SOUTHAMPTON: Crucial High Court hearings are put back until January
Fluoride hearing is delayed until 2011
By Jon Reeve
NO DECISION on the fluoridation of water in Hampshire can be taken until next year because a legal bid to block it has been delayed again, the Daily Echo can reveal.
High Court hearings challenging the way health bosses gave the controversial plans for Southampton and the surrounding area the green light have been put back until January
The first part of judicial review proceedings - an appeal against a judge's refusal to examine whether South Central Strategic Health Authority should have looked at more evidence against fluoridation - had originally been due to be heard in November.
But that has now been delayed to form part of a two-day hearing also incorporating a full probe of whether more attention should have been paid to public opinion during the consultation. The SHA had said it didn't want to have both an appeal and full hearing at once because it could mean wasting taxpayers' cash preparing a legal case it didn't need to.
But last night bosses, who have set aside £400,000 to fight the challenge and have consistently argued they met or exceeded all their legal requirements, insisted they are happy to have the hearing in one go because it speeds up the legal process.
The scheme has already been on hold for 14 months - the judicial review was launched just four months after the SHA board unanimously approved the plans despite 72 per cent of affected residents who voiced their opinion during the consultation objecting.
An SHA spokeswoman told the Daily Echo they welcomed the judge's decision to combine the appeal and full hearing.
She said: "Prior to this, the SHA argued that permission should be dealt with separately because of the cost implications. What the SHA did not expect, however, was the delay in a hearing date being set.
"Indeed, the judge deciding that the permission hearing should be heard at the same time as the substantive hearing expressed concern about the delay in the listing of this case for hearing.
"Consequently, the SHA is happy with a joint hearing."
But chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, Stephen Peckham, said he doesn't believe the SHA should even fight the review.
As revealed by the Daily Echo, the Government is to hand powers over fluoridation to councils after it scraps SHAs in 2012. It is also looking at the rules over how consultations are conducted, and whether more weight should be given to people's opinions.
Dr Peckham said: "I can't see any logic in holding a judicial review based on discussions of regulations that the Department of Health seems to have under review anyway.
"It seems totally crazy that in spite of that they're continuing with the scheme and spending nearly half a million pounds of taxpayers' money fighting the judicial review. It is just becoming an absolute nonsense."
27 Aug 2010
Lymington Times - Doomed health body defends fluoride bid
Doomed health body defends fluoride bid
AN NHS body has defended its decision to continue to fight for fluoride to be added to the water supply of Totton residents despite plans for the authority to be axed in 2012.
The South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) gave its approval for the chemical to be added to Southampton's water after the city's Primary Care Trust said it was needed to combat child tooth decay.
The plan affects 190,000 people around Southampton, including 8,000 Totton residents because of the layout of the pipes.
But its powers to add fluoride are due to be axed after the government announced plans to give GPs more responsibility for spending, resulting in the abolition of primary care trusts and strategic health authorities.
Now campaign group Hampshire Against Fluoridation is calling for the SHA to abandon its expensive defence of a High Court legal challenge over the way the project was approved. Chairman Stephen Peckham told the 'A&T' it was "crazy" that the SHA was continuing with the scheme.
But a spokesperson for the authority defended the decision and said: "The Strategic Health Authority still has the responsibility to promote good public health in the region and therefore our position on fluoridation remains unchanged."
Mr Peckham added that the Department of Health (D.o.H) had written a letter to campaigners stating it would examine whether the law needed to be changed to ensure people have more of a say on any similar proposals.
The letter said: "This will ensure that there is a democratic basis for decisions on fluoridation. In drawing up the legislation that will be required for the new arrangements, the D.o.H will be giving further consideration as to how more account can be taken locally of the views of the people who would be affected by any proposals for a new fluoridation scheme."
Opponents claim their concerns about the chemical's side-effects have been ignored, despite gathering a 15,000 name petition objecting and a Mori Poll by the SHA showing 38% opposed against 32% in support.
AN NHS body has defended its decision to continue to fight for fluoride to be added to the water supply of Totton residents despite plans for the authority to be axed in 2012.
The South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) gave its approval for the chemical to be added to Southampton's water after the city's Primary Care Trust said it was needed to combat child tooth decay.
The plan affects 190,000 people around Southampton, including 8,000 Totton residents because of the layout of the pipes.
But its powers to add fluoride are due to be axed after the government announced plans to give GPs more responsibility for spending, resulting in the abolition of primary care trusts and strategic health authorities.
Now campaign group Hampshire Against Fluoridation is calling for the SHA to abandon its expensive defence of a High Court legal challenge over the way the project was approved. Chairman Stephen Peckham told the 'A&T' it was "crazy" that the SHA was continuing with the scheme.
But a spokesperson for the authority defended the decision and said: "The Strategic Health Authority still has the responsibility to promote good public health in the region and therefore our position on fluoridation remains unchanged."
Mr Peckham added that the Department of Health (D.o.H) had written a letter to campaigners stating it would examine whether the law needed to be changed to ensure people have more of a say on any similar proposals.
The letter said: "This will ensure that there is a democratic basis for decisions on fluoridation. In drawing up the legislation that will be required for the new arrangements, the D.o.H will be giving further consideration as to how more account can be taken locally of the views of the people who would be affected by any proposals for a new fluoridation scheme."
Opponents claim their concerns about the chemical's side-effects have been ignored, despite gathering a 15,000 name petition objecting and a Mori Poll by the SHA showing 38% opposed against 32% in support.
26 Aug 2010
Daily Echo - Fighting talk on fluoride
Fighting talk on fluoride
By Jon Reeve
A LEADING international critic of water fluoridation is to give a special presentation in Hampshire next month.
Professor Paul Connett's visit comes as campaigners claim there is gathering momentum in their fight against controversial plans to add fluoride to water supplies in and around Southampton.
As revealed by the Daily Echo this week, the Government wants to take the power to authorise fluoridation away from health chiefs like those who approved the Hampshire scheme, and give it to elected councillors instead.
All local authorities governing the affected area - which covers parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams - say they oppose the existing plans.
Professor Connett will talk about claims fluoridation is based on faulty evidence, focussing on scientific and ethical arguments against the practice.
South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) has approved plans to fluoridate water supplies delivered to nearly 200,000 people.
Despite opposition that saw 72 per cent of respondents from the affected area say they were against the plans during a public consultation, SHA board members approved fluoridation convinced it will improve dental health.
Professor Connett, a founding member of the international Fluoride Action Network, was one of the panel members when the SHA held Question Time-style debates during consultation process.
He argues the evidence used by those promoting fluoride is flawed, and claims it is a dangerous poison that causes serious side effects including mottled teeth, brittle bones, cancers and lowered IQ in babies.
During his talk, the Emeritus Professor of chemistry at St Lawrence University in New York state will discuss topics raised in a book he has co-authored.
The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That keep It There is due to be published in October. The presentation at Southampton Solent University's conference centre in Above Bar Street will be hosted by Hampshire Against Fluoridation chairman Stephen Peckham.
