28 Jan 2011
Lymington Times - Fluoride challenge decision will take 'weeks' warns judge
Fluoride challenge decision will take 'weeks' warns judgeA DECISION on whether fluoride will be added to Southampton's water supply, which will affect around 8,000 Totton residents, might not be made for weeks following a judicial review.
The South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) gave its approval for the chemical to be added to the city's supply in 2009 after the local 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.
A two-day legal challenge to the scheme was heard in the High Court last week and the judge will now consider whether the SHA examined all available evidence fully, as well as whether it listened properly to residents' views.
During consultation 72% of responses were against fluoridation, but a Mori poll for the SHA showed only 38% opposed, compared with 32% in support.
Deferring his judgement, Justice
Edward Holman said he had "no idea" how long it might take to reach his conclusions, but warned it would be "measured in weeks, not days".
Totton councillor David Harrison, who is against fluoridation, said after the case: "I am really angry that the SHA spent some £200,000 of public health money on a consultation that they then happily disregarded.
"This unelected, unaccountable body has a limited lifespan now that the new coalition government has decided to abolish it — how stupid and stubborn headed of these people to carry on spending our money on legal fees, trying to force things through in the face of overwhelming opposition.
"Tooth decay is best prevented by good oral hygiene [and] we should make sure that children are in the habit of brushing their teeth twice a day. The money should have been spent on extra staff employed at our children's centres, helping promote this obvious truth."
He also said he was working with New Forest East MP Julian Lewis and they have already lodged a complaint with the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman, which will be considered once the result of the legal challenge is heard.
A spokesperson for the SHA refused to comment on the judicial review and told the 'A&T1: "No statement will be made until the judge has made his decision."
At a meeting of Hampshire County Council's health overview and scrutiny committee this week, Coun. Harrison proposed that the chairman, Coun. Pat West,, write to the SHA to make a final plea to halt the plans.
He told committee members: "Whatever the result of the legal challenge, it is clear that the strategic health authority has already lost in the court of public opinion. Now we know that the SHA is to be abolished, the question of adding fluoride to tap water of not should rest with elected councillors like ourselves."
Daily Echo letters
Such a grim irony FLUORIDE: You have your say
READERS will not have missed the grim irony in the Echo report (Jan 21) on the ongoing fluoridation scandal, in which the people who wish to force the population to receive this unnecessary chemical in their most vital of all supplies are referred to as 'health bosses'.
That a substance which, to the extent that it is actually desired or required, is already fully available - but to which some people are allergic - and which is widely believed to be closely linked to other health problems, could be seriously considered to have benefits outweighing the objections is self-evidently preposterous.
Naturally-occurring fluoride is present in various foods besides water, so there is no possible way of regulating the amount individuals get.
Arguments concentrate on the effects of drinking the water; but it is said that fluoride is also taken in through the skin - so we will be subject to it when washing. Can anyone, likewise, tell us to what extent this is so?
G PAYNE, Southampton.
Why hold opinion poll to just ignore findings?
ACCORDING to new reports, the Strategic Health Authority (SHA) has stated it was not told the public's view must be taken into account.
Strange then that they commissioned an opinion poll of their own at great public expense, only to ignore the result anyway.
The SHA continues to insist that water fluoridation is safe and effective, yet in 2000, a UK Systematic Review of water fluoridation failed to demonstrate the safety of fluoridation, whilst confirming
the high rate of dental fluorosis and the low quality of evidence for adding fluoride to drinking water. So what has changed?
It is weU known that fluoride accumulates in the bones and displaces calcium, and a study in 1984 (Teotia, India) found a higher incidence of metabolic bone diseases such as osteoporosis and rickets in high endemic Quorosis areas.
We have had dire warnings from India and China about the crippling bone diseases in their populations due to fluoride exposure, and recent news from
America that fluoride levels are to be lowered because they know it is dangerous. Locally, doctors in Southampton have been shocked to find a rising epidemic of childhood rickets, so further fluoride exposure could have be disastrous.
Far from heading all these omens however, the SHA continues to pursue an agenda to mass medicate an unconsenting population, whatever the cost and whatever the consequences.
CAROL SCARBOROUGH, Southampton.
Give us a choice!I do not normally complain but this fluoride in our water really is starting to annoy me!
Unfortunately, we humans cannot live without water - please please DO NOT PUT TOXINS in it! If someone wants fluoride in their water, they can add it themselves! If the Government and the NHS are so keen, they can give out free fluoride tablets to whoever requests it. We should be given a CHOICE.
As regards to young children with bad teeth, there are lots of toothpaste containing fluoride -perhaps the money should be spent teaching lazy parents good oral health and teach children how to clean their teeth properly
MRS ROWE,
Address supplied.
Ugly fluoride again!
I note that the issue of fluoridation has again raised its ugly head, and wonder why there are still people who are happy, indeed intent, on promoting the addition of a toxic ion, namely fluoride, to domestic drinking water. It is a poison, which, once ingested, inhibits amongst others the main route of cell respiration, and causes damage to most organs, including the brain, where it interferes with its development in the foetus, infant and toddler and lowers IQ.
I regret that the proponents of fluoridation are, or choose to remain, ignorant of its toxicity.
The airing of the subject will at least alert intelligent people to the dangers inherent in deliberately increasing this type of environmental pollution and its consequent health risks.
Anyone who reads the history of fluoridation in America, and of the real reason for its promulgation, will learn about how it all started, and of the disastrous consequences, hi any exercise to promote the public understanding of science, the myth of water fluoridation should come top of the list.
GRAHAM GODFREY, Address supplied.
Threat to democracy'
WHATEVER the outcome of the Judicial Review on Fluoridation one thing is clear - the present legislation must be revoked.
Laws that empower the state to enforce medication without consent through drinking water, is against everything that a decent society stands for.
It is a threat to democracy and a violation of human rights and medical ethics
Reports that the SHA stated neither the Chief Dental Officer nor the Department of Health informed them that the public's view must be taken into account, suggests a conspiracy at the very highest level to impose this policy on unwilling communities whatever the cost.
We do not live in a corrupt dictatorship -let us not be governed by corrupt laws.
Jenny Johnson
Upper Clatford.
'Unadulterated' water: surely there should be a system of choice
ONCE again the prospect of drinking water adulterated with fluoride has raised its ugly head in the water supply of Totton.
In order to retain 'unadulterated' water residents in an area including Rushington, parts of Hounsdown and most of central Totton will have to visit providers of drinking water, lemonade etc in other areas
(obviously at a higher cost than that provided by the kitchen tap!). Within my own family it would create the absurd situation whereby one household would be forced to have fluoridated water, the other (in another part of Totton) would escape entirely.
The majority of people will take measures to protect then- families by purchasing
bottled water (at great expense). We must also have regard to the health of children at any schools within the affected area. Surely there should be a system by which those wishing to drink this substance could obtain it, while others could continue to imbibe the current provision of 'unadulterated' water
ALDERMAN EDITH RANDALL & FAMILY
READERS will not have missed the grim irony in the Echo report (Jan 21) on the ongoing fluoridation scandal, in which the people who wish to force the population to receive this unnecessary chemical in their most vital of all supplies are referred to as 'health bosses'.
That a substance which, to the extent that it is actually desired or required, is already fully available - but to which some people are allergic - and which is widely believed to be closely linked to other health problems, could be seriously considered to have benefits outweighing the objections is self-evidently preposterous.
Naturally-occurring fluoride is present in various foods besides water, so there is no possible way of regulating the amount individuals get.
Arguments concentrate on the effects of drinking the water; but it is said that fluoride is also taken in through the skin - so we will be subject to it when washing. Can anyone, likewise, tell us to what extent this is so?
G PAYNE, Southampton.
Why hold opinion poll to just ignore findings?
ACCORDING to new reports, the Strategic Health Authority (SHA) has stated it was not told the public's view must be taken into account.
Strange then that they commissioned an opinion poll of their own at great public expense, only to ignore the result anyway.
The SHA continues to insist that water fluoridation is safe and effective, yet in 2000, a UK Systematic Review of water fluoridation failed to demonstrate the safety of fluoridation, whilst confirming
the high rate of dental fluorosis and the low quality of evidence for adding fluoride to drinking water. So what has changed?
It is weU known that fluoride accumulates in the bones and displaces calcium, and a study in 1984 (Teotia, India) found a higher incidence of metabolic bone diseases such as osteoporosis and rickets in high endemic Quorosis areas.
We have had dire warnings from India and China about the crippling bone diseases in their populations due to fluoride exposure, and recent news from
America that fluoride levels are to be lowered because they know it is dangerous. Locally, doctors in Southampton have been shocked to find a rising epidemic of childhood rickets, so further fluoride exposure could have be disastrous.
Far from heading all these omens however, the SHA continues to pursue an agenda to mass medicate an unconsenting population, whatever the cost and whatever the consequences.
CAROL SCARBOROUGH, Southampton.
Give us a choice!I do not normally complain but this fluoride in our water really is starting to annoy me!
Unfortunately, we humans cannot live without water - please please DO NOT PUT TOXINS in it! If someone wants fluoride in their water, they can add it themselves! If the Government and the NHS are so keen, they can give out free fluoride tablets to whoever requests it. We should be given a CHOICE.
As regards to young children with bad teeth, there are lots of toothpaste containing fluoride -perhaps the money should be spent teaching lazy parents good oral health and teach children how to clean their teeth properly
MRS ROWE,
Address supplied.
Ugly fluoride again!
I note that the issue of fluoridation has again raised its ugly head, and wonder why there are still people who are happy, indeed intent, on promoting the addition of a toxic ion, namely fluoride, to domestic drinking water. It is a poison, which, once ingested, inhibits amongst others the main route of cell respiration, and causes damage to most organs, including the brain, where it interferes with its development in the foetus, infant and toddler and lowers IQ.
I regret that the proponents of fluoridation are, or choose to remain, ignorant of its toxicity.
The airing of the subject will at least alert intelligent people to the dangers inherent in deliberately increasing this type of environmental pollution and its consequent health risks.
Anyone who reads the history of fluoridation in America, and of the real reason for its promulgation, will learn about how it all started, and of the disastrous consequences, hi any exercise to promote the public understanding of science, the myth of water fluoridation should come top of the list.
GRAHAM GODFREY, Address supplied.
Threat to democracy'
WHATEVER the outcome of the Judicial Review on Fluoridation one thing is clear - the present legislation must be revoked.
Laws that empower the state to enforce medication without consent through drinking water, is against everything that a decent society stands for.
It is a threat to democracy and a violation of human rights and medical ethics
Reports that the SHA stated neither the Chief Dental Officer nor the Department of Health informed them that the public's view must be taken into account, suggests a conspiracy at the very highest level to impose this policy on unwilling communities whatever the cost.
We do not live in a corrupt dictatorship -let us not be governed by corrupt laws.
Jenny Johnson
Upper Clatford.
'Unadulterated' water: surely there should be a system of choice
ONCE again the prospect of drinking water adulterated with fluoride has raised its ugly head in the water supply of Totton.
In order to retain 'unadulterated' water residents in an area including Rushington, parts of Hounsdown and most of central Totton will have to visit providers of drinking water, lemonade etc in other areas
(obviously at a higher cost than that provided by the kitchen tap!). Within my own family it would create the absurd situation whereby one household would be forced to have fluoridated water, the other (in another part of Totton) would escape entirely.
The majority of people will take measures to protect then- families by purchasing
bottled water (at great expense). We must also have regard to the health of children at any schools within the affected area. Surely there should be a system by which those wishing to drink this substance could obtain it, while others could continue to imbibe the current provision of 'unadulterated' water
ALDERMAN EDITH RANDALL & FAMILY
26 Jan 2011
Daily Echo - letters
Hat's off to heroine Gerri for taking this fight to the topI WAS one of the those people that was at the consultation back in 2009. The consultation, if you can call it that, was a sham.
