ulcers and sores and it was only after reading a letter from a lady who was advised not to take oral fluoride. I changed to a non-fluoride toothpaste and decided to drink only bottled water.
The ulcers and sores have gone and have not reoccurred so I say to the SHA, I do not want fluoride added to the water supply as we cannot filter this toxic substance out and choice is then taken away I still have to use the water supply to cook with, fluoride in the water, NO.
PH CREASOR, Totton
FURTHER to the letters about adding fluoride to the public water supply. I would like to add my vote against this unethical medication to the public.
I had suffered for sometime last year from mouth ulcers and sores and it was only after reading a letter from a lady who was advised not to take oral fluoride. I changed to a non-fluoride toothpaste and decided to drink only bottled water.
The ulcers and sores have gone and have not reoccurred so I say to the SHA, I do not want fluoride added to the water supply as we cannot filter this toxic substance out and choice is then taken away I still have to use the water supply to cook with, fluoride in the water, NO.
PH CREASOR, Totton
6 Mar 2010
5 Mar 2010
NHS chiefs in no-show for anti-fluoridation protest letter
Lymington Times
NHS chiefs in no-show for anti-fluoridation protest letter
CAMPAIGNERS against fluoride being added to Totton's water supply have criticised NHS senior executives for not accepting a hand-delivered protest letter.
The open message was brought to the Newbury HQ of South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) to mark a year since it approved adding the controversial chemical to water in Southampton and surrounding areas.
Hampshire Against Fluoride (HAF) member Anna Peckham told the 'A&T' she had written to the chair of the 12-strong board in advance of the delivery but was told he was unavailable to receive the document.
It was left with a receptionist
instead, and Mrs Peckham said: "Given that my letter was also sent to the chief executive, I had thought that someone from the SHA board would be prepared to receive it.
"Many feel the SHA has behaved without regard to the local community in imposing water fluoridation [so] this refusal to receive the letter reinforced the feeling that the SHA are simply not listening."
About 190,000 people could be affected by Southampton Primary Care Trust's plan for Southampton and surrounding areas, including 8,000 Totton residents because of the layout of the pipes.
Around 25 HAF members travelled to Newbury on Friday in last week to hand over the letter they said had
been signed by over 100 people including scientists, professors and MPs.
Fluoridation was agreed in February last year by the SHA to combat child tooth decay hi the city and among the anti-fluoride campaigners are New Forest East MP Julian Lewis and town councillor David Harrison.
The SHA is also facing attempts to block fluoridation through a pending judicial review and complaints to ombudsmen.
Sean Humber of Leigh Day Solicitors told the 'A&T' he could not speculate on when the review would take place as he was waiting for a court date to be set.
NHS chiefs in no-show for anti-fluoridation protest letter
CAMPAIGNERS against fluoride being added to Totton's water supply have criticised NHS senior executives for not accepting a hand-delivered protest letter.
The open message was brought to the Newbury HQ of South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) to mark a year since it approved adding the controversial chemical to water in Southampton and surrounding areas.
Hampshire Against Fluoride (HAF) member Anna Peckham told the 'A&T' she had written to the chair of the 12-strong board in advance of the delivery but was told he was unavailable to receive the document.
It was left with a receptionist
instead, and Mrs Peckham said: "Given that my letter was also sent to the chief executive, I had thought that someone from the SHA board would be prepared to receive it.
"Many feel the SHA has behaved without regard to the local community in imposing water fluoridation [so] this refusal to receive the letter reinforced the feeling that the SHA are simply not listening."
About 190,000 people could be affected by Southampton Primary Care Trust's plan for Southampton and surrounding areas, including 8,000 Totton residents because of the layout of the pipes.
Around 25 HAF members travelled to Newbury on Friday in last week to hand over the letter they said had
been signed by over 100 people including scientists, professors and MPs.
Fluoridation was agreed in February last year by the SHA to combat child tooth decay hi the city and among the anti-fluoride campaigners are New Forest East MP Julian Lewis and town councillor David Harrison.
The SHA is also facing attempts to block fluoridation through a pending judicial review and complaints to ombudsmen.
Sean Humber of Leigh Day Solicitors told the 'A&T' he could not speculate on when the review would take place as he was waiting for a court date to be set.
3 Mar 2010
Your comments from the Daily Echo website
Your comments from the Daily Echo website
IT'S an arrogant snub.
Anti-fluoridation campaigners have reacted angrily to health chiefs' refusal to personally receive a letter urging them to change their minds over the controversial scheme for Southampton and surrounding areas.