He has invited Hampshire MPs and councillors to the event, as well as key members of NHS Southampton and the SHA. Dr Peckham said: "We hope that SHA board members will take this opportunity to come and listen to Professor Connett's talk which will set out why the scientific and ethical case against water fluoridation is so strong."
By Jon Reeve
A LEADING international critic of water fluoridation is to give a special presentation in Hampshire next month.
Professor Paul Connett's visit comes as campaigners claim there is gathering momentum in their fight against controversial plans to add fluoride to water supplies in and around Southampton.
As revealed by the Daily Echo this week, the Government wants to take the power to authorise fluoridation away from health chiefs like those who approved the Hampshire scheme, and give it to elected councillors instead.
All local authorities governing the affected area - which covers parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams - say they oppose the existing plans.
Professor Connett will talk about claims fluoridation is based on faulty evidence, focussing on scientific and ethical arguments against the practice.
South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) has approved plans to fluoridate water supplies delivered to nearly 200,000 people.
Despite opposition that saw 72 per cent of respondents from the affected area say they were against the plans during a public consultation, SHA board members approved fluoridation convinced it will improve dental health.
Professor Connett, a founding member of the international Fluoride Action Network, was one of the panel members when the SHA held Question Time-style debates during consultation process.
He argues the evidence used by those promoting fluoride is flawed, and claims it is a dangerous poison that causes serious side effects including mottled teeth, brittle bones, cancers and lowered IQ in babies.
During his talk, the Emeritus Professor of chemistry at St Lawrence University in New York state will discuss topics raised in a book he has co-authored.
The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That keep It There is due to be published in October. The presentation at Southampton Solent University's conference centre in Above Bar Street will be hosted by Hampshire Against Fluoridation chairman Stephen Peckham.
He has invited Hampshire MPs and councillors to the event, as well as key members of NHS Southampton and the SHA. Dr Peckham said: "We hope that SHA board members will take this opportunity to come and listen to Professor Connett's talk which will set out why the scientific and ethical case against water fluoridation is so strong."
25 Aug 2010
Daily Echo - Tell us what's happening
Tell us what's happening
By J.W.E.Pope
IT'S all very well for John Denham to say "Tell us what is happening" when, during 2005, John's Labour Government introduced us all to Statutory Instruments (SI) 2005 no.920 and 921, and amendments to the Water Act 2003. As a result of these actions, the introduction of fluoride nationally is unstoppable without amendments to this biased legislation.
So, how to introduce a fluoride scheme? To start with, a Primary Care Trust (PCT) that has failed statistically in the care of children's teeth, contacts a Strategic Health Authority (SHA) for help and assistance. The SHA tells the PCT it can legally help via the Water Act 2003 fref, 87c Fluoridation arrangements: compliance') by introducing non-medical compounds of fluoride into its local water supply to cure this problem using either hexafluorosilic acid or disodium hexafluorosilicate.
Before doing so, the SHA has to consult with the local water supplier, advising them of its proposed consultation, in line with SI 920, and that the water company must comply/agree to fluoridate its supply. By doing so, the water company will be indemnified by the Government against all claims made against it, unless of course the company over-fluoridates us all via a "mechanical failure". Once SI 920 has been agreed, the SHA then consults with the population in line with SI 921.
So, now we come to SI 921, Section 5, Outcome of Consultation. This style of exclusive legislative consultation, where only positive feedback is acceptable in line with the author's script, sets a dangerous precedent by excluding all opposition to a proposal. Nowhere within this section is it written that a vote outcome of a consultation overrides all other arguments.
So, look out. One day there may be something that you all hold dear to your hearts. Today it's fresh water. Tomorrow - well, who knows what it may be.... Mr Denham, your local population did not call for this Fluoride Consultation. It was foisted upon us by the PCT and SHA. Will you please now ask all local MPs, interested groups and individuals to come together to demand that SI 921, Section 5 Outcome of Consultation be amended, to ensure that a vote outcome of a consultation overrides all other arguments? This is a national issue. We locally are a test case. Should the SHA win here, the rest of England and Wales will be fluoridated. So, as a re-elected MP for Southampton Itchen, will you 'Tell us what is happening' so as to restore our confidence in the power of our locally elected MPs?
By J.W.E.Pope
IT'S all very well for John Denham to say "Tell us what is happening" when, during 2005, John's Labour Government introduced us all to Statutory Instruments (SI) 2005 no.920 and 921, and amendments to the Water Act 2003. As a result of these actions, the introduction of fluoride nationally is unstoppable without amendments to this biased legislation.
So, how to introduce a fluoride scheme? To start with, a Primary Care Trust (PCT) that has failed statistically in the care of children's teeth, contacts a Strategic Health Authority (SHA) for help and assistance. The SHA tells the PCT it can legally help via the Water Act 2003 fref, 87c Fluoridation arrangements: compliance') by introducing non-medical compounds of fluoride into its local water supply to cure this problem using either hexafluorosilic acid or disodium hexafluorosilicate.
Before doing so, the SHA has to consult with the local water supplier, advising them of its proposed consultation, in line with SI 920, and that the water company must comply/agree to fluoridate its supply. By doing so, the water company will be indemnified by the Government against all claims made against it, unless of course the company over-fluoridates us all via a "mechanical failure". Once SI 920 has been agreed, the SHA then consults with the population in line with SI 921.
So, now we come to SI 921, Section 5, Outcome of Consultation. This style of exclusive legislative consultation, where only positive feedback is acceptable in line with the author's script, sets a dangerous precedent by excluding all opposition to a proposal. Nowhere within this section is it written that a vote outcome of a consultation overrides all other arguments.
So, look out. One day there may be something that you all hold dear to your hearts. Today it's fresh water. Tomorrow - well, who knows what it may be.... Mr Denham, your local population did not call for this Fluoride Consultation. It was foisted upon us by the PCT and SHA. Will you please now ask all local MPs, interested groups and individuals to come together to demand that SI 921, Section 5 Outcome of Consultation be amended, to ensure that a vote outcome of a consultation overrides all other arguments? This is a national issue. We locally are a test case. Should the SHA win here, the rest of England and Wales will be fluoridated. So, as a re-elected MP for Southampton Itchen, will you 'Tell us what is happening' so as to restore our confidence in the power of our locally elected MPs?
24 Aug 2010
Daily Echo - Fluoride dead in the water?
Fluoride dead in the water?
Councils to be given final say on fluoride
-By Jon Reeve,
PLANS to fluoridate Hampshire's water could be axed as health chiefs lose powers to approve the controversial scheme.
The Government has revealed councils are to be given responsibility for fluoridation as part of a shake-up of the NHS that will see strategic health authorities (SHAs) axed.
Every local authority in the area affected - covering parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams - has already said it should not go ahead.
And after the controversy over the Southampton scheme, the Department of Health (DH) will also examine if the law needs to he changed to ensure people have more of a say on any similar proposals.
Pressure is now mounting on South Central Strategic Health Authority to scrap its plans, and abandon its expensive defence of a High Court legal challenge over the way the project was approved.
Chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, Stephen Peckham told the Daily Echo he believes there is now no future for the Southampton scheme, which has already been on hold since last June until the outcome of the judicial review.
He said: "With SHAs being abolished by April 2012 this is just becoming an absolute nonsense. "We want to know how they can justify this. "It seems totally crazy they're continuing with the scheme and spending £400,000 fighting the judicial review."
In a letter to campaigners, the DH revealed that, by scrapping SHAs, councils would take responsibility for public health measures, including fluoridation.
The letter said: "This ensure that there is a democratic basis for decisions on fluoridation.
"In drawing up the legislation that will be required for the new arrangements, the DH will be giving further consideration as to how more account can be taken locally of the views of the people who would be affected by any proposals for a new fluoridation scheme."
During the consultation, in which more than 10,000 people had their say on the plans, 72 per cent of respondents said they opposed fluoridation.
Hampshire county, Eastleigh and Fareham borough and New Forest and Test Valley district councils all passed motions saying they also disagreed with adding the chemical to tap water supplies.
Southampton City Council voted in favour of the plans, but councillors have since called for a binding referendum to be held before fluoride could be added to the water.
City council leader, Royston Smith said the Government's announcement could now spark a public vote.
"I have consistently supported the proposal to hold a referendum to ensure that the majority of the population can decide for themselves.
"In light of the Secretary of State's letter I will be investigating how a vote could be held in the future - perhaps to coincide with a local election." The SHA has consistently argued it believes fluoridation will improve dental health, and that it met or exceeded all its legal requirements during the public consultation.
A spokesman said: "The SHA is fully aware of the DH's plans for the future, however the SHA still has the responsibility to promote good public health in the region and therefore our position on fluoridation remains unchanged.
Councils to be given final say on fluoride
-By Jon Reeve,
PLANS to fluoridate Hampshire's water could be axed as health chiefs lose powers to approve the controversial scheme.
The Government has revealed councils are to be given responsibility for fluoridation as part of a shake-up of the NHS that will see strategic health authorities (SHAs) axed.
Every local authority in the area affected - covering parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams - has already said it should not go ahead.
And after the controversy over the Southampton scheme, the Department of Health (DH) will also examine if the law needs to he changed to ensure people have more of a say on any similar proposals.
Pressure is now mounting on South Central Strategic Health Authority to scrap its plans, and abandon its expensive defence of a High Court legal challenge over the way the project was approved.
Chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, Stephen Peckham told the Daily Echo he believes there is now no future for the Southampton scheme, which has already been on hold since last June until the outcome of the judicial review.
He said: "With SHAs being abolished by April 2012 this is just becoming an absolute nonsense. "We want to know how they can justify this. "It seems totally crazy they're continuing with the scheme and spending £400,000 fighting the judicial review."
In a letter to campaigners, the DH revealed that, by scrapping SHAs, councils would take responsibility for public health measures, including fluoridation.
The letter said: "This ensure that there is a democratic basis for decisions on fluoridation.
"In drawing up the legislation that will be required for the new arrangements, the DH will be giving further consideration as to how more account can be taken locally of the views of the people who would be affected by any proposals for a new fluoridation scheme."
During the consultation, in which more than 10,000 people had their say on the plans, 72 per cent of respondents said they opposed fluoridation.
Hampshire county, Eastleigh and Fareham borough and New Forest and Test Valley district councils all passed motions saying they also disagreed with adding the chemical to tap water supplies.
Southampton City Council voted in favour of the plans, but councillors have since called for a binding referendum to be held before fluoride could be added to the water.
City council leader, Royston Smith said the Government's announcement could now spark a public vote.
"I have consistently supported the proposal to hold a referendum to ensure that the majority of the population can decide for themselves.
"In light of the Secretary of State's letter I will be investigating how a vote could be held in the future - perhaps to coincide with a local election." The SHA has consistently argued it believes fluoridation will improve dental health, and that it met or exceeded all its legal requirements during the public consultation.
A spokesman said: "The SHA is fully aware of the DH's plans for the future, however the SHA still has the responsibility to promote good public health in the region and therefore our position on fluoridation remains unchanged.
Scotland - Fluoride varnish to be painted on to children's teeth
23 August 2010
Fluoride varnish to be painted on to children's teeth
Children in the trial will have fluoride varnish painted onto their teeth Children taking part in a new health initiative in the Lothians will have their milk teeth painted with fluoride varnish in a bid to stop decay.
About 150 dentists have signed up to the Childsmile scheme to improve the oral health of the under fives.
The youngsters will have the varnish applied every six months and be monitored during regular check-ups.
Edinburgh dentist Ian Fenny said he backed the move to provide preventative treatment to stop teeth decay.
He added: "Bringing Childsmile into general dental practice is an important link in ensuring every child in Lothian from birth to school is not allowed to fall through the net of not being provided with any form of dental health education or preventative treatment.
"It will hopefully remove preconceived views that many parents have of dentists' surgeries; fears that are often relayed to the child."
The scheme forms a key part in a plan to protect the teeth of Lothian children from the time they are born until they leave primary school.
NHS Lothian's Robert Naysmith said: "Child dental health has been a problem for years - and sadly we are still doing general anaesthetic on children who are too young to go to school to remove decayed teeth.
"Encouraging the parents of very young children to register them with a dentist will bridge the gap between birth and nursery."
Fluoride varnish to be painted on to children's teeth
Children in the trial will have fluoride varnish painted onto their teeth Children taking part in a new health initiative in the Lothians will have their milk teeth painted with fluoride varnish in a bid to stop decay.
About 150 dentists have signed up to the Childsmile scheme to improve the oral health of the under fives.
The youngsters will have the varnish applied every six months and be monitored during regular check-ups.
Edinburgh dentist Ian Fenny said he backed the move to provide preventative treatment to stop teeth decay.
He added: "Bringing Childsmile into general dental practice is an important link in ensuring every child in Lothian from birth to school is not allowed to fall through the net of not being provided with any form of dental health education or preventative treatment.
"It will hopefully remove preconceived views that many parents have of dentists' surgeries; fears that are often relayed to the child."
The scheme forms a key part in a plan to protect the teeth of Lothian children from the time they are born until they leave primary school.
NHS Lothian's Robert Naysmith said: "Child dental health has been a problem for years - and sadly we are still doing general anaesthetic on children who are too young to go to school to remove decayed teeth.
"Encouraging the parents of very young children to register them with a dentist will bridge the gap between birth and nursery."
22 Aug 2010
USA - Interview with Rob Lowe of Fluoride Free Austin
People are waking up world wide - fluoridation is a bad idea.
20 Aug 2010
Local Authorities will assume responsibility
With the abolition of SHAs, Local Authorities will assume responsibility for fluoridation. This will ensure that there is a democratic basis for decisions on fluoridation. In drawing up the legislation that will be required for the new arrangements, the Department will be giving further consideration as to how more account can be taken locally of the views of the people who would be affected by any proposals for a new fluoridation scheme.