We, the public, felt we were back at school. You could be seen but not heard.
As most of us already know fluoride is an industrial waste chemical produced by the steel and aluminium industry. So why would they want to put this toxic waste in our water supply? These chemicals can build up in the body over time and cause all sorts of health problems.
The fact remains that our water should be left alone. As I have said many times water is there for drinking not for treating. The water companies are there to keep pure water as pure as possible. But it would be contaminated if this toxic waste is added. The water companies themselves don't want it. Doesn't that say it all. All this about saving children's teeth is complete and utter rubbish. They, the SHA, are using children as an excuse to get away with trying to add fluoride.
If children drink water it probably will hardly touch their teeth. They will have plenty going into their little bodies though which will do them more harm in the long run with a toxic fluoride added.
We want to see an end to this flu-pride debate by getting a decision in favour of keeping it out of our water for good.
As I am writing this letter I would like to also thank Gerri Milner for taking this case to the High Courts.
She has children herself and wants to fight for the right of keeping our water as pure as possible, fit for drinking, so well done to her.
Also fifteen thousand signatures were taken to 10 Downing Street last year. Fifteen thousand signatures.
I think the public have made it very clear that they do not want fluoride in their drinking water. Not now or anytime in the future.
MRS K KINCHINGTON, Southampton.•
Regarding the issue of fluoride in our water. It is to be hoped that Judge Justice Holman will recognise that the vast majority of Hampshire residents voted against this and back democracy.
It was a free vote in a free country, a cause I believe my generation fought and thousands died for, just 20 years after another generation also gave their lives and sadly today are still giving their lives in the cause of freedom.
Apart from the medical dangers of this poison (plus the disgusting taste) it will be a very sad and serious day if democracy is defeated.
J Bailey Shirley Warren
Southampton
The horrible taste was most likely the chlorine as far as I know it is tasteless.
25 Jan 2011
Daily Echo letter
Keep water for its intended purpose
RE fluoride - our water is precious. It should not be tampered with. We need pure, safe water for our wellbeing. We drink it to stay healthy. It is a human right to drink it for this purpose, that is what our water supply is here for. It is not there for the purpose of giving medication by force.
Nothing, absolutely nothing should enter our water supply, except that which keeps it pure and safe and able to be used for its intended purpose.
D COVE, Southampton.
RE fluoride - our water is precious. It should not be tampered with. We need pure, safe water for our wellbeing. We drink it to stay healthy. It is a human right to drink it for this purpose, that is what our water supply is here for. It is not there for the purpose of giving medication by force.
Nothing, absolutely nothing should enter our water supply, except that which keeps it pure and safe and able to be used for its intended purpose.
D COVE, Southampton.
24 Jan 2011
Daily Echo letters
Natural fluoride has to be calculated forSUPPORTERS of fluoridation insist there is no firm evidence of any harmful effects at the recommended level of one part per million ( 1ppm). But, this does not take into account the sources of natural fluoride in our diet.
Because fluoride readily combines with calcium, it is thought to be beneficial for teeth and bones. But it is one of the few trace elements where doses for beneficial and toxic effects are not widely separated.
It has been known (in America) for over 20 years that excess fluoride can cause calcification of tendons, ligaments, the development of bone spurs and the degeneration of cartilage between joints, that is characteristic of osteoarthritis.
Fluoride can also accumulate in brain tissue and can damage the central nervous system.
Is this not sufficient evidence for legal action against water companies who oppose the wishes of the majority of residents in their area?
HELEN WOOLLIN, Westcliff-on-Sea.
Body has ignored public over fluoride
IN view of the latest research in the USA and bearing in mind the Southampton citizens' concerns in regards to the introduction of fluoride poison into our water supply, one would think those responsible would finally get the message and act in a responsible manner thus saving the £400,000 waste of public money, by withdrawing from the courts' judicial reviews. NO CHANCE.
Hell-bent on getting their own way, they have ignored the public outcry and 'the Democratic Great Debate'. The SCSH Authority have been on a self-destruct course from the beginning and couldn't care less. Thankfully they are soon to be confined to the tidy bin in 2012. It can't come soon enough. There should be no big pay offs or golden handshakes. They have proved themselves to be completely irresponsible.
Good riddance.
A WILLOTT, Lordswood, Southampton.
22 Jan 2011
Fluoride Judicial Review reveals inconsistency between UK Gov policy and Regulation
Fluoride Judicial Review reveals inconsistency between UK Gov policy and Regulation
Judgement reserved in Milner case against Strategic Health Authority
by the ANH-Intl team
The case brought against the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) by Southampton resident and opponent of water fluoridation Geraldine Milner has been heard in the Royal Courts of Justice. Ms Milner’s case was about whether or not the SHA acted legally in making its decision (back in February 2009) to fluoridate the water in Southampton and some of the surrounding areas, despite opposition from 72% of the respondents in the public consultation. It was also about whether or not the SHA board sufficiently evaluated the cogency of all the given arguments in the consultation responses. At the end of the two-day judicial review (JR), Mr Justice Holman reserved Judgement for some future date.
In March 2005, in a Parliament debate preceeding required approval for draft regulations concerning fluoridation, Lord Warner (the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health), re-iterated a key policy statement made two years earlier. He said that "it is fundamental to our policy that a strategic health authority should only arrange for its drinking water to be fluoridated where the local population is in favour". Such statements tend to stick in the minds of those against water fluoridation.
Inconsistency, ambiguity and confusion
As both sides of the case were heard, it became clear that there were key inconsistencies between stated government policy made in Parliament debates about Fluoridation, and the Water Fluoridation (Consultation) (ENGLAND) Regulations (2005), and also later, in issued guidance from the Chief Dental Officer! Key in this case was the issue of regard for public support or opposition to the fluoridation proposal, and the influence that this should have on the SHA’s decision. Suggestion and exploration within the courtroom of the meaning of Regulation 5 revealed that even this was ambiguous and confusing, and inconsistent with the ‘explanatory note’ at the end of the Regulation document. This all appeared to prompt the Judge (Mr Justice Holman) to remark: “This case would seem to point up a state of confusion about what government policy was, and so it may be that it would be desirable in Judgement, for cases in the future, to clarify what the position is of the Secretary of State, and Government”.
Commenting afterwards, Stephen Peckham, Chairman of the Hampshire Against Fluoridation group said: “I think what we have done (during the JR) is pick at the English language and the law, and what we have found is that there is huge ambiguity! Its not clear what the interpretation is!” It seems that the language of the law can be interpreted to suit both sides of the argument!
Rights to choice, justice and democracy
Ms Milner feels strongly about freedom of choice for the residents of Southampton, and their rights to democracy and justice. After what she described as the two most nerve-wracking days of her life, she was greeted by various representatives of the press outside the Courts of Justice in the Strand, central London. She thanked various parties, including her legal team, the Judge and her supporters, and said: “I have done my best for the people of Southampton, justice and democracy. We will have to wait and see what the judge decides. Until then it is a case of being patient”.
The Judicial Review was also attended by anti-fluoridation campaigners from Southampton and beyond. Their views on fluoridation were clear from the badges they were wearing, and from their banners, which they waved whilst outside the courts.
The outcome of this case is eagerly awaited. Not least, we have been given to understand, by those heath authorities who have intended to follow suit and introduce fluoridation to their own areas (possibly driven by the cash incentives). Perhaps though, if the SHAs are indeed removed by the new Government, this unhappy situation in the UK will be removed also!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also National Archives (Department of Heath) for the earlier 2004 draft regulations governing water fluoridation (consultation) (ENGLAND). Notice that the text of Regulation 5 reflected the stated government policy in this draft version of the regulations, regarding the requirement for majority support!
Notice also the House of Commons note on Fluoridation Legislation, and the 2008 push for fluoridation.
Finally, those interested may also like to look at the Explanatory Memo to the Water Fluoridation (Consultation) (ENGLAND) Regulations 2005
See Clean Drinking Water campaign
Links to references at Alliance for Natural Health
Judgement reserved in Milner case against Strategic Health Authority
by the ANH-Intl team
The case brought against the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) by Southampton resident and opponent of water fluoridation Geraldine Milner has been heard in the Royal Courts of Justice. Ms Milner’s case was about whether or not the SHA acted legally in making its decision (back in February 2009) to fluoridate the water in Southampton and some of the surrounding areas, despite opposition from 72% of the respondents in the public consultation. It was also about whether or not the SHA board sufficiently evaluated the cogency of all the given arguments in the consultation responses. At the end of the two-day judicial review (JR), Mr Justice Holman reserved Judgement for some future date.
In March 2005, in a Parliament debate preceeding required approval for draft regulations concerning fluoridation, Lord Warner (the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health), re-iterated a key policy statement made two years earlier. He said that "it is fundamental to our policy that a strategic health authority should only arrange for its drinking water to be fluoridated where the local population is in favour". Such statements tend to stick in the minds of those against water fluoridation.
Inconsistency, ambiguity and confusion
As both sides of the case were heard, it became clear that there were key inconsistencies between stated government policy made in Parliament debates about Fluoridation, and the Water Fluoridation (Consultation) (ENGLAND) Regulations (2005), and also later, in issued guidance from the Chief Dental Officer! Key in this case was the issue of regard for public support or opposition to the fluoridation proposal, and the influence that this should have on the SHA’s decision. Suggestion and exploration within the courtroom of the meaning of Regulation 5 revealed that even this was ambiguous and confusing, and inconsistent with the ‘explanatory note’ at the end of the Regulation document. This all appeared to prompt the Judge (Mr Justice Holman) to remark: “This case would seem to point up a state of confusion about what government policy was, and so it may be that it would be desirable in Judgement, for cases in the future, to clarify what the position is of the Secretary of State, and Government”.
Commenting afterwards, Stephen Peckham, Chairman of the Hampshire Against Fluoridation group said: “I think what we have done (during the JR) is pick at the English language and the law, and what we have found is that there is huge ambiguity! Its not clear what the interpretation is!” It seems that the language of the law can be interpreted to suit both sides of the argument!
Rights to choice, justice and democracy
Ms Milner feels strongly about freedom of choice for the residents of Southampton, and their rights to democracy and justice. After what she described as the two most nerve-wracking days of her life, she was greeted by various representatives of the press outside the Courts of Justice in the Strand, central London. She thanked various parties, including her legal team, the Judge and her supporters, and said: “I have done my best for the people of Southampton, justice and democracy. We will have to wait and see what the judge decides. Until then it is a case of being patient”.
The Judicial Review was also attended by anti-fluoridation campaigners from Southampton and beyond. Their views on fluoridation were clear from the badges they were wearing, and from their banners, which they waved whilst outside the courts.
The outcome of this case is eagerly awaited. Not least, we have been given to understand, by those heath authorities who have intended to follow suit and introduce fluoridation to their own areas (possibly driven by the cash incentives). Perhaps though, if the SHAs are indeed removed by the new Government, this unhappy situation in the UK will be removed also!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also National Archives (Department of Heath) for the earlier 2004 draft regulations governing water fluoridation (consultation) (ENGLAND). Notice that the text of Regulation 5 reflected the stated government policy in this draft version of the regulations, regarding the requirement for majority support!
Notice also the House of Commons note on Fluoridation Legislation, and the 2008 push for fluoridation.