They say the move is proof South Central Strategic Health Authority is unwilling to listen to the people.
More than 20 members of Hampshire Against Fluoridation (HAF) travelled to the SHA's Newbury HQ yesterday to deliver an open letter signed by 170 concerned people. But they were not even allowed in to deliver the letter.
After a debate with security guards, a single protester was eventually allowed inside.
But none of the 12 SHA board members, who a year ago yesterday voted in favour of adding fluoride to the water delivered to almost 200,000 people in and around Southampton, were there to accept the letter.
Instead it was handed to a receptionist.
The Wickham Man, Fareham says ...
When "the people" do the time to gain the education to make objective assessments based on proper understanding of chemistry, biology mathematics and statistics rather than just googling up "facts" from similarly uneducated autodidacts to suit their pre-formed prejudices then the Health Authority will listen to them. But what is the point of even having expert decision makers if every decision is actually made by an uneducated mob? The arrogance here lies totally and utterly with HAF.
What I find funny is that "action groups" want to be credited with intelligence yet have still not cottoned on to the obvious truth that vox pop surveys on any subject will always attract a totally disproportionate anti-view that cannot and should not be scaled up to represent the whole electorate.
Totton Tim, Totton says ...
And what interest is this matter to Wickham Man of Fareham when the areas Intended for fluoridated are Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams?
goard, Southampton says ...
Wickham Man where are your brains - in your pocket? No doubt SHA did not pluck out of the air knowledge of Fluoride - surely they got their information from top drawer chemists.
Do you not realise our representatives ALSO sought the best.
Greenj, Southampton says ...
i would have some respect for the Wickham Man's views if he had done the chemistry and research work to understand that the scientific case against fluoride is extremely strong. It is arrogant to assume that the people objecting have not investigated this and fully understand the science.
The majority of scientists in the world are actually opposed to water fluoridation.
A Nobel Prizewinner wrote in to object to the Southampton fluoridation proposal, as did many scientists from the UK and around the world. So, Wickham Man, if you want to pontificate about science, please get your facts right and do not make silly assumptions about ignorance on one side of the debate.
Paramjit Bahia, Southampton says ...
This only confirms Quangos' total arrogance and bad manners.
They took no notice of the overwhelming majority that objected to fluoridation of water, and now could not even show common courtesy of receiving the petitioners with some respect shown to those who travelled to deliver the document.
Government should demand a curbing of disrespect to members of public by those who are paid handsomely out of our taxes.
The flawed science of fluoridated water
I do wish that the board members of the South Central Strategic Health Authority would have the wisdom to look again at their proposal to force fluoridation on a huge number of people in the region.
To my mind, the science is flawed. The substance which it is proposed be added to the water supply is not the same as that which occurs naturally in other parts of the country. It is wasteful, for most water is not consumed
but is used for other purposes and it is not ethical. How can it be right to medicate the population at large compulsorily? The European Convention on Human Rights and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights both acknowledge the right of individuals not to be medicated without their consent and the Declaration of Helsinki does not permit massmedication. MICHAEL FIELDING, Winchester.
IT'S an arrogant snub.
Anti-fluoridation campaigners have reacted angrily to health chiefs' refusal to personally receive a letter urging them to change their minds over the controversial scheme for Southampton and surrounding areas.
They say the move is proof South Central Strategic Health Authority is unwilling to listen to the people.
More than 20 members of Hampshire Against Fluoridation (HAF) travelled to the SHA's Newbury HQ yesterday to deliver an open letter signed by 170 concerned people. But they were not even allowed in to deliver the letter.
After a debate with security guards, a single protester was eventually allowed inside.
But none of the 12 SHA board members, who a year ago yesterday voted in favour of adding fluoride to the water delivered to almost 200,000 people in and around Southampton, were there to accept the letter.
Instead it was handed to a receptionist.
The Wickham Man, Fareham says ...
When "the people" do the time to gain the education to make objective assessments based on proper understanding of chemistry, biology mathematics and statistics rather than just googling up "facts" from similarly uneducated autodidacts to suit their pre-formed prejudices then the Health Authority will listen to them. But what is the point of even having expert decision makers if every decision is actually made by an uneducated mob? The arrogance here lies totally and utterly with HAF.
What I find funny is that "action groups" want to be credited with intelligence yet have still not cottoned on to the obvious truth that vox pop surveys on any subject will always attract a totally disproportionate anti-view that cannot and should not be scaled up to represent the whole electorate.