Extract from D.o.H. letter in reply to a letter to Andrew Lansley.
Extract from D.o.H. letter in reply to a letter to Andrew Lansley.
19 Aug 2010
Daily Echo - letters - Minister doesn't care about ethics
Minister doesn't care about ethics
Jenny Johnson
SO former health minister Andy Burnham now thinks the views of local people on fluoridation should be respected.
Coming from the man who was instrumental in changing the law to deny people the right to choose, what could be more politically cynical and opportunistic? But then, of course, Mr Burnham was vice-chairman of the British Fluoridation Society (a position he was forced to resign prior to his promotion, after failing to mention this conflict of interests).
Is this really a man of the people, or a ruthless climber of the greasy pole, willing to ignore medical ethics and human and democratic rights?
Mr Burnham wants to lead New Labour. When a politician can turn a blind eye to scientific facts that prove health risks, what else might he be capable of?
This is someone whose pet policy is state-enforced, non-consensual mass medication. It speaks for itself. It is a matter of extreme concern that even now, Burnham is saying fluoridation is safe and beneficial. This is factually untrue and he should retract the claim. [HL1964] Baroness Hayman responded, in a Written Answer, for the Government: "We accept that dental fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity" - Hansard, April 20, 1999: WA 158,
Shock findings
In 2000, the findings of the York Review sent Shockwaves through New Labour. Fluoridation was NOT proved safe. Its unconfirmed benefits had to be weighed against potentially far more serious harms. The Review also stated that fluoridation failed in its core purpose of dental equality between rich and poor.
New Labour propaganda hurtled into overdrive, forcing Professor Sheldon, chairman of the Review, to publicly denounce the lies and shocking misinformation that was being giving out to the public.
Mr Burnham's sycophantic boast that he is a man of the people is particularly insulting to the thousands in Southampton threatened by his legislation. Fluoridation is an industrial policy, not a health measure.
Jenny Johnson
SO former health minister Andy Burnham now thinks the views of local people on fluoridation should be respected.
Coming from the man who was instrumental in changing the law to deny people the right to choose, what could be more politically cynical and opportunistic? But then, of course, Mr Burnham was vice-chairman of the British Fluoridation Society (a position he was forced to resign prior to his promotion, after failing to mention this conflict of interests).
Is this really a man of the people, or a ruthless climber of the greasy pole, willing to ignore medical ethics and human and democratic rights?
Mr Burnham wants to lead New Labour. When a politician can turn a blind eye to scientific facts that prove health risks, what else might he be capable of?
This is someone whose pet policy is state-enforced, non-consensual mass medication. It speaks for itself. It is a matter of extreme concern that even now, Burnham is saying fluoridation is safe and beneficial. This is factually untrue and he should retract the claim. [HL1964] Baroness Hayman responded, in a Written Answer, for the Government: "We accept that dental fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity" - Hansard, April 20, 1999: WA 158,
Shock findings
In 2000, the findings of the York Review sent Shockwaves through New Labour. Fluoridation was NOT proved safe. Its unconfirmed benefits had to be weighed against potentially far more serious harms. The Review also stated that fluoridation failed in its core purpose of dental equality between rich and poor.
New Labour propaganda hurtled into overdrive, forcing Professor Sheldon, chairman of the Review, to publicly denounce the lies and shocking misinformation that was being giving out to the public.
Mr Burnham's sycophantic boast that he is a man of the people is particularly insulting to the thousands in Southampton threatened by his legislation. Fluoridation is an industrial policy, not a health measure.
18 Aug 2010
17 Aug 2010
Daily Echo - Fluoride: 'Tell us what is happening'
Fluoride: 'Tell us what is happening'
By Jon Reeve
SOUTHAMPTON MP John Denham is calling on the Government to spell out its policy on fluoridation, once and for all.
Mr Denham has written to Tory Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, asking him to explain whether the coalition is going to intervene in the controversial scheme to add the chemical to tap water supplies in Hampshire.
The Labour MP, who says he supports fluoridation in principle but has called on South Central Strategic Health Authority to put its plans on hold in the face of public opposition, said the Conservatives have gone quiet on their election pledges to scrap it.
As revealed in the Daily Echo, anti-fluoride campaigners in Hampshire " have already , expressed disappointment at the lack of action since the
t argued it met or exceeded all of its legal requirements during the consultation, has set aside £400,000 to fight the legal bid, which may not be fully heard until next year. Mr Denham, MP for Southampton Itchen, said in his letter it is still unclear if the Government supports the SHA in its decision to proceed with fluoridation. He said: "In my judgement, a full consultation process failed to produce the necessary levels of support, even for a beneficial act of mass medication.
"Prior to the election there were a number of statements made by Conservative spokesmen who led people to believe that plans would be dropped if the Conservatives came to power. "It is now urgent that you clarify the position and, in particular, if you would require a greater level of public support before this policy is implemented.
"If fluoridation is not to proceed then it is important that attention is focused on other ways of ensuring child oral health."
Mr Denham's intervention comes after Tory Hampshire MPs Julian Lewis and Caroline Nokes both called on their party to honour their pre-election pledges on fluoride. Despite those promises, the Leader of the House of Commons, Sir George Young, said earlier this year the Government had "no immediate plans" to change the law surrounding fluoridation schemes.
By Jon Reeve
SOUTHAMPTON MP John Denham is calling on the Government to spell out its policy on fluoridation, once and for all.
Mr Denham has written to Tory Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, asking him to explain whether the coalition is going to intervene in the controversial scheme to add the chemical to tap water supplies in Hampshire.
The Labour MP, who says he supports fluoridation in principle but has called on South Central Strategic Health Authority to put its plans on hold in the face of public opposition, said the Conservatives have gone quiet on their election pledges to scrap it.
As revealed in the Daily Echo, anti-fluoride campaigners in Hampshire " have already , expressed disappointment at the lack of action since the
t argued it met or exceeded all of its legal requirements during the consultation, has set aside £400,000 to fight the legal bid, which may not be fully heard until next year. Mr Denham, MP for Southampton Itchen, said in his letter it is still unclear if the Government supports the SHA in its decision to proceed with fluoridation. He said: "In my judgement, a full consultation process failed to produce the necessary levels of support, even for a beneficial act of mass medication.
"Prior to the election there were a number of statements made by Conservative spokesmen who led people to believe that plans would be dropped if the Conservatives came to power. "It is now urgent that you clarify the position and, in particular, if you would require a greater level of public support before this policy is implemented.
"If fluoridation is not to proceed then it is important that attention is focused on other ways of ensuring child oral health."
Mr Denham's intervention comes after Tory Hampshire MPs Julian Lewis and Caroline Nokes both called on their party to honour their pre-election pledges on fluoride. Despite those promises, the Leader of the House of Commons, Sir George Young, said earlier this year the Government had "no immediate plans" to change the law surrounding fluoridation schemes.
16 Aug 2010
Southampton News Extra
FLUORIDE 'NOT FOR US'
WATER chiefs have admitted for the first time they do not want to put fluoride in Southampton's supplies.