Finally, those interested may also like to look at the Explanatory Memo to the Water Fluoridation (Consultation) (ENGLAND) Regulations 2005
See Clean Drinking Water campaign
Links to references at Alliance for Natural Health
21 Jan 2011
Lymington Times - Fluoride challenge in High Court showdown
Fluoride challenge in High Court showdown
A JUDICIAL review into whether fluoride will be added to Southampton's water supply, which would affect around 8,000 Totton residents, began on Wednesday.
The South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) gave its approval for the chemical to be added to the city's supply in 2009 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 Totton because of the layout of the pipes.
The two-day legal challenge to the scheme, which is being made on behalf of Southampton resident Geraldine Milner, opened in the High Court on Wednesday, with the judge looking at whether the SHA examined all available evidence fully, as well as whether it listened properly to residents' views.
Ms Milner's counsel David Wolfe
told a judge that if the scheme goes ahead the mother of three teenagers would be left "with no choice taut to drink water to which fluoride has been added".
He told Mr Justice Holman this was contrary to government policy that no new fluoridation schemes should be introduced unless it could be shown that the local population was in favour.
Mr Wolfe also said the application for the judicial review was not about the actual merits and health arguments over fluoridation but was about the legality of the compulsory scheme, the first of its kind in the UK for 20 years.
Campaign group Hampshire Against Fluoridation (HAF) travelled to London for the hearing and placard waving members also held a demonstration on the steps of the court.
Stephen Peckham, chairman of HAP, said: "Local anger about the SHA's decision has grown since 2009. People feel that fluoridation is being imposed on them without their consent or approval."It is not just local people—all local MPs and councils in the area affected by the scheme either oppose water fluoridation or have been critical of the decision made by the SHA.
"If Ms Milner had not taken this action the SHA would have just steam-rollered ahead with a total disregard for the evidence and local opinion. We should all be very grateful to her."
Dentist Zac Cox added: "Fluoridating our tap water is not only ineffective but it is also dangerous. The fact that the USA have decided to lower their fluoride levels indicates that they know it is dangerous, and are preparing themselves for lawsuits."
During the consultation 72% of responses were against fluoridation, but a MORI poll showed a different picture with only 38% opposed, compared with 32% in support.
A JUDICIAL review into whether fluoride will be added to Southampton's water supply, which would affect around 8,000 Totton residents, began on Wednesday.
The South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) gave its approval for the chemical to be added to the city's supply in 2009 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 Totton because of the layout of the pipes.
The two-day legal challenge to the scheme, which is being made on behalf of Southampton resident Geraldine Milner, opened in the High Court on Wednesday, with the judge looking at whether the SHA examined all available evidence fully, as well as whether it listened properly to residents' views.
Ms Milner's counsel David Wolfe
told a judge that if the scheme goes ahead the mother of three teenagers would be left "with no choice taut to drink water to which fluoride has been added".
He told Mr Justice Holman this was contrary to government policy that no new fluoridation schemes should be introduced unless it could be shown that the local population was in favour.
Mr Wolfe also said the application for the judicial review was not about the actual merits and health arguments over fluoridation but was about the legality of the compulsory scheme, the first of its kind in the UK for 20 years.
Campaign group Hampshire Against Fluoridation (HAF) travelled to London for the hearing and placard waving members also held a demonstration on the steps of the court.
Stephen Peckham, chairman of HAP, said: "Local anger about the SHA's decision has grown since 2009. People feel that fluoridation is being imposed on them without their consent or approval."It is not just local people—all local MPs and councils in the area affected by the scheme either oppose water fluoridation or have been critical of the decision made by the SHA.
"If Ms Milner had not taken this action the SHA would have just steam-rollered ahead with a total disregard for the evidence and local opinion. We should all be very grateful to her."
Dentist Zac Cox added: "Fluoridating our tap water is not only ineffective but it is also dangerous. The fact that the USA have decided to lower their fluoride levels indicates that they know it is dangerous, and are preparing themselves for lawsuits."
During the consultation 72% of responses were against fluoridation, but a MORI poll showed a different picture with only 38% opposed, compared with 32% in support.
Daily Echo - HAMPSHIRE: High Court judge says it will be weeks before his decision is revealed
HAMPSHIRE: High Court judge says it will be weeks before his decision is revealed
FLUORIDE: Now we wait
By Jon Reeve
jon.reeve@dailyecho.co.uk
THE talking is over, but the waiting goes on.
A High Court judge has said it will be weeks before he reveals whether the decision to add fluoride to water supplies in Hampshire was legal.
After two days of legal sparring at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, health bosses and anti-fluoridation campaigners now face an anxious wait to find out if either side has landed a knockout blow.
Deferring his judgement, Mr Justice Edward Holman admitted he had "no idea" how long it might take to reach his conclusions, but warned it would be "measured in weeks, not days".
'Legally correct'
Yesterday, the court heard arguments from barristers for South Central Strategic Health Authority and the Government, saying the decision to approve fluoride was legally correct.
Southampton mum-of-three Gerri Milner has brought the judicial review, arguing the SHA should not have ignored public opposition to the scheme, and that it failed to properly evaluate arguments against it.
Speaking after the hearing, she last night hinted she would be prepared to take her legal battle further if the ruling goes against her.
But in reality, every day that passes makes the prospect of the chemical being added to the tap water of nearly 200,000 people in Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams less likely.
The Government is scrapping SHAs by spring of next year, with responsibility for fluoridation passing to local councils.
Southampton City and Hampshire County councils both say the existing scheme should not go ahead.
As revealed this week by the Daily Echo, if the SHA, which set aside £400,000 to fight this legal challenge, is successful and - as it has vowed to - presses ahead with the scheme, the authorities' leaders say they will urge the Government to step in to stop it.
In court yesterday, John Howell, for the SHA, insisted board members had properly assessed arguments against fluoridating water, including those from campaigners, the county council and local MPs. Mr Howell also argued there was no way the board's decision could be ruled invalid because of statements by ministers that fluoridation would only ever happen with public support.
Mr Howell said: "It's not for the SHA to try to look for Government statements to see if they're consistent or not. "There's plainly no legal obligation on the SHA to have regard to the ministerial statements."
James Eadie, representing the Secretary of State for Health, added that public opposition was only one factor the SHA had to consider when choosing whether or not to approve fluoridation.
Parliament
He said: "The SHA has got to do the analysis, and if it concludes that the health arguments do outweigh all other factors, it makes the request (forcing a water company to add fluoride)."
Mr Eadie also argued that statements made by ministers did not change Government policy.
He said: "All that is important is what Parliament ultimately does, and what it says in the legislation."
Speaking afterwards, Ms Milner said she would be "overwhelmed" if her case wins, but added: "If it's not overturned I'm assured I'm going to be back and forth to these things for a while."
FLUORIDE: Now we wait
By Jon Reeve
jon.reeve@dailyecho.co.uk
THE talking is over, but the waiting goes on.
A High Court judge has said it will be weeks before he reveals whether the decision to add fluoride to water supplies in Hampshire was legal.
After two days of legal sparring at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, health bosses and anti-fluoridation campaigners now face an anxious wait to find out if either side has landed a knockout blow.
Deferring his judgement, Mr Justice Edward Holman admitted he had "no idea" how long it might take to reach his conclusions, but warned it would be "measured in weeks, not days".
'Legally correct'
Yesterday, the court heard arguments from barristers for South Central Strategic Health Authority and the Government, saying the decision to approve fluoride was legally correct.
Southampton mum-of-three Gerri Milner has brought the judicial review, arguing the SHA should not have ignored public opposition to the scheme, and that it failed to properly evaluate arguments against it.
Speaking after the hearing, she last night hinted she would be prepared to take her legal battle further if the ruling goes against her.
But in reality, every day that passes makes the prospect of the chemical being added to the tap water of nearly 200,000 people in Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams less likely.
The Government is scrapping SHAs by spring of next year, with responsibility for fluoridation passing to local councils.
Southampton City and Hampshire County councils both say the existing scheme should not go ahead.
As revealed this week by the Daily Echo, if the SHA, which set aside £400,000 to fight this legal challenge, is successful and - as it has vowed to - presses ahead with the scheme, the authorities' leaders say they will urge the Government to step in to stop it.
In court yesterday, John Howell, for the SHA, insisted board members had properly assessed arguments against fluoridating water, including those from campaigners, the county council and local MPs. Mr Howell also argued there was no way the board's decision could be ruled invalid because of statements by ministers that fluoridation would only ever happen with public support.
Mr Howell said: "It's not for the SHA to try to look for Government statements to see if they're consistent or not. "There's plainly no legal obligation on the SHA to have regard to the ministerial statements."
James Eadie, representing the Secretary of State for Health, added that public opposition was only one factor the SHA had to consider when choosing whether or not to approve fluoridation.
Parliament
He said: "The SHA has got to do the analysis, and if it concludes that the health arguments do outweigh all other factors, it makes the request (forcing a water company to add fluoride)."
Mr Eadie also argued that statements made by ministers did not change Government policy.
He said: "All that is important is what Parliament ultimately does, and what it says in the legislation."
Speaking afterwards, Ms Milner said she would be "overwhelmed" if her case wins, but added: "If it's not overturned I'm assured I'm going to be back and forth to these things for a while."
20 Jan 2011
Daily Echo - Fluoride: Was the decision legal?
Fluoride: Was the decision legal?
By Jon Reeve
HEALTH bosses were today due to explain why they were right to give the green light to controversial plans to add fluoride to Hampshire tap water.
Barristers for South Central Strategic Health Authority and the Government were to be given their chance to outline the reasons why they believe a legal challenge to the scheme is wrong in the second day of a landmark High Court hearing.
Almost two years after the SHA's board unanimously approved fluoridation for parts of Southampton and surrounding areas, and on the day the Health Secretary hammered another nail into the body's coffin, lawyers yesterday began debating whether they were right to do so.
In a nondescript courtroom nestled in a corner of London's otherwise vast and imposing Royal Courts of Justice, the future of the disputed plan affecting nearly 200,000 people became the responsibility of just one man.
Mr Justice Holman, who revealed to the court he grew up in the New Forest, will decide if the SHA should legally have listened to the will of the people. A public consultation held by the authority prompted more than 10,000 responses.
Of those from people in the affected area, covering two thirds of Southampton and parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams, 72 per cent said they did not want fluoride in their water. In a separate phone poll of 2,000 residents, 38 per cent of those quizzed expressed opposition, compared to 32 per cent who backed the scheme, which health chiefs argued was needed to improve city childrens' teeth.
But after being told they only had to pay regard to public opinion, and had to consider the "cogency" of arguments raised (a legal term meaning are they good points and are they based on sound scientific evidence?), they gave the scheme a resounding thumbs up.
Yesterday, on day one of the judicial review, barrister David Wolfe, who is representing the Southampton mum who has brought the legal challenge, outlined the repeated assurance from ministers that the final say on fluoridation would be the people's. He quoted then health minister Melanie Johnson, speaking in October 2003, who told the House of Commons: "There is a difficulty in weighing up the responses, but whatever the case, local opinion must be in favour of the proposal.
"Local opinion must support the measure overall. Whatever mechanism is used, a clear majority of people should be in favour."
Mr Wolfe, who is trying to convince the judge the Government policy was that residents' views should be paramount in decision making, told the court of similar statements by Lord Warner, the Government's health representative in the House of Lords, made in both 2003 and 2005.
He said: "They are very clear, unequivocal and formal statements, made in possibly the most formal situations imaginable."
Despite those assurances, the court heard no such rule was included in the legislation that was passed through Parliament, changing the rules to give health authorities the power to force water companies to fluoridate supplies. Instead it said SHAs could only go ahead with a scheme to add fluoride if the authority was "satisfied that the
health arguments in favour of proceeding with the proposal outweigh all arguments against proceeding".