Totton Tim, Totton says ...
And what interest is this matter to Wickham Man of Fareham when the areas Intended for fluoridated are Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams?
goard, Southampton says ...
Wickham Man where are your brains - in your pocket? No doubt SHA did not pluck out of the air knowledge of Fluoride - surely they got their information from top drawer chemists.
Do you not realise our representatives ALSO sought the best.
Greenj, Southampton says ...
i would have some respect for the Wickham Man's views if he had done the chemistry and research work to understand that the scientific case against fluoride is extremely strong. It is arrogant to assume that the people objecting have not investigated this and fully understand the science.
The majority of scientists in the world are actually opposed to water fluoridation.
A Nobel Prizewinner wrote in to object to the Southampton fluoridation proposal, as did many scientists from the UK and around the world. So, Wickham Man, if you want to pontificate about science, please get your facts right and do not make silly assumptions about ignorance on one side of the debate.
Paramjit Bahia, Southampton says ...
This only confirms Quangos' total arrogance and bad manners.
They took no notice of the overwhelming majority that objected to fluoridation of water, and now could not even show common courtesy of receiving the petitioners with some respect shown to those who travelled to deliver the document.
Government should demand a curbing of disrespect to members of public by those who are paid handsomely out of our taxes.
The flawed science of fluoridated water
I do wish that the board members of the South Central Strategic Health Authority would have the wisdom to look again at their proposal to force fluoridation on a huge number of people in the region.
To my mind, the science is flawed. The substance which it is proposed be added to the water supply is not the same as that which occurs naturally in other parts of the country. It is wasteful, for most water is not consumed
but is used for other purposes and it is not ethical. How can it be right to medicate the population at large compulsorily? The European Convention on Human Rights and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights both acknowledge the right of individuals not to be medicated without their consent and the Declaration of Helsinki does not permit massmedication. MICHAEL FIELDING, Winchester.
1 Mar 2010
USA - Your Health: The war on cavities begins earlier
Your Health: The war on cavities begins earlier
By Kim Painter, USA TODAY
Kids in Massachusetts day care centers and preschools have a new activity to fit in between napping, coloring and snacking: They have to brush their teeth (or have them brushed by a staffer).
Under new regulations that took effect in January, Massachusetts became the first state to require tooth-brushing for kids who spend more than four hours a day or have meals in licensed centers.
The edict has prompted some complaints from already-busy child care workers and from parents who don't want the hand of Big Brother in their children's mouths (though parents can opt children out of the program). But "we're also hearing lots of positive feedback," says Sherri Killins, head of the state's Department of Early Education and Care. "We think it's the right policy."
And it's just one new line of attack on a somewhat surprising problem: Despite widespread water fluoridation and advances in dental care, cavities were more common among children in the early 2000s than they were a decade earlier, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
"Cavities are alive and well in the United States," says William Berlocher, a pediatric dentist in Corpus Christi, Texas, and president of the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. One-third of children already have cavities by ages 3 to 5, he says.
The problem is widespread, especially among poor children, but "it's largely preventable," says Inyang Isong, a pediatrician at Massachusetts General Hospital for Children, Boston. The preschool brushing program is "a wonderful idea," she says.....
By Kim Painter, USA TODAY
Kids in Massachusetts day care centers and preschools have a new activity to fit in between napping, coloring and snacking: They have to brush their teeth (or have them brushed by a staffer).
Under new regulations that took effect in January, Massachusetts became the first state to require tooth-brushing for kids who spend more than four hours a day or have meals in licensed centers.
The edict has prompted some complaints from already-busy child care workers and from parents who don't want the hand of Big Brother in their children's mouths (though parents can opt children out of the program). But "we're also hearing lots of positive feedback," says Sherri Killins, head of the state's Department of Early Education and Care. "We think it's the right policy."
And it's just one new line of attack on a somewhat surprising problem: Despite widespread water fluoridation and advances in dental care, cavities were more common among children in the early 2000s than they were a decade earlier, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
"Cavities are alive and well in the United States," says William Berlocher, a pediatric dentist in Corpus Christi, Texas, and president of the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. One-third of children already have cavities by ages 3 to 5, he says.
The problem is widespread, especially among poor children, but "it's largely preventable," says Inyang Isong, a pediatrician at Massachusetts General Hospital for Children, Boston. The preschool brushing program is "a wonderful idea," she says.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