Bosses at Southern Water have said they would not add "unnecessary chemicals" if they didn't have to, but their hands are tied by a change in the law giving the final say to health officials.
The declaration has been hailed by anti-fluoride campaigners as further proof South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) should abandon controversial plans to fluoridate almost 200,000 homes" tap water.
Until now, Southern Water had insisted it had a "neutral" opinion of the scheme, which will affect residents in two-thirds of Southampton and parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams.
The firm only gave technical advice and information on the water supply system during the public consultation on the plans. But company secretary Kevin Hall has admitted in a letter to a local campaigner that the company would not add fluoride to the water if it didn't have to.
He said: "We would choose not to have to add chemicals that are not directly necessary for the provision of drinking water.
"However, there is a statutory process for the requirement of the addition of fluoride to drinking water we supply, and, if this is met, we have a statutory duty to comply with the requirement."
The law was changed in 2003 to put the decision on fluoridation in the hands of health authorities. The chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation been leading the campaign fighting the Southampton scheme, said he welcomed the company's position as further evidence of the opposition to the plans.
Stephen Peckham said: "They're in a sense caught between a rock and a hard place - whatever they think they'll be forced to do and what they're told by the health authority They're a water provider. That's their concern, not to add anything that isn't there to make the water suitable for consumption. From that point of view, adding fluoride changes their whole role. Lots of people have written to Southern Water and I think it just shows that they are paying heed to their customers."
An SHA spokeswoman said Southern Water had been invited to comment as part of the consultation, and insisted the organisation still believed in fluoridation.
WATER chiefs have admitted for the first time they do not want to put fluoride in Southampton's supplies.
Bosses at Southern Water have said they would not add "unnecessary chemicals" if they didn't have to, but their hands are tied by a change in the law giving the final say to health officials.
The declaration has been hailed by anti-fluoride campaigners as further proof South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) should abandon controversial plans to fluoridate almost 200,000 homes" tap water.
Until now, Southern Water had insisted it had a "neutral" opinion of the scheme, which will affect residents in two-thirds of Southampton and parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams.
The firm only gave technical advice and information on the water supply system during the public consultation on the plans. But company secretary Kevin Hall has admitted in a letter to a local campaigner that the company would not add fluoride to the water if it didn't have to.
He said: "We would choose not to have to add chemicals that are not directly necessary for the provision of drinking water.
"However, there is a statutory process for the requirement of the addition of fluoride to drinking water we supply, and, if this is met, we have a statutory duty to comply with the requirement."
The law was changed in 2003 to put the decision on fluoridation in the hands of health authorities. The chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation been leading the campaign fighting the Southampton scheme, said he welcomed the company's position as further evidence of the opposition to the plans.
Stephen Peckham said: "They're in a sense caught between a rock and a hard place - whatever they think they'll be forced to do and what they're told by the health authority They're a water provider. That's their concern, not to add anything that isn't there to make the water suitable for consumption. From that point of view, adding fluoride changes their whole role. Lots of people have written to Southern Water and I think it just shows that they are paying heed to their customers."
An SHA spokeswoman said Southern Water had been invited to comment as part of the consultation, and insisted the organisation still believed in fluoridation.
14 Aug 2010
Andover Advertiser - Fluoride fanatics'
Fluoride fanatics'"NO plans to change the law on fluoridation", says Sir George Young, while Health Minister Andrew Lansley promises: "No decision about me, without me".
Are we back to the con of the Blair years? Mr Lansley has made a grave political error in tacitly approving the unelected SHA spending £400,000 on a Judicial Review, fighting against the taxpayers ' to whom that money belongs.
Now there is talk of a referendum on fluoridation. But why insult the people and waste millions by putting them through this farce again, only to achieve the same result - a resounding no.
All that's needed is the abolition of the law which will cost the Department of Health nothing.
Fluoridation is a waste of moneys We've been held hostage by the fanatic fluoride brigade for too long.
We cannot sacrifice vital frontline services and lifesaving drugs to a practice that falsely claims to be safe, when, among other illnesses,
it causes the serious systemic disease, fluorosis.
This has never been denied not even by the Government. [HL1964] Baroness Hayman responded, in a Written Answer, for the Government: "We accept that dental fluorosis is a manifestation" of systemic toxicity." (Hansard, 20 Apr 1999 : WA158.).
Can the fluoridation pushers be trusted? The British Dental Association follows the lead of the American Dental Association which wrote in 1979: "Individual dentists must be convinced that they need not be familiar with scientific reports and field investigations on fluoridation to be effective participants and that non-participation is overt neglect of professional responsibility"
In other words, in blind ignorance, indiscriminately promote mass medication on unwilling communities. Do not research to see if it is safe and ignore all evidence of harm. Administer the same concentration to babies and to 20 stone adults.
Improve your local career prospects by reverentially treating fluoridation like a fundamentalist religion that .you do not question, and damn anyone who does, especially the most dangerous, like Nobel Laureates and the world's leading experts. The influence of the powerful fluoride polluting industries infiltrates professional bodies and stretches into the highest echelons of politics.
Just look at the legislation that protects these industries. Hexafluorosilicic Acid (the industrial waste used in fluoridation) is so toxic it cannot be dumped in the sea, in rivers or in landfill sites. But industries can dump it in our drinking water and make a profit. Fluoridation is State Enforced non-consensual mass medication with a Grade 2 listed poison that has no medicinal licence.
The measure of this administration win be judged on its ethical response to this' human rights abuse.
Jennifer Godschall
Johnson,
Upper Clatford.
Dail Echo - Government should step in and stop this
Government should step in and stop this
FAR from lamenting that their hands are tied by legislation, as reported in the Daily Echo (August 7), the managers of Southern Water should have strenuously opposed the possible introduction of fluoridation.
They should have pointed out that the legislation is severely flawed, being a gross interference with their functions as a water supplier, an abuse of the natural rights of their customers and a form of mass-medication which the Health Department admits, although carefully avoiding the term using an unnecessary chemical to which some of the population are actually allergic.
They should have pointed out that such a requirement is detrimental to their professional reputation and contrary to their expressly published aims and commitment to water quality.
There is no need whatever to pursue the costly court proceedings. The Government should step in and stop matters immediately.
G PAYNE, Woolston, Southampton.
FAR from lamenting that their hands are tied by legislation, as reported in the Daily Echo (August 7), the managers of Southern Water should have strenuously opposed the possible introduction of fluoridation.
They should have pointed out that the legislation is severely flawed, being a gross interference with their functions as a water supplier, an abuse of the natural rights of their customers and a form of mass-medication which the Health Department admits, although carefully avoiding the term using an unnecessary chemical to which some of the population are actually allergic.
They should have pointed out that such a requirement is detrimental to their professional reputation and contrary to their expressly published aims and commitment to water quality.
There is no need whatever to pursue the costly court proceedings. The Government should step in and stop matters immediately.
G PAYNE, Woolston, Southampton.