Mr Wolfe said: "To form that view, the SHA must consider the extent of support for the proposal and the cogency of the arguments advanced." And in February 2008, Chief Dental Officer, Barry Cockcroft, went further in issuing guidance to health bosses telling them they were not conducting a public vote. *
He wrote: "Given that the consultation regulations require Strategic Health Authorities to take account of the cogency of the representations and their relevance to the 'health arguments', a SHA cannot base its decision solely on a simple count of the representations for or against the proposal." But whether of not SHA board members did cogently evaluate the evidence forms the second string of the legal challenge.
Mr Wolfe said there was "no way" they could have, because they were not properly informed of vast swathes of opposition arguments, including detailed questioning of the benefits, cost efficiency of the scheme and potential environmental impacts, which were raised by campaigners and local politicians.
He said: "The cogency of the arguments needed to be before the board members and they needed to evaluate them.
"Important arguments were raised by consultees, which were either not conveyed to the board at all or in the most pithy terms, without the supporting material to allow them to evaluate the cogency of the arguments.
"These were not nit-picky points - they questioned the headline reasons given for fluoridation. We say the cogency exercise has not been completed."
The remainder of the legal arguments were due to be completed today but the judge is expected to defer his decision.
The battlng mum who took on the mighty NHS
SHE is the private mum of three who has taken on the might of the NHS.
As the judicial review into South Central Strategic Health Authority's decision to fluoridate Hampshire tap water finally got underway, more than 18 months after the legal process first began, one woman had more reason than others to feel pleased with herself.
Judge Mr Justice Holman made a point of making sure which of the people crammed into his courtroom was Gerri Milner, the Southampton resident behind the legal challenge.
And he gave his heartfelt thanks to her for taking the time to attend the two-day hearing, before asking if she would move seats so he could see her properly past the assembled lawyers arguing her case.
Speaking at the end of the first day of the case, Ms Milner said she had felt compelled to act because of the way, in her eyes, fluoridation had been "bulldozed" through.
She told the Daily Echo: "When I saw the weight of anger about it, I thought: 'I've got to do something about it'.
"I'm the chairman of my local tenants' and residents' association, and I'm not the sort that would go out with placards in the rain, but I am the sort that will go and do what I can within the legal system. "I really believe I'm doing the right thing. "I think the health authority has acted a bit naively really. "I don't think they have taken into consideration all the arguments against, some of which I think are very valid."
By Jon Reeve
HEALTH bosses were today due to explain why they were right to give the green light to controversial plans to add fluoride to Hampshire tap water.
Barristers for South Central Strategic Health Authority and the Government were to be given their chance to outline the reasons why they believe a legal challenge to the scheme is wrong in the second day of a landmark High Court hearing.
Almost two years after the SHA's board unanimously approved fluoridation for parts of Southampton and surrounding areas, and on the day the Health Secretary hammered another nail into the body's coffin, lawyers yesterday began debating whether they were right to do so.
In a nondescript courtroom nestled in a corner of London's otherwise vast and imposing Royal Courts of Justice, the future of the disputed plan affecting nearly 200,000 people became the responsibility of just one man.
Mr Justice Holman, who revealed to the court he grew up in the New Forest, will decide if the SHA should legally have listened to the will of the people. A public consultation held by the authority prompted more than 10,000 responses.
Of those from people in the affected area, covering two thirds of Southampton and parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams, 72 per cent said they did not want fluoride in their water. In a separate phone poll of 2,000 residents, 38 per cent of those quizzed expressed opposition, compared to 32 per cent who backed the scheme, which health chiefs argued was needed to improve city childrens' teeth.
But after being told they only had to pay regard to public opinion, and had to consider the "cogency" of arguments raised (a legal term meaning are they good points and are they based on sound scientific evidence?), they gave the scheme a resounding thumbs up.
Yesterday, on day one of the judicial review, barrister David Wolfe, who is representing the Southampton mum who has brought the legal challenge, outlined the repeated assurance from ministers that the final say on fluoridation would be the people's. He quoted then health minister Melanie Johnson, speaking in October 2003, who told the House of Commons: "There is a difficulty in weighing up the responses, but whatever the case, local opinion must be in favour of the proposal.
"Local opinion must support the measure overall. Whatever mechanism is used, a clear majority of people should be in favour."
Mr Wolfe, who is trying to convince the judge the Government policy was that residents' views should be paramount in decision making, told the court of similar statements by Lord Warner, the Government's health representative in the House of Lords, made in both 2003 and 2005.
He said: "They are very clear, unequivocal and formal statements, made in possibly the most formal situations imaginable."
Despite those assurances, the court heard no such rule was included in the legislation that was passed through Parliament, changing the rules to give health authorities the power to force water companies to fluoridate supplies. Instead it said SHAs could only go ahead with a scheme to add fluoride if the authority was "satisfied that the
health arguments in favour of proceeding with the proposal outweigh all arguments against proceeding".
Mr Wolfe said: "To form that view, the SHA must consider the extent of support for the proposal and the cogency of the arguments advanced." And in February 2008, Chief Dental Officer, Barry Cockcroft, went further in issuing guidance to health bosses telling them they were not conducting a public vote. *
He wrote: "Given that the consultation regulations require Strategic Health Authorities to take account of the cogency of the representations and their relevance to the 'health arguments', a SHA cannot base its decision solely on a simple count of the representations for or against the proposal." But whether of not SHA board members did cogently evaluate the evidence forms the second string of the legal challenge.
Mr Wolfe said there was "no way" they could have, because they were not properly informed of vast swathes of opposition arguments, including detailed questioning of the benefits, cost efficiency of the scheme and potential environmental impacts, which were raised by campaigners and local politicians.
He said: "The cogency of the arguments needed to be before the board members and they needed to evaluate them.
"Important arguments were raised by consultees, which were either not conveyed to the board at all or in the most pithy terms, without the supporting material to allow them to evaluate the cogency of the arguments.
"These were not nit-picky points - they questioned the headline reasons given for fluoridation. We say the cogency exercise has not been completed."
The remainder of the legal arguments were due to be completed today but the judge is expected to defer his decision.
The battlng mum who took on the mighty NHS
SHE is the private mum of three who has taken on the might of the NHS.
As the judicial review into South Central Strategic Health Authority's decision to fluoridate Hampshire tap water finally got underway, more than 18 months after the legal process first began, one woman had more reason than others to feel pleased with herself.
Judge Mr Justice Holman made a point of making sure which of the people crammed into his courtroom was Gerri Milner, the Southampton resident behind the legal challenge.
And he gave his heartfelt thanks to her for taking the time to attend the two-day hearing, before asking if she would move seats so he could see her properly past the assembled lawyers arguing her case.
Speaking at the end of the first day of the case, Ms Milner said she had felt compelled to act because of the way, in her eyes, fluoridation had been "bulldozed" through.
She told the Daily Echo: "When I saw the weight of anger about it, I thought: 'I've got to do something about it'.
"I'm the chairman of my local tenants' and residents' association, and I'm not the sort that would go out with placards in the rain, but I am the sort that will go and do what I can within the legal system. "I really believe I'm doing the right thing. "I think the health authority has acted a bit naively really. "I don't think they have taken into consideration all the arguments against, some of which I think are very valid."
19 Jan 2011
Southampton's fluoridation decision 'unlawful'
19 January 2011
Southampton's fluoridation decision 'unlawful'
A health authority tried to illegally force the fluoridation of Southampton's water, the High Court has heard.
Resident Geraldine Milner is taking legal action to challenge the decision made in 2009 by the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SCSHA).
The SCSHA, which believes the move will improve dental health, gave the go-ahead despite a public consultation showing 72% opposed the idea.
The judicial review will decide if SCSHA properly considered the views.
Ms Milner's counsel David Wolfe told a judge that, if the scheme goes ahead, the mother of three teenagers would be left "with no choice but to drink water to which fluoride has been added".
As opponents of fluoridation demonstrated outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Mr Wolfe said approximately 195,000 people in Southampton and parts of south-west Hampshire "would have fluoride added to their water whether they liked it or not".
'Legal obligation'
He told Mr Justice Holman this was contrary to government policy that no new fluoridation schemes should be introduced unless it could be shown that the local population was in favour.
The SCSHA used statutory powers to instruct Southern Water, the local water provider, to go ahead with fluoridation in February 2009 to improve dental health.
The decision came after 72% of those who responded to a public consultation opposed fluoridation, with just 28% in favour.
An opinion poll commissioned by the SCSHA produced a narrower result, with 38% against the scheme and 32% in favour and 29% "don't knows", the court heard.
Mr Wolfe accused the SCSHA of failing in its legal obligation to properly assess the cogency of the arguments for and against mass fluoridation.
He said the application for judicial review was not about the actual merits and health arguments over fluoridation.
It was about the legality of the compulsory scheme, the first of its kind in the UK for 20 years.
Mr Wolfe said: "Four out of five local authorities and three out of four local MPs expressed their opposition within the consultation process.
"Ms Milner is in good company, whether she is right or wrong."
The health authority is opposing Ms Milner's legal challenge.
The hearing continues.
Southampton's fluoridation decision 'unlawful'
A health authority tried to illegally force the fluoridation of Southampton's water, the High Court has heard.
Resident Geraldine Milner is taking legal action to challenge the decision made in 2009 by the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SCSHA).
The SCSHA, which believes the move will improve dental health, gave the go-ahead despite a public consultation showing 72% opposed the idea.
The judicial review will decide if SCSHA properly considered the views.
Ms Milner's counsel David Wolfe told a judge that, if the scheme goes ahead, the mother of three teenagers would be left "with no choice but to drink water to which fluoride has been added".
As opponents of fluoridation demonstrated outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Mr Wolfe said approximately 195,000 people in Southampton and parts of south-west Hampshire "would have fluoride added to their water whether they liked it or not".
'Legal obligation'
He told Mr Justice Holman this was contrary to government policy that no new fluoridation schemes should be introduced unless it could be shown that the local population was in favour.
The SCSHA used statutory powers to instruct Southern Water, the local water provider, to go ahead with fluoridation in February 2009 to improve dental health.
The decision came after 72% of those who responded to a public consultation opposed fluoridation, with just 28% in favour.
An opinion poll commissioned by the SCSHA produced a narrower result, with 38% against the scheme and 32% in favour and 29% "don't knows", the court heard.
Mr Wolfe accused the SCSHA of failing in its legal obligation to properly assess the cogency of the arguments for and against mass fluoridation.
He said the application for judicial review was not about the actual merits and health arguments over fluoridation.
It was about the legality of the compulsory scheme, the first of its kind in the UK for 20 years.
Mr Wolfe said: "Four out of five local authorities and three out of four local MPs expressed their opposition within the consultation process.
"Ms Milner is in good company, whether she is right or wrong."
The health authority is opposing Ms Milner's legal challenge.
The hearing continues.
Fluoride debate reaches High Court over Southampton plan
Fluoride debate reaches High Court over Southampton plan
19 January 2011 Last updated at 11:27 Help A decision by the strategic health authority to add fluoride to tap water in Southampton will go before the High Court later.
Resident Geraldine Milner began a legal challenge against the decision made in 2009 by the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SCSHA).
The SCSHA, which believes the move will improve dental health, gave the go-ahead despite a public consultation showing 72% opposed the idea.
Dentist Dr Uchenna Okoye and anti-fluoridation campaigner Stephen Peckham debated the issue on BBC Breakfast.
19 January 2011 Last updated at 11:27 Help A decision by the strategic health authority to add fluoride to tap water in Southampton will go before the High Court later.
Resident Geraldine Milner began a legal challenge against the decision made in 2009 by the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SCSHA).
The SCSHA, which believes the move will improve dental health, gave the go-ahead despite a public consultation showing 72% opposed the idea.