Letter :‘No decision about me without me’
‘No decision about me without me’
4:26pm Thursday 29th July 2010
THE new White Paper on Health seems to have resolved the question of enforced fluoridation of our water supply.
“Shared decision making will become the norm: No decision about me without me”.
So if you or I do not want it, as was the case with 72 per cent of those consulted in Southampton, we will not have to have it?
Of course, Gordon Brown said that ‘It’s up to the local people’ two days before it was clear that under that government, it wasn’t.
But surely this government cannot possibly want to be tarred with the same mucky brush at the start of their term?
Margaret J Reichlin MacCallum Road Upper Enham.
4:26pm Thursday 29th July 2010
THE new White Paper on Health seems to have resolved the question of enforced fluoridation of our water supply.
“Shared decision making will become the norm: No decision about me without me”.
So if you or I do not want it, as was the case with 72 per cent of those consulted in Southampton, we will not have to have it?
Of course, Gordon Brown said that ‘It’s up to the local people’ two days before it was clear that under that government, it wasn’t.
But surely this government cannot possibly want to be tarred with the same mucky brush at the start of their term?
Margaret J Reichlin MacCallum Road Upper Enham.
13 Aug 2010
Water firm comes off the fence to join ranks of anti-fluoride campaigners
Lymington Times 13th August
Water firm comes off the fence to join ranks of anti-fluoride campaigners
SOUTHERN WATER has admitted it does not want to add fluoride to Southampton's water supply, which would affect around 8,000 Totton residents.
The controversial decision was approved in February last year by the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) to combat child tooth decay in the city. It will affect 190,000 people in total and includes Totton because of the layout of the pipes.
Under the 2003 Water Act strategic health authorities have the powers
to instruct water companies to add fluoride to their supplies as a way of improving the oral health of their populations and to reduce inequalities. This is the first time it has been used.
Cadnam resident Bill Edmunds, who wrote to Southern Water to complain about the issue, received a reply from company secretary Kevin Hall who wrote: "Our position is clear that we are statutory water suppliers and our expertise lies in engineering and water treatment for this purpose.
"We would choose not to have to add chemicals that are not directly necessary for the provision of drinking water."
However, he added there was a statutory process for the addition of fluoride to drinking water and if it was met, the company would have a legal duty to comply.
Mr Edmunds told the 'A&T': "Now that Southern Water has revealed it too is against, surely it should be enough for the SHA to accept that it made a wrong decision and use the funds for more direct remedial dental care on those who are now in need of treatment."
A spokeswoman for Southern Water told the 'A&T1: "Our position on this issue remains the same. By law, if requested by a strategic health authority to add fluoride to the water supply, then we must do so.
"We cannot take a medical or ethical view on the subject. The decision to add fluoride was not taken by us and it is not our place to make such a decision, as stated in the letter."
A spokeswoman for the South Central Strategic Health Authority told the 'A&T' it remained confident that the decision made by the board "was carried out in the best interests of the health of people living in Southampton and parts of south-west Hampshire and in accordance with the relevant legislation laid down by parliament".
Opponents claim their concerns about the chemical's side-effects have been ignored, despite gathering a 15,000-name petition objecting and a Mori poll by the SHA showing 38% opposed against 32% in support.
Water firm comes off the fence to join ranks of anti-fluoride campaigners
SOUTHERN WATER has admitted it does not want to add fluoride to Southampton's water supply, which would affect around 8,000 Totton residents.
The controversial decision was approved in February last year by the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) to combat child tooth decay in the city. It will affect 190,000 people in total and includes Totton because of the layout of the pipes.
Under the 2003 Water Act strategic health authorities have the powers
to instruct water companies to add fluoride to their supplies as a way of improving the oral health of their populations and to reduce inequalities. This is the first time it has been used.
Cadnam resident Bill Edmunds, who wrote to Southern Water to complain about the issue, received a reply from company secretary Kevin Hall who wrote: "Our position is clear that we are statutory water suppliers and our expertise lies in engineering and water treatment for this purpose.
"We would choose not to have to add chemicals that are not directly necessary for the provision of drinking water."
However, he added there was a statutory process for the addition of fluoride to drinking water and if it was met, the company would have a legal duty to comply.
Mr Edmunds told the 'A&T': "Now that Southern Water has revealed it too is against, surely it should be enough for the SHA to accept that it made a wrong decision and use the funds for more direct remedial dental care on those who are now in need of treatment."
A spokeswoman for Southern Water told the 'A&T1: "Our position on this issue remains the same. By law, if requested by a strategic health authority to add fluoride to the water supply, then we must do so.
"We cannot take a medical or ethical view on the subject. The decision to add fluoride was not taken by us and it is not our place to make such a decision, as stated in the letter."
A spokeswoman for the South Central Strategic Health Authority told the 'A&T' it remained confident that the decision made by the board "was carried out in the best interests of the health of people living in Southampton and parts of south-west Hampshire and in accordance with the relevant legislation laid down by parliament".
Opponents claim their concerns about the chemical's side-effects have been ignored, despite gathering a 15,000-name petition objecting and a Mori poll by the SHA showing 38% opposed against 32% in support.
9 Aug 2010
Daily Echo - Comments
IN Saturday's Daily Echo we reporter how former Health Secretary Andy Burnham had repeated his belief that fluoridalion would be a positive step for children in Southampton.
The Labour leadership hopeful said that, although in favour of the chemicat being added to Hampshire taps, tie views of people had to be respected.
Mr Burnham said that the amount of fluoride that was added to the supply was "negligible" and that better dental health would promote "self-confidence" in city youngsters.
The MP stopped in Hampshire to thank party supporters in Southampton and the New Forest for their backing in the leadership race, now entering its final
Mr Burnham said: "It's often the poorest kids in society that suffer the most without it Fluoridation has been proven to be a safe and effective way of improving not just children's but everybody's dental health and one part per million is neglible.
"Having said that I am very aware that there are strong views on the matter. There's been very robust debate and the views of local people have to be respected."
Here are some of your comments...
The Edge of Reason, Southampton says...
I don't think anyone has listened to the public about putting fluoride in the water. If they had the debate would be finished. After consultation those who said no outweighed those who said yes.
Using the excuse that it will improve everyone's dental health is in my opinion absolute garbage. Giving people access to NHS dentists will improve dental health.
If parents cannot be bothered to teach their children to brush their teeth, then it should be taught in school.
As a 16-year-old I joined the Army and was taught how to brush my teeth properly. I thought it was stupid but I did it. I believe children in primary schools would think it fun to clean their teeth in school, therefore improving their dental health without having chemicals in the water.
Condor Man, Southampton says-He's not a minister of state, why should he have any influence over the decision made? Both Denham and Whitehead backed the flouride bid for the same reason. They should have increased funding for NHS dentists instead.
da boss, upper bassett/known as chilworth says-Forty different poisons in our water and they charge us! His surname says it all.
Bassett-Mikey, Bassett says...