Dentist Dr Uchenna Okoye and anti-fluoridation campaigner Stephen Peckham debated the issue on BBC Breakfast.
Meridian TV Fluoride - Yes or No?
Fluoride - Yes or No?
4.50PM Tue Jan 18 2011
Final decision imminent
Plans to add fluoride to water supplies in parts of the South will be debated at a landmark hearing. And health officials are standing firm over their decision to back the scheme. They say adding the chemical will reduce dental decay. The fluoridation plans affect 160,000 homes in Southampton, another 24,000 in Eastleigh and thousands more on the edge of the New Forest. Our social affairs correspondent Christine Alsford talked to
Sarah Peckham, dental therapist; Dr Jeyanthi John, Consultant in Dental Public Health; Royston Smith, Leader of Southampton Council; and Arshad Sharif who is opposed to fluoridation.
By: Christine Alsford
Video
4.50PM Tue Jan 18 2011
Final decision imminent
Plans to add fluoride to water supplies in parts of the South will be debated at a landmark hearing. And health officials are standing firm over their decision to back the scheme. They say adding the chemical will reduce dental decay. The fluoridation plans affect 160,000 homes in Southampton, another 24,000 in Eastleigh and thousands more on the edge of the New Forest. Our social affairs correspondent Christine Alsford talked to
Sarah Peckham, dental therapist; Dr Jeyanthi John, Consultant in Dental Public Health; Royston Smith, Leader of Southampton Council; and Arshad Sharif who is opposed to fluoridation.
By: Christine Alsford
Video
Daily Echo - HAMPSHIRE: Landmark case brought by resident is due to start today
HAMPSHIRE: Landmark case brought by resident is due to start today.
By Jon Reeve
Fluoride row finally reaches High Court
A LANDMARK court case that will decide the future of a controversial scheme to fluoridate Hampshire tap water was due to start today.
A High Court judge is set to examine whether or not health bosses were right to approve the plans in a bid to improve children's dental health in Southampton, despite public opposition.
If the legal challenge, which has been brought by city resident Geraldine Milner, is successful, it could mean the scheme - the first in the country to be approved by a health authority rather than an elected council - is stopped.
But South Central Strategic Health Authority, which has set aside £400,000 to fight the judicial review, insists it did everything it was required to by law during a public consultation held before its board gave the plans the green light, nearly two years ago. Despite Government plans to scrap all SHAs by next spring, it insists it would press ahead with work to see the chemical added to the water supplies of parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams, if their defence is successful.
As revealed in yesterday's Daily Echo, the leaders of Southampton City and Hampshire County councils, the bodies which will take over responsibility for fluoridation, both say they would call on the Government to stop the SHA introducing it in its "dying days".
Ahead of the start of the two-day hearing, campaigners were due to stage a demonstration on the steps of London's Royal Courts of Justice against the NHS body continuing to defend its case. Stephen Peckham, chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation said: "Local anger about the SHA's decision has grown since 2009. People feel that fluoridation is being imposed on them without their consent or approval. "If Ms Milner had not taken this action the SHA would have just steam-rolled ahead with a total disregard for the evidence and local opinion."
By Jon Reeve
Fluoride row finally reaches High Court
A LANDMARK court case that will decide the future of a controversial scheme to fluoridate Hampshire tap water was due to start today.
A High Court judge is set to examine whether or not health bosses were right to approve the plans in a bid to improve children's dental health in Southampton, despite public opposition.
If the legal challenge, which has been brought by city resident Geraldine Milner, is successful, it could mean the scheme - the first in the country to be approved by a health authority rather than an elected council - is stopped.
But South Central Strategic Health Authority, which has set aside £400,000 to fight the judicial review, insists it did everything it was required to by law during a public consultation held before its board gave the plans the green light, nearly two years ago. Despite Government plans to scrap all SHAs by next spring, it insists it would press ahead with work to see the chemical added to the water supplies of parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams, if their defence is successful.
As revealed in yesterday's Daily Echo, the leaders of Southampton City and Hampshire County councils, the bodies which will take over responsibility for fluoridation, both say they would call on the Government to stop the SHA introducing it in its "dying days".
Ahead of the start of the two-day hearing, campaigners were due to stage a demonstration on the steps of London's Royal Courts of Justice against the NHS body continuing to defend its case. Stephen Peckham, chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation said: "Local anger about the SHA's decision has grown since 2009. People feel that fluoridation is being imposed on them without their consent or approval. "If Ms Milner had not taken this action the SHA would have just steam-rolled ahead with a total disregard for the evidence and local opinion."
18 Jan 2011
Hampshire Against Fluoridation Press Release
PRESS RELEASE January 2011
Fluoride decision faces legal test
Two years after unanimously voting to impose water fluoridation on the region, the South Central SHA’s decision will come under scrutiny by a High Court Judge. The Judge will be deciding whether the SHA properly took into account government policy and adequately assessed the cogency of the arguments submitted during the consultation. The Judicial Review is being made on behalf of Ms Geraldine Milner a lifelong resident of Southampton.
The SHA’s disregard of local opposition and failure to demonstrate that there was local support for fluoridation is one ground on which its decision of 26 February 2009 will be challenged. During the consultation 72% of respondents objected to the proposal and in a survey of residents affected only 32% were in favour. Yet when the legislation was debated in Parliament the Minister explicitly stated that fluoridation would not go ahead unless there was local support.
Stephen Peckham, Chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation said “Local anger about the SHA’s decision has grown since 2009. People feel that fluoridation is being imposed on them without their consent or approval. And it is not just local people. All local MPs and Councils in the area affected by the scheme either oppose water fluoridation or have been critical of the decision made by the SHA. If Ms Milner had not taken this action the SHA would have just steam-rolled ahead with a total disregard for the evidence and local opinion. We should all be very grateful to her.”
The SHA is also being challenged about whether it adequately took into consideration all the evidence submitted to it. Their casual dismissal of much of the evidence on fluorosis and fluoride ingestion seems cavalier given that the same evidence has been cited by the US Government as a reason for reducing fluoride levels to 0.7ppm - well below levels recommended by the UK government.
Local dentist Zac Cox said “Fluoridating our tap water is not only ineffective but it is also dangerous. The fact that the USA have decided to lower their Fluoride levels indicates that they know it is dangerous, and are preparing themselves for lawsuits. Fluorosis has hit 41% of children in the States, and you can bet your bottom dollar that a lot of these kids will be taking legal action. Treatment of fluorosis can be incredibly expensive, not to mention damaging to the teeth.” Zac, who has also worked for five years in a fluoridated community in New Zealand went on to say “Studies done where fluoridating the water supply has been stopped have shown no difference or even a decrease in tooth decay NOT an increase as you might expect. In the USA where they do fluoridate their water they are having terrible problems with tooth decay. It makes no difference to tooth decay rates in children whatsoever.”
END
Fluoride decision faces legal test
Two years after unanimously voting to impose water fluoridation on the region, the South Central SHA’s decision will come under scrutiny by a High Court Judge. The Judge will be deciding whether the SHA properly took into account government policy and adequately assessed the cogency of the arguments submitted during the consultation. The Judicial Review is being made on behalf of Ms Geraldine Milner a lifelong resident of Southampton.
The SHA’s disregard of local opposition and failure to demonstrate that there was local support for fluoridation is one ground on which its decision of 26 February 2009 will be challenged. During the consultation 72% of respondents objected to the proposal and in a survey of residents affected only 32% were in favour. Yet when the legislation was debated in Parliament the Minister explicitly stated that fluoridation would not go ahead unless there was local support.
Stephen Peckham, Chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation said “Local anger about the SHA’s decision has grown since 2009. People feel that fluoridation is being imposed on them without their consent or approval. And it is not just local people. All local MPs and Councils in the area affected by the scheme either oppose water fluoridation or have been critical of the decision made by the SHA. If Ms Milner had not taken this action the SHA would have just steam-rolled ahead with a total disregard for the evidence and local opinion. We should all be very grateful to her.”
The SHA is also being challenged about whether it adequately took into consideration all the evidence submitted to it. Their casual dismissal of much of the evidence on fluorosis and fluoride ingestion seems cavalier given that the same evidence has been cited by the US Government as a reason for reducing fluoride levels to 0.7ppm - well below levels recommended by the UK government.
Local dentist Zac Cox said “Fluoridating our tap water is not only ineffective but it is also dangerous. The fact that the USA have decided to lower their Fluoride levels indicates that they know it is dangerous, and are preparing themselves for lawsuits. Fluorosis has hit 41% of children in the States, and you can bet your bottom dollar that a lot of these kids will be taking legal action. Treatment of fluorosis can be incredibly expensive, not to mention damaging to the teeth.” Zac, who has also worked for five years in a fluoridated community in New Zealand went on to say “Studies done where fluoridating the water supply has been stopped have shown no difference or even a decrease in tooth decay NOT an increase as you might expect. In the USA where they do fluoridate their water they are having terrible problems with tooth decay. It makes no difference to tooth decay rates in children whatsoever.”
END
Daily Echo letter - Would fluoride fund be better spent elsewhere?
Would fluoride fund be better spent elsewhere?CONSIDERING the recent news from the USA regarding the 41 per cent of children and teenagers with "rampant fluorosis of the teeth" in their country due to ingesting too much fluoride, and the decision by the Department of Health and Human
Services in the USA to lower the levels from over Ippm to 0.07 ppm, can we assume that the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) will take note of this and abandon their own hare brained scheme to poison us all?
Southampton already has 0.08 ppm naturally occurring in the water and to add any more would expose the very children, the SHA purport to protect, to levels now known to be unsafe.
I hope they have also heard the other breaking news from that same country that the Environmental Protection Agency is to cease the use of sulfuryl fluoride as a food fumigant because it has been found that too much of the chemical is being ingested and is putting health at risk, especially children.
With all the cutbacks needed in these cash-strapped times one wonders if the £400,000 of NHS money the SHA has on hold to fight any objection to their "mass medicating" scheme would be better spent on other essential services.
Mrs PLACE, Southampton.
Daily Echo - Fluoride: Fight may call on Government
Battle to stop fluoridation could go to the very top.
Fluoride: Fight may call on Government
By Jon Reeve
jon.reeve@dailyecho.co.uk
COUNCIL bosses could call on the Government to step in to stop health chiefs adding fluoride to Hampshire water supplies in the months before their powers disappear.
A High Court legal bid to stop the controversial scheme starts tomorrow, but the health bosses who approved the plans say they will press ahead with the project if they win the case.
That is despite the Health Secretary confirming Strategic Health Authorities (SHA) will be scrapped early next year, with the say over future fluoridation proposals falling to elected councils instead. And the heads of Southampton City and Hampshire County councils have told the Daily Echo they would fight any moves to introduce fluoride before power is handed to them, in a bid to make the process more democratic.
The two-day judicial review in London comes after a campaigner claimed South Central Strategic Health Authority should have paid more attention to public opinions expressed during its consultation.
More than 10,000 people had their say, with 72 per cent of respondents from the affected area - covering parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams - saying they were against fluoridation.
The SHA insists it did everything required by law before approving fluoridation.
During the consultation, the county council passed a motion saying it was opposed to the plans, as did the borough and district councils in Eastleigh, New Forest, Test Valley and Fareham.
Southampton's councillors voted to support fluoridation, but have since changed their view to call for a binding referendum to be held to ensure public support before it could ever go ahead. City council leader Royston Smith said despite not normally agreeing with single-subject public votes, he believes residents must have the final say "because it's quite a fundamental thing to be putting something in people's water".
And he believes the SHA should not be allowed to continue with its plans when it is about to disappear.
Cllr Smith said: "Now we've got a new government, I would ask them to consider, just morally, if they think it's right that a quango that's on its way out can in law continue to fluoridate water against the wishes of the population.
"They should morally abandon their plans and leave it to the new regime that's being put in place."
Hampshire County Council leader, Cllr Ken Thornber, said the authority would challenge any moves to add fluoride to water supplies. He said: "At the moment we do not have the power to prevent South Central Strategic Health Authority fluoridating the water if they win (the judicial review), but we may have in the future.
"We would continue to defend the right of local people to say no to the imposition of this proposal and if necessary appeal again directly to the Secretary of State to prevent this happening."
Fluoride: Fight may call on Government
By Jon Reeve
jon.reeve@dailyecho.co.uk
COUNCIL bosses could call on the Government to step in to stop health chiefs adding fluoride to Hampshire water supplies in the months before their powers disappear.
A High Court legal bid to stop the controversial scheme starts tomorrow, but the health bosses who approved the plans say they will press ahead with the project if they win the case.
That is despite the Health Secretary confirming Strategic Health Authorities (SHA) will be scrapped early next year, with the say over future fluoridation proposals falling to elected councils instead. And the heads of Southampton City and Hampshire County councils have told the Daily Echo they would fight any moves to introduce fluoride before power is handed to them, in a bid to make the process more democratic.
The two-day judicial review in London comes after a campaigner claimed South Central Strategic Health Authority should have paid more attention to public opinions expressed during its consultation.
More than 10,000 people had their say, with 72 per cent of respondents from the affected area - covering parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams - saying they were against fluoridation.
The SHA insists it did everything required by law before approving fluoridation.
During the consultation, the county council passed a motion saying it was opposed to the plans, as did the borough and district councils in Eastleigh, New Forest, Test Valley and Fareham.
Southampton's councillors voted to support fluoridation, but have since changed their view to call for a binding referendum to be held to ensure public support before it could ever go ahead. City council leader Royston Smith said despite not normally agreeing with single-subject public votes, he believes residents must have the final say "because it's quite a fundamental thing to be putting something in people's water".
And he believes the SHA should not be allowed to continue with its plans when it is about to disappear.
Cllr Smith said: "Now we've got a new government, I would ask them to consider, just morally, if they think it's right that a quango that's on its way out can in law continue to fluoridate water against the wishes of the population.
"They should morally abandon their plans and leave it to the new regime that's being put in place."
Hampshire County Council leader, Cllr Ken Thornber, said the authority would challenge any moves to add fluoride to water supplies. He said: "At the moment we do not have the power to prevent South Central Strategic Health Authority fluoridating the water if they win (the judicial review), but we may have in the future.
"We would continue to defend the right of local people to say no to the imposition of this proposal and if necessary appeal again directly to the Secretary of State to prevent this happening."
16 Jan 2011
15 Jan 2011
Wales - Thousands benefit from toothbrushing scheme
Thousands benefit from toothbrushing scheme
Section Health | Published on 14 Jan 2011
All Community Dental Services in Wales are now delivering the Designed to Smile (D2S) scheme, Health Minister Edwina Hart has announced today ].
Over 30,000 children are now benefiting from the scheme, delivered through 500 schools, improving their oral health and preventing tooth decay.
Following successful pilots in north and central south Wales the programme was rolled out nationally in 2009 and is now being expanded to nurseries and playgroups. In the scheme dental health support workers deliver a supervised tooth-brushing programme in schools and provide toothbrushes and toothpaste to school children along with oral health advice.
Significant progress has been made across Wales with more children from deprived areas taking part in tooth brushing schemes designed to provide children with the tools they need to develop and maintain good oral health from an early age. Part of this service is delivered via mobile dental health units that provide specialist preventive care and treatment to schools.............
Why couldn't the SCSHA use these targeted methods rather than fluoridation?
Section Health | Published on 14 Jan 2011
All Community Dental Services in Wales are now delivering the Designed to Smile (D2S) scheme, Health Minister Edwina Hart has announced today ].
Over 30,000 children are now benefiting from the scheme, delivered through 500 schools, improving their oral health and preventing tooth decay.
Following successful pilots in north and central south Wales the programme was rolled out nationally in 2009 and is now being expanded to nurseries and playgroups. In the scheme dental health support workers deliver a supervised tooth-brushing programme in schools and provide toothbrushes and toothpaste to school children along with oral health advice.
Significant progress has been made across Wales with more children from deprived areas taking part in tooth brushing schemes designed to provide children with the tools they need to develop and maintain good oral health from an early age. Part of this service is delivered via mobile dental health units that provide specialist preventive care and treatment to schools.............
Why couldn't the SCSHA use these targeted methods rather than fluoridation?
"We won't give up!" Meridian TV
"We won't give up!"
A campaigner against fluoride being added to her city's water supply has vowed to take the fight to the European courts if necessary. Health bosses have decided nearly 200,000 residents should receive fluoridated water to tackle tooth decay - 160,000 in Southampton, a further 24,000 in Eastleigh plus another eight thousand
on the edge of the New Forest. Three quarters of people asked in a public consultation say they are against the plans. Our social affairs correspondent Christine Alsford has this exclusive report
By: Christine Alsford
"We won't give up!" Video
A campaigner against fluoride being added to her city's water supply has vowed to take the fight to the European courts if necessary. Health bosses have decided nearly 200,000 residents should receive fluoridated water to tackle tooth decay - 160,000 in Southampton, a further 24,000 in Eastleigh plus another eight thousand
on the edge of the New Forest. Three quarters of people asked in a public consultation say they are against the plans. Our social affairs correspondent Christine Alsford has this exclusive report
By: Christine Alsford
"We won't give up!" Video
Daily Echo - New research sees USA move away from Water Fluoridation.
New research sees USA move away from Water Fluoridation.
The future of controversial plans to fluoridate Hampshire tap water will be decided in court next week. A judicial review is being held in London's High Court examining whether South Central Strategic Health Authority was right to approve the scheme despite public opposition. But as JON REEVE reports, while the future of the practice in the UK is decided through the legal process, health experts in America have just announced a major reduction in the amount of fluoride in tap water there.
IT has been polarising opinion in Hampshire for years.
But as the future of fluoridation in the county is debated in the courts, with implications for other schemes around Britain, across the pond there are already changes being made in the country that delivers more fluoridated water to its people than any other in the world.
In the United States, where cities like New York and Chicago have been fluoridated since the 1940s, the government has just changed its rules on how much of the chemical can be added to water supplies.
The move to slash limits has come in response to growing fears about side effects.
America's Department of Health and Human Services (HSS) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have changed their guidelines, which previously recommended a
range of between 0.7 and 1.2 parts per million (ppm).
The difference was designed to allow for the varying climates across the US, with less fluoride needed in warmer areas where people drink more water.
But that guidance has now been downgraded so nowhere should have more than 0.7ppm.
The plans for Hampshire, affecting nearly 200,000 people across two-thirds of Southampton and parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams, would see 1ppm added to tap water.
Peter Silva, from the EPA, said the move is based "on the most up-to-date scientific data", suggesting around 40 per cent of American children now suffer dental fluorosis
He said: "EPA's new analysis will help us make sure that people benefit from tooth decay prevention while at the same time avoiding the unwanted health effects from too much fluoride."
In most cases, fluorosis is mild, with barely visible white markings or spots forming on the enamel of teeth, but in more extreme cases it can lead to brown stains and mottling.
Opponents of fluoridation argue it can cause misery for sufferers, who have to undergo expensive and repeated treatment to correct its effects.
But the chairman of the British Fluoridation Society has previously insisted fears over fluoroste are overstated. • Professor Michael Lennon said: "Few cases are unsightly; indeed, the mildest forms give teeth a 'pearlised' appearance which, research has shown, adolescent children think is more attractive than teeth without fluorosis."
So could the shift in US policy change anything here?
A spokesman for South Central Strategic Health Authority said it would be inappropriate to comment on fluoridation issues so close to the judicial review.
But should the authority successfully defend the legal action, don't be surprised to see a further challenge, citing the' policy of our American cousins.
The future of controversial plans to fluoridate Hampshire tap water will be decided in court next week. A judicial review is being held in London's High Court examining whether South Central Strategic Health Authority was right to approve the scheme despite public opposition. But as JON REEVE reports, while the future of the practice in the UK is decided through the legal process, health experts in America have just announced a major reduction in the amount of fluoride in tap water there.
IT has been polarising opinion in Hampshire for years.
But as the future of fluoridation in the county is debated in the courts, with implications for other schemes around Britain, across the pond there are already changes being made in the country that delivers more fluoridated water to its people than any other in the world.
In the United States, where cities like New York and Chicago have been fluoridated since the 1940s, the government has just changed its rules on how much of the chemical can be added to water supplies.
The move to slash limits has come in response to growing fears about side effects.
America's Department of Health and Human Services (HSS) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have changed their guidelines, which previously recommended a
range of between 0.7 and 1.2 parts per million (ppm).
The difference was designed to allow for the varying climates across the US, with less fluoride needed in warmer areas where people drink more water.
But that guidance has now been downgraded so nowhere should have more than 0.7ppm.
The plans for Hampshire, affecting nearly 200,000 people across two-thirds of Southampton and parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams, would see 1ppm added to tap water.
Peter Silva, from the EPA, said the move is based "on the most up-to-date scientific data", suggesting around 40 per cent of American children now suffer dental fluorosis
He said: "EPA's new analysis will help us make sure that people benefit from tooth decay prevention while at the same time avoiding the unwanted health effects from too much fluoride."
In most cases, fluorosis is mild, with barely visible white markings or spots forming on the enamel of teeth, but in more extreme cases it can lead to brown stains and mottling.
Opponents of fluoridation argue it can cause misery for sufferers, who have to undergo expensive and repeated treatment to correct its effects.
But the chairman of the British Fluoridation Society has previously insisted fears over fluoroste are overstated. • Professor Michael Lennon said: "Few cases are unsightly; indeed, the mildest forms give teeth a 'pearlised' appearance which, research has shown, adolescent children think is more attractive than teeth without fluorosis."
So could the shift in US policy change anything here?
A spokesman for South Central Strategic Health Authority said it would be inappropriate to comment on fluoridation issues so close to the judicial review.
But should the authority successfully defend the legal action, don't be surprised to see a further challenge, citing the' policy of our American cousins.
Daily Echo - SHA's brush with justice?
SHA's brush with justice?By Anna Peckham
On behalf of Hampshire Against Fluoridation.
AFTER nearly two years of argument about the decision by the Strategic Health Authority (SHA) to impose water fluoridation on the region, a hearing at the High Court in London later this month is finally set to examine the controversial issue.
This will be a test case and will look at the process of consultation and whether the decision to go ahead with fluoridation despite a lack of local support was what Parliament envisaged when the legislation was debated.
This has been a contentious issue from the beginning with 72 per cent of consultation respondents opposed to the scheme. Since the decision, all democratically elected councils and MPs in the affected areas have raised serious concerns and have asked for the decision to be reviewed. However, the SHA continues to insist that it has the right to ignore local opinion and will push forward with its plans regardless.
This makes no sense and has angered many. Such persistence is even more nonsensical given the fact that by 2013 the SHA will be abolished and public health decisions will be taken by the very same councils who have demanded a rethink about fluoridation! Moreover, the SHA is willing to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds fighting a judicial review and forcing this scheme through in their dying days despite knowing that local people and all locally elected councils and MPs are unhappy with this stance. To add to this debacle, once the SHA is abolished, there is the possibility that local councils may even decide to scrap the scheme.