The question is now nothing to do with fluoride in the water -it is about the total lack of regard to democratic process. Folk said no - these people have no right to go against this. Their argument from day one was flawed anyway.
Lets remember who it is going against our wishes. Let's make serious efforts to strip them of their authority. Thats actually what elections are about The more vocal the opposition the better.
JP Muffin, Biackfield says...
Generally speaking, it is those that are better informed and/or better educated (those who have read current research on the matter too) who have been the ones to have most objected to fluoridation. Contrary to what Burnham says, the case is not proven, as these people well know.
Those who do not know what all the fuss is about are generally speaking ill informed and have not read the research.
It appears to follow that the better-educated are also within the slightly higher income bracket, with bottled waters being a regular item on their shopping list.
Those 'decision-makers' who have decided that fluoridation will take place regardless of opinion know only too well that, while many of those opposed to it will still be unable to control what comes out of their taps (because they lack the capital for the many extortionately priced alternatives) they will nonetheless commit even further to the buying of bottied-waters and all manner of filters that are coming onto the market, thus still stimulating the economy.
In short, the rich will pay for water from all manner of sources, while the poor will slug back whatever they're given.
The Labour leadership hopeful said that, although in favour of the chemicat being added to Hampshire taps, tie views of people had to be respected.
Mr Burnham said that the amount of fluoride that was added to the supply was "negligible" and that better dental health would promote "self-confidence" in city youngsters.
The MP stopped in Hampshire to thank party supporters in Southampton and the New Forest for their backing in the leadership race, now entering its final
Mr Burnham said: "It's often the poorest kids in society that suffer the most without it Fluoridation has been proven to be a safe and effective way of improving not just children's but everybody's dental health and one part per million is neglible.
"Having said that I am very aware that there are strong views on the matter. There's been very robust debate and the views of local people have to be respected."
Here are some of your comments...
The Edge of Reason, Southampton says...
I don't think anyone has listened to the public about putting fluoride in the water. If they had the debate would be finished. After consultation those who said no outweighed those who said yes.
Using the excuse that it will improve everyone's dental health is in my opinion absolute garbage. Giving people access to NHS dentists will improve dental health.
If parents cannot be bothered to teach their children to brush their teeth, then it should be taught in school.
As a 16-year-old I joined the Army and was taught how to brush my teeth properly. I thought it was stupid but I did it. I believe children in primary schools would think it fun to clean their teeth in school, therefore improving their dental health without having chemicals in the water.
Condor Man, Southampton says-He's not a minister of state, why should he have any influence over the decision made? Both Denham and Whitehead backed the flouride bid for the same reason. They should have increased funding for NHS dentists instead.
da boss, upper bassett/known as chilworth says-Forty different poisons in our water and they charge us! His surname says it all.
Bassett-Mikey, Bassett says...
The question is now nothing to do with fluoride in the water -it is about the total lack of regard to democratic process. Folk said no - these people have no right to go against this. Their argument from day one was flawed anyway.
Lets remember who it is going against our wishes. Let's make serious efforts to strip them of their authority. Thats actually what elections are about The more vocal the opposition the better.
JP Muffin, Biackfield says...
Generally speaking, it is those that are better informed and/or better educated (those who have read current research on the matter too) who have been the ones to have most objected to fluoridation. Contrary to what Burnham says, the case is not proven, as these people well know.
Those who do not know what all the fuss is about are generally speaking ill informed and have not read the research.
It appears to follow that the better-educated are also within the slightly higher income bracket, with bottled waters being a regular item on their shopping list.
Those 'decision-makers' who have decided that fluoridation will take place regardless of opinion know only too well that, while many of those opposed to it will still be unable to control what comes out of their taps (because they lack the capital for the many extortionately priced alternatives) they will nonetheless commit even further to the buying of bottied-waters and all manner of filters that are coming onto the market, thus still stimulating the economy.
In short, the rich will pay for water from all manner of sources, while the poor will slug back whatever they're given.
7 Aug 2010
Southern Water: We don't want fluoride either
Frank admission goes on the record for the very first time
Southern water: We don't want fluoride either
Exclusive By Jon Reeve
jon.reeve@dailyecho.co.uk
WATER bosses have admitted for the first time they don't want to put fluoride in Hampshire's supplies.
Chiefs at Southern Water have said they wouldn't add "unnecessary chemicals" if they didn't have to, but their hands are tied by a change in the law giving the final say to health officials.
The declaration has been hailed by anti-fluoride campaigners as further proof South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) should a abandon its controversial plans to fluoridate tap water delivered to almost 200,000 people.
Until now, Southern Water had '' insisted it had a "neutral" opinion of the scheme, which will affect residents in two-thirds of Southampton and parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams.
The firm only gave technical advice and information on the water supply system during the public consultation on the plans. But company secretary Kevin Hall has admitted in a letter to a local campaigner that the company would not add fluoride to the water if it'didn't have to.
He said: "Our position is clear that we are statutory water suppliers and our expertise lies in engineering and water treatment for this purpose.
"We would choose not to have to add chemicals that are not directly necessary for the provision of drinking water.
"However, there is a statutory process for the requirement of the addition of fluoride to drinking water we supply, and, if this is met, we have a statutory duty to comply with the requirement.
"I repeat that we have great regard to the interests of our customers."
The law was changed in 2003 to put the decision on fluoridation in the hands of health authorities, after several schemes were scrapped by utility firms fearful of legal reprisals from upset customers.
Once SHA has made a decision to approve plans for fluoridation, which it must do following a public consultation, it can order a water firm to introduce the chemical to supplies.
The chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, which has been leading the campaign fighting the Southampton scheme, last night said he welcomed the company's position as further evidence of the opposition to the plans.
Stephen Peckham told the Daily Echo: "They're in a sense caught between a rock and a hard place -whatever they think they'll be forced to do what they're told by the health authority But I do think it's significant that they wouldn't do it.
"They're a water provider. That's their concern, not to add anything that isn't there to make the water suitable for consumption. From that point of view, adding fluoride changes their whole role. Lots of people have written to Southern Water and I think it just shows that they are paying heed to their customers."
A Southern Water spokeswoman said last night the firm "cannot take a medical or ethical view" on fluoridation.
She said: "By law, if requested by a strategic health authority to add fluoride to the water supply, then we must do so.
"The decision to add fluoride was not taken by us and it is not our place to make such a decision, as stated in the letter."
An SHA spokeswoman said last night Southern Water had been invited to comment as part of the consultation, and insisted the organisation still believes in fluoridation.
WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THE FLUORIDE SCHEME?
HEALTH chiefs had hoped fluoride would be in Hampshire's water by the end of this year, but the scheme has been on hold since last June because of a legal challenge.
The High Court is to rule whether South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) should have taken more
account of public opinion before backing the plans in February last year.
During the public consultation, 72 per cent of people living in the affected area who gave their views opposed fluoridation.
But the authority's 12 board members unanimously approved the scheme, saying
it would benefit dental health.
That sparked calls, backed by the Daily Echo, for a binding referendum.