Hampshire Against Fluoridation calls for an end to this profligate waste of NHS money which should be used for frontline services and not spent on a scheme that the majority of people do not .want. We would rather see oral health problems dealt with by targeted approaches which are proven to be effective in reducing dental health inequalities. Such interventions must begin at the pre-school stage with dental teams offering imaginative and effective programmes which are already being used in some parts of the UK. There is mounting scientific controversy about water fluoridation. Indeed, in a dramatic recent statement, the US government has announced that it is significantly lowering fluoride levels in water due to scientific concern. This follows similar moves in Canada, Eire and Hong Kong in recent years. Worldwide, fluoridation is only practised in a few countries with many communities deciding to stop the practice altogether.
It is clearly unethical to force people to ingest fluoride through the public drinking water supply and we hope that this will not be imposed upon us in Hampshire
14 Jan 2011
Canada - Corbella: How my pro-fluoride opinion got pulled out by the root
Corbella: How my pro-fluoride opinion got pulled out by the root
By Licia Corbella, Calgary Herald January 13, 2011
Back in September 1998 - just one month prior to the Calgary civic election and the last plebiscite on whether to continue adding fluoride to our water supply - I met with representatives of both sides of the debate.
As I stated in a column then, there were the "experts," like Calgary's medical officer of health, who wanted to continue adding fluoride to Calgary's water, and well-meaning non-experts, some of whom believed in "wacky conspiracy theories."
At that time, my twin boys were just 17 months old and I had recently returned to work. I wanted to do what was best for my kids and the city, and preventing cavities seemed like a valiant goal.
Well, those 17-month-old kids have turned into 13-year-olds and over the years since I wrote those editorials and columns supporting water fluoridation I have spent a lot more time brushing up on fluoride. As a result, my pro-fluoride opinion has been pulled out by the root and turned on its crown.
Actually, it's what happened to my kids' teeth that has caused me to change my mind.
Both of my sons' teeth show evidence of fluorosis caused by ingesting too much fluoride. Their teeth have milky white spots and streaks on them and that discolouration is an indication that something similar has happened to their bones.
I did everything right as a parent. I listened to the "experts" and "the best available 'science.' " I made sure our kids brushed with children's toothpaste, containing lower doses of fluoride than adult toothpaste, and that they only used a pea-sized portion when they brushed.
I took them to the dentist annually for checkups where - until recently - they received fluoride treatments, as well. And when they were thirsty, they got mostly milk or water, never pop, sometimes juice, and rarely water from those toxic plastic bottles.
Somewhere between birth and getting their adult teeth, my sons got too much fluoride. In other words, those damned experts were wrong. If I had the money and the time, I'd sue someone.
Fluorosis is not just a minor cosmetic issue as those same "experts" and pushers of fluoride argue. Those white spots actually mean the enamel is weaker and that could lead to those spots turning brown and causing pitting in my kids' tooth enamel. There are also reputable studies that show if there is fluorosis of the teeth, chances are, bones have been affected, too, making them brittle. There are other studies that link fluoride to cancer as well as other issues.
In November 2006 the American Dental Association started recommending that infants from zero to 12 months of age should have their formula prepared with water containing no fluoride at all. So, all those kids born before November 2006 be damned if their mom didn't or couldn't fully nurse her children.
One of the major reasons given by those who want to continue pushing fluoride down our throats - literally - is primarily to help the dental health of low-income Calgarians.
They argue that people living near the poverty line can't afford to properly take care of their kids' teeth. Hmmm? But a tube of fluoride toothpaste costs as little as 79 cents and lasts several weeks if used twice a day by several people, whereas bottled water costs about 99 cents a litre.
Scientists have been wrong on so many other occasions, I am now extremely skeptical about anything they want to force on us.
Remember how eggs and coffee were considered terrible for our health? Now they're highly recommended and studies show that lots of coffee may actually prevent diabetes. So, why not start adding caffeine to our water supply to prevent diabetes?
It has been reported by reputable medical journals that Canadians - owing to our long winters and lack of sunshine - suffer from a severe lack of vitamin D. This lack of vitamin D has been linked to serious illnesses, like multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile diabetes, osteoporosis and others.
Last I checked, most of us would rather get a cavity than MS, so let's put some vitamin D into our water!
Depression is a growing concern, too. Why not add Prozac to our water? Absurd, right? Exactly. Medication doesn't belong in our water - the very stuff of life.
Some Calgary aldermen, particularly Gord Lowe, wonder why people are upset about fluoride being added to water when no one seems concerned about iodine being added to salt and vitamin D to milk.
The answer is obvious, Gord. It's possible to buy similarly priced sea salt and kosher salt, that are not iodized. There are also organic milk and soy milk that can be purchased without vitamin D added.
In other words, Calgarians have a choice. But I have no choice about what comes out of my tap. There isn't a fluoride tap and a non-fluoride tap.
The science on fluoride is not settled. That's why the amount of fluoride added to our water in 1991 was reduced from one part per million to 0.7 ppm in 1998, and why parents are warned not to give fluoride to infants.
I guess those oh, so smug "experts" just shrug and say too bad so sad for all those suckers who listened to the likes of them for all those years and whose kids have been harmed as a result of their incorrect "science."
Fluoride can cause harm. My kids' teeth are proof of that and so are thousands of other people walking around Calgary. You can see it when they smile and that should make us frown.
Fluoride should be removed from our water supply regardless of what those so-called and so often wrong experts tell us.
Licia Corbella is editorial page editor and a columnist.
lcorbella@calgaryherald.com
By Licia Corbella, Calgary Herald January 13, 2011
Back in September 1998 - just one month prior to the Calgary civic election and the last plebiscite on whether to continue adding fluoride to our water supply - I met with representatives of both sides of the debate.
As I stated in a column then, there were the "experts," like Calgary's medical officer of health, who wanted to continue adding fluoride to Calgary's water, and well-meaning non-experts, some of whom believed in "wacky conspiracy theories."
At that time, my twin boys were just 17 months old and I had recently returned to work. I wanted to do what was best for my kids and the city, and preventing cavities seemed like a valiant goal.
Well, those 17-month-old kids have turned into 13-year-olds and over the years since I wrote those editorials and columns supporting water fluoridation I have spent a lot more time brushing up on fluoride. As a result, my pro-fluoride opinion has been pulled out by the root and turned on its crown.
Actually, it's what happened to my kids' teeth that has caused me to change my mind.
Both of my sons' teeth show evidence of fluorosis caused by ingesting too much fluoride. Their teeth have milky white spots and streaks on them and that discolouration is an indication that something similar has happened to their bones.
I did everything right as a parent. I listened to the "experts" and "the best available 'science.' " I made sure our kids brushed with children's toothpaste, containing lower doses of fluoride than adult toothpaste, and that they only used a pea-sized portion when they brushed.
I took them to the dentist annually for checkups where - until recently - they received fluoride treatments, as well. And when they were thirsty, they got mostly milk or water, never pop, sometimes juice, and rarely water from those toxic plastic bottles.
Somewhere between birth and getting their adult teeth, my sons got too much fluoride. In other words, those damned experts were wrong. If I had the money and the time, I'd sue someone.
Fluorosis is not just a minor cosmetic issue as those same "experts" and pushers of fluoride argue. Those white spots actually mean the enamel is weaker and that could lead to those spots turning brown and causing pitting in my kids' tooth enamel. There are also reputable studies that show if there is fluorosis of the teeth, chances are, bones have been affected, too, making them brittle. There are other studies that link fluoride to cancer as well as other issues.
In November 2006 the American Dental Association started recommending that infants from zero to 12 months of age should have their formula prepared with water containing no fluoride at all. So, all those kids born before November 2006 be damned if their mom didn't or couldn't fully nurse her children.
One of the major reasons given by those who want to continue pushing fluoride down our throats - literally - is primarily to help the dental health of low-income Calgarians.
They argue that people living near the poverty line can't afford to properly take care of their kids' teeth. Hmmm? But a tube of fluoride toothpaste costs as little as 79 cents and lasts several weeks if used twice a day by several people, whereas bottled water costs about 99 cents a litre.
Scientists have been wrong on so many other occasions, I am now extremely skeptical about anything they want to force on us.
Remember how eggs and coffee were considered terrible for our health? Now they're highly recommended and studies show that lots of coffee may actually prevent diabetes. So, why not start adding caffeine to our water supply to prevent diabetes?
It has been reported by reputable medical journals that Canadians - owing to our long winters and lack of sunshine - suffer from a severe lack of vitamin D. This lack of vitamin D has been linked to serious illnesses, like multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile diabetes, osteoporosis and others.
Last I checked, most of us would rather get a cavity than MS, so let's put some vitamin D into our water!
Depression is a growing concern, too. Why not add Prozac to our water? Absurd, right? Exactly. Medication doesn't belong in our water - the very stuff of life.
Some Calgary aldermen, particularly Gord Lowe, wonder why people are upset about fluoride being added to water when no one seems concerned about iodine being added to salt and vitamin D to milk.
The answer is obvious, Gord. It's possible to buy similarly priced sea salt and kosher salt, that are not iodized. There are also organic milk and soy milk that can be purchased without vitamin D added.
In other words, Calgarians have a choice. But I have no choice about what comes out of my tap. There isn't a fluoride tap and a non-fluoride tap.
The science on fluoride is not settled. That's why the amount of fluoride added to our water in 1991 was reduced from one part per million to 0.7 ppm in 1998, and why parents are warned not to give fluoride to infants.
I guess those oh, so smug "experts" just shrug and say too bad so sad for all those suckers who listened to the likes of them for all those years and whose kids have been harmed as a result of their incorrect "science."
Fluoride can cause harm. My kids' teeth are proof of that and so are thousands of other people walking around Calgary. You can see it when they smile and that should make us frown.
Fluoride should be removed from our water supply regardless of what those so-called and so often wrong experts tell us.
Licia Corbella is editorial page editor and a columnist.
lcorbella@calgaryherald.com
America Bankrupt, Internet ID, Fluoride Victory? - New World Next Week
Fluoride is the last story covered.
13 Jan 2011
USA - Fluoridegate: Fluoride Spots On Teeth The Tip Of The Iceberg
Fluoridegate: Fluoride Spots On Teeth The Tip Of The Iceberg
Decades of assurances that consuming fluoride in drinking water is a safe and an effective way to prevent cavities are being called into question as a jarring Fluoridegate controversy erupts across the nation.
A series of disclosures are surfacing about the actions of water fluoridation promoters that point to a likely tsunami of Fluoridegate investigations, hearings, and explosive courtroom entanglements.
Tennessee state legislator Frank Niceley states, "There is a real Fluoridegate scandal here. Citizens haven't been told about harm from fluorides, and this needs to be investigated by the authorities and the media."
Washington D.C. toxic tort attorney Chris Nidel says, "I think when we look back we'll ask why Fluoridegate didn't surface earlier. There are serious concerns about possible conflict of interest and heavy editing of information being fed to the public about fluoride risks and impacts."
On January 7, 2011 officials at the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services recommended lowering the amount of fluoride in drinking water.
Health officials stated that their recommendation was simply a fine-tuning of fluoride levels to prevent a largely unnoticeable teeth staining called "dental fluorosis." But information now being shown to law firms, legislators, and investigative journalists affirms that the tooth staining is often disfiguring, that fluorides pose multiple other risks, and that questions about conflict of interest, undue influence and improper actions warrant investigation.
Americans are surprised to learn that the Centers for Disease Control's Oral Health Division is in charge of making assessments and statements for CDC about outside-the-mouth fluoride safety and research.
The apparent conflict of interest is drawing fire from several angles.