A date for the judicial review hasnt been set, because the campaigner who lodged the legal bid is appealing against a ruling she could not challenge the way the SHA weighed up its evidence.
The SHA, which has consistently argued it met or exceeded all its legal requirements during the consultation, has set aside £400,000 to fight the action.
That is seen as a test case and has caused other health authorities around the country to delay their own fluoride schemes.
FORMER Health Secretary Andy Burnham repeated his belief that fluoridation would be a positive step for children in Southampton.
The Labour leadership hopeful said that although in favour of the chemical being added to Hampshire taps, that the views of people had to be respected.
Mr Burnham said that the amount of fluoride that was added to the supply was "negligible" and that better dental health would promote "serf confidence" in city youngsters.
The MP stopped in Hampshire to thank party supporters in Southampton and the New Forest for their backing in the leadership race, now entering its final stages.
Mr Burnham said: "It's often the poorest kids in society that suffer the most without it, fluoridation has been proven to be a safe and effective way of improving not just children's but everybody's dental health and one part per million is negligible.
"Having said that I am very aware that there are strong views on the matter. There's been very robust debate and the views of local people have to be respected."
On his race to become leader, the MP for Leigh in Greater Manchester added: "I have a very clear idea how I need to rebuild the Labour Party that has lost touch with its routes.
"We need to rebuild the people's party from the bottom up."
Southern water: We don't want fluoride either
Exclusive By Jon Reeve
jon.reeve@dailyecho.co.uk
WATER bosses have admitted for the first time they don't want to put fluoride in Hampshire's supplies.
Chiefs at Southern Water have said they wouldn't add "unnecessary chemicals" if they didn't have to, but their hands are tied by a change in the law giving the final say to health officials.
The declaration has been hailed by anti-fluoride campaigners as further proof South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) should a abandon its controversial plans to fluoridate tap water delivered to almost 200,000 people.
Until now, Southern Water had '' insisted it had a "neutral" opinion of the scheme, which will affect residents in two-thirds of Southampton and parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams.
The firm only gave technical advice and information on the water supply system during the public consultation on the plans. But company secretary Kevin Hall has admitted in a letter to a local campaigner that the company would not add fluoride to the water if it'didn't have to.
He said: "Our position is clear that we are statutory water suppliers and our expertise lies in engineering and water treatment for this purpose.
"We would choose not to have to add chemicals that are not directly necessary for the provision of drinking water.
"However, there is a statutory process for the requirement of the addition of fluoride to drinking water we supply, and, if this is met, we have a statutory duty to comply with the requirement.
"I repeat that we have great regard to the interests of our customers."
The law was changed in 2003 to put the decision on fluoridation in the hands of health authorities, after several schemes were scrapped by utility firms fearful of legal reprisals from upset customers.
Once SHA has made a decision to approve plans for fluoridation, which it must do following a public consultation, it can order a water firm to introduce the chemical to supplies.
The chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, which has been leading the campaign fighting the Southampton scheme, last night said he welcomed the company's position as further evidence of the opposition to the plans.
Stephen Peckham told the Daily Echo: "They're in a sense caught between a rock and a hard place -whatever they think they'll be forced to do what they're told by the health authority But I do think it's significant that they wouldn't do it.
"They're a water provider. That's their concern, not to add anything that isn't there to make the water suitable for consumption. From that point of view, adding fluoride changes their whole role. Lots of people have written to Southern Water and I think it just shows that they are paying heed to their customers."
A Southern Water spokeswoman said last night the firm "cannot take a medical or ethical view" on fluoridation.
She said: "By law, if requested by a strategic health authority to add fluoride to the water supply, then we must do so.
"The decision to add fluoride was not taken by us and it is not our place to make such a decision, as stated in the letter."
An SHA spokeswoman said last night Southern Water had been invited to comment as part of the consultation, and insisted the organisation still believes in fluoridation.
WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THE FLUORIDE SCHEME?
HEALTH chiefs had hoped fluoride would be in Hampshire's water by the end of this year, but the scheme has been on hold since last June because of a legal challenge.
The High Court is to rule whether South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) should have taken more
account of public opinion before backing the plans in February last year.
During the public consultation, 72 per cent of people living in the affected area who gave their views opposed fluoridation.
But the authority's 12 board members unanimously approved the scheme, saying
it would benefit dental health.
That sparked calls, backed by the Daily Echo, for a binding referendum.
A date for the judicial review hasnt been set, because the campaigner who lodged the legal bid is appealing against a ruling she could not challenge the way the SHA weighed up its evidence.
The SHA, which has consistently argued it met or exceeded all its legal requirements during the consultation, has set aside £400,000 to fight the action.
That is seen as a test case and has caused other health authorities around the country to delay their own fluoride schemes.
FORMER Health Secretary Andy Burnham repeated his belief that fluoridation would be a positive step for children in Southampton.
The Labour leadership hopeful said that although in favour of the chemical being added to Hampshire taps, that the views of people had to be respected.
Mr Burnham said that the amount of fluoride that was added to the supply was "negligible" and that better dental health would promote "serf confidence" in city youngsters.
The MP stopped in Hampshire to thank party supporters in Southampton and the New Forest for their backing in the leadership race, now entering its final stages.
Mr Burnham said: "It's often the poorest kids in society that suffer the most without it, fluoridation has been proven to be a safe and effective way of improving not just children's but everybody's dental health and one part per million is negligible.
"Having said that I am very aware that there are strong views on the matter. There's been very robust debate and the views of local people have to be respected."
On his race to become leader, the MP for Leigh in Greater Manchester added: "I have a very clear idea how I need to rebuild the Labour Party that has lost touch with its routes.
"We need to rebuild the people's party from the bottom up."
6 Aug 2010
Daily Echo - Hard time drinking water
Hard time drinking water
IT would be absurd of me to doubt the scientists' claim that fluoride additives can protect my children's teeth.
The solution might be found in putting fluoride in junior toothpastes, coupled with oral hygiene campaigning. Perhaps we already have that.
But I do wonder quite what infinitesimally small amount of tap water will be consumed undiluted by vulnerable children. Most water is used commercially, and the majority of domestic usage goes on washing, flushing loos and feeding gardens. The water from my tap tastes far from potable and when my children ask for water they mean the bottled variety. I would welcome a reduction in the hardness of local water.
Worth a referendum? Perhaps we've already had that!
MRS T WILLS, Southampton.
IT would be absurd of me to doubt the scientists' claim that fluoride additives can protect my children's teeth.
The solution might be found in putting fluoride in junior toothpastes, coupled with oral hygiene campaigning. Perhaps we already have that.
But I do wonder quite what infinitesimally small amount of tap water will be consumed undiluted by vulnerable children. Most water is used commercially, and the majority of domestic usage goes on washing, flushing loos and feeding gardens. The water from my tap tastes far from potable and when my children ask for water they mean the bottled variety. I would welcome a reduction in the hardness of local water.
Worth a referendum? Perhaps we've already had that!
MRS T WILLS, Southampton.
1 Aug 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