"This is clearly the fox guarding the henhouse," states Daniel G. Stockin about the CDC. Stockin is a career public health professional and former manager of the EPA Western Regional Lead Training Center. He works at The Lillie Center, a small firm in Georgia known for its efforts toward ending fluoridation.
"A number of groups, law firms, and journalists now want the names and job descriptions of persons inside CDC, both now and previously, that have been responsible for CDC's promotion of water fluoridation," Stockin says.
Other key issues are surfacing: Was improper influence by dental groups the reason CDC did not issue a press release four years ago about risks related to baby formula and fluoride? At the time, CDC quietly admitted on a little-noticed web page that because of possible dental fluorosis, parents may want to mix infant milk formula with unfluoridated water.
The Gerber baby products company now sells an unfluoridated water so parents of babies can avoid using fluoridated water for mixing milk formula.
Additional explosive questions offer to ignite investigative hearings: Why did CDC not openly share with the black community CDC's own data showing black Americans to be disproportionately harmed by the worst forms of dental fluorosis? Who is to pay for expensive teeth repair for persons unwilling to live with disfiguring dental fluorosis?
Decades of assurances that consuming fluoride in drinking water is a safe and an effective way to prevent cavities are being called into question as a jarring Fluoridegate controversy erupts across the nation.
A series of disclosures are surfacing about the actions of water fluoridation promoters that point to a likely tsunami of Fluoridegate investigations, hearings, and explosive courtroom entanglements.
Tennessee state legislator Frank Niceley states, "There is a real Fluoridegate scandal here. Citizens haven't been told about harm from fluorides, and this needs to be investigated by the authorities and the media."
Washington D.C. toxic tort attorney Chris Nidel says, "I think when we look back we'll ask why Fluoridegate didn't surface earlier. There are serious concerns about possible conflict of interest and heavy editing of information being fed to the public about fluoride risks and impacts."
On January 7, 2011 officials at the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services recommended lowering the amount of fluoride in drinking water.
Health officials stated that their recommendation was simply a fine-tuning of fluoride levels to prevent a largely unnoticeable teeth staining called "dental fluorosis." But information now being shown to law firms, legislators, and investigative journalists affirms that the tooth staining is often disfiguring, that fluorides pose multiple other risks, and that questions about conflict of interest, undue influence and improper actions warrant investigation.
Americans are surprised to learn that the Centers for Disease Control's Oral Health Division is in charge of making assessments and statements for CDC about outside-the-mouth fluoride safety and research.
The apparent conflict of interest is drawing fire from several angles.
"This is clearly the fox guarding the henhouse," states Daniel G. Stockin about the CDC. Stockin is a career public health professional and former manager of the EPA Western Regional Lead Training Center. He works at The Lillie Center, a small firm in Georgia known for its efforts toward ending fluoridation.
"A number of groups, law firms, and journalists now want the names and job descriptions of persons inside CDC, both now and previously, that have been responsible for CDC's promotion of water fluoridation," Stockin says.
Other key issues are surfacing: Was improper influence by dental groups the reason CDC did not issue a press release four years ago about risks related to baby formula and fluoride? At the time, CDC quietly admitted on a little-noticed web page that because of possible dental fluorosis, parents may want to mix infant milk formula with unfluoridated water.
The Gerber baby products company now sells an unfluoridated water so parents of babies can avoid using fluoridated water for mixing milk formula.
Additional explosive questions offer to ignite investigative hearings: Why did CDC not openly share with the black community CDC's own data showing black Americans to be disproportionately harmed by the worst forms of dental fluorosis? Who is to pay for expensive teeth repair for persons unwilling to live with disfiguring dental fluorosis?
12 Jan 2011
11 Jan 2011
USA - EPA to Bar Fluoride-Based Pesticide
EPA to Bar Fluoride-Based Pesticide
Decision aims to protect children’s health
CONTACT: EWG Public Affairs, 202-667-6982 leeann@ewg.org; Beyond Pesticides: Jay Feldman, 202-543-5450; Fluoride Action Network: Ellen Connett, 315-379-9200
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 10, 2011
Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today proposed to grant three environmental groups’ petition to end the use of sulfuryl fluoride, an insecticide and food fumigant manufactured by Dow AgroSciences.
The Dow product, approved by EPA as an alternative to methyl bromide, is used on hundreds of food commodities.
Citing concerns about children’s health and noting their current overexposure to fluoride through tap water, EPA’s decision is the second major federal action in three days to address the safety of fluoride for children. On January 7, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services proposed to reduce its recommended maximum level of fluoride in tap water from 1.2 to 0.7 parts per million (ppm), a 42 percent decrease.
In 2004, Fluoride Action Network, Environmental Working Group, and Beyond Pesticides challenged EPA’s risk assessment of the pesticide sulfuryl fluoride under the Food Quality and Protection Act of 1996, which regulates pesticide safety. The groups objected that EPA’s methodology relied on an outdated health risk assessment and significantly underestimated children’s exposures to fluoride from all sources.
With today’s announcement, the EPA Office of Pesticide Program has concluded that the current legal limit of the pesticide residue on food does not adequately protect children from aggregate fluoride exposures, such as drinking water and toothpaste.
EPA’s reversal upholds the environmental groups’ position that children’s aggregate fluoride exposures are unsafe and that any additional exposure through pesticide residues is unlawful. According to EPA officials, the decision appears to be the first time the agency has granted substantive formal objections to a pesticide tolerance rule based on public health advocates' evidence that a particular chemical's use violates the safety standard for aggregate exposures under federal law.
If EPA makes the proposal final, many uses of the pesticide sulfuryl fluoride would stop within 90 days. A three-year phase-out period would be extended for other uses, including dried nuts and fruits and usage by direct handling facilities like flour mills.
The actions by EPA and HHS represent a growing consensus that the American public is being exposed to excessive fluoride. They amount to admissions that for decades, public health agencies have erroneously reassured the public that fluoride is safe. As a result, generations of children have been exposed to amounts of fluoride that could damage teeth and bones and that emerging science indicates could harm thyroid function and increase risks for bone cancer.
“For decades, people who raised concerns about fluoride being added to tap water or food were dismissed as crazy," said Ken Cook, President of Environmental Working Group. "All of a sudden we have two federal regulatory actions, announced just days apart, that tell us what was really crazy all those years: a government bureaucracy that ignored strong scientific evidence and clear warning signs of the threats fluoride has posed to public health all along. We commend the Obama administration for these actions, which begin, at long last, to put the use and regulation of fluoride on a sound scientific footing.”
“EPA’s decision to stop sulfuryl fluoride use and grant the petition rights a wrong that has been in place for many years and should advance more serious attention to the threat that pesticides pose to people’s health through multiple routes of exposure, including our food and water,” said Jay Feldman, Executive Director of Beyond Pesticides.
"EPA has taken a step in the right direction, but as their own data show, many children will still receive too much fluoride even without sulfuryl fluoride and so further reductions in fluoride exposure are necessary in order to truly protect children's health," said Tara Blank, Ph.D., Science and Health Liaison Officer for Fluoride Action Network
"This step by EPA is not only significant in regard to the particular pesticide tolerances involved. As a regulatory confirmation of our positions regarding the potential health effects of fluoride, it also has considerable precedential value for future initiatives to address this major area of concern," said Perry Wallace, professor of law at American University and who worked with the groups on petitioning EPA.
Sulfuryl fluoride was first registered in 1959 as a fumigant to control termites in wood structures. In 2004 and 2005, EPA approved the registration of sulfuryl fluoride as a pesticide to be used to kill insects in harvested and processed foods such as cereal grains, dried fruits, tree nuts, cocoa beans, coffee beans, and insect infestations in food handling and processing facilities.
The pesticide breaks down into fluoride, whose residues can contaminate food. Over-exposure to fluoride can be toxic, causing dental fluorosis (mottling and loss of tooth enamel) and skeletal fluorosis (joint pain, stiffness and bone fractures).
Some studies point to a possible link between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma, commonly known as bone cancer, neurotoxicity and disruption of thyroid function. Read more about fluoride and FAN, EWG, and Beyond Pesticides work on the issue here: http://www.ewg.org/featured/222
# # #
EWG is a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, DC that uses the power of information to protect human health and the environment. http://www.ewg.org
Beyond Pesticides, a national grassroots nonprofit, protects health and the environment with science, policy and action. http://www.beyondpesticides.org
Decision aims to protect children’s health
CONTACT: EWG Public Affairs, 202-667-6982 leeann@ewg.org; Beyond Pesticides: Jay Feldman, 202-543-5450; Fluoride Action Network: Ellen Connett, 315-379-9200
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 10, 2011
Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today proposed to grant three environmental groups’ petition to end the use of sulfuryl fluoride, an insecticide and food fumigant manufactured by Dow AgroSciences.
The Dow product, approved by EPA as an alternative to methyl bromide, is used on hundreds of food commodities.
Citing concerns about children’s health and noting their current overexposure to fluoride through tap water, EPA’s decision is the second major federal action in three days to address the safety of fluoride for children. On January 7, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services proposed to reduce its recommended maximum level of fluoride in tap water from 1.2 to 0.7 parts per million (ppm), a 42 percent decrease.
In 2004, Fluoride Action Network, Environmental Working Group, and Beyond Pesticides challenged EPA’s risk assessment of the pesticide sulfuryl fluoride under the Food Quality and Protection Act of 1996, which regulates pesticide safety. The groups objected that EPA’s methodology relied on an outdated health risk assessment and significantly underestimated children’s exposures to fluoride from all sources.
With today’s announcement, the EPA Office of Pesticide Program has concluded that the current legal limit of the pesticide residue on food does not adequately protect children from aggregate fluoride exposures, such as drinking water and toothpaste.
EPA’s reversal upholds the environmental groups’ position that children’s aggregate fluoride exposures are unsafe and that any additional exposure through pesticide residues is unlawful. According to EPA officials, the decision appears to be the first time the agency has granted substantive formal objections to a pesticide tolerance rule based on public health advocates' evidence that a particular chemical's use violates the safety standard for aggregate exposures under federal law.
If EPA makes the proposal final, many uses of the pesticide sulfuryl fluoride would stop within 90 days. A three-year phase-out period would be extended for other uses, including dried nuts and fruits and usage by direct handling facilities like flour mills.
The actions by EPA and HHS represent a growing consensus that the American public is being exposed to excessive fluoride. They amount to admissions that for decades, public health agencies have erroneously reassured the public that fluoride is safe. As a result, generations of children have been exposed to amounts of fluoride that could damage teeth and bones and that emerging science indicates could harm thyroid function and increase risks for bone cancer.
“For decades, people who raised concerns about fluoride being added to tap water or food were dismissed as crazy," said Ken Cook, President of Environmental Working Group. "All of a sudden we have two federal regulatory actions, announced just days apart, that tell us what was really crazy all those years: a government bureaucracy that ignored strong scientific evidence and clear warning signs of the threats fluoride has posed to public health all along. We commend the Obama administration for these actions, which begin, at long last, to put the use and regulation of fluoride on a sound scientific footing.”
“EPA’s decision to stop sulfuryl fluoride use and grant the petition rights a wrong that has been in place for many years and should advance more serious attention to the threat that pesticides pose to people’s health through multiple routes of exposure, including our food and water,” said Jay Feldman, Executive Director of Beyond Pesticides.
"EPA has taken a step in the right direction, but as their own data show, many children will still receive too much fluoride even without sulfuryl fluoride and so further reductions in fluoride exposure are necessary in order to truly protect children's health," said Tara Blank, Ph.D., Science and Health Liaison Officer for Fluoride Action Network
"This step by EPA is not only significant in regard to the particular pesticide tolerances involved. As a regulatory confirmation of our positions regarding the potential health effects of fluoride, it also has considerable precedential value for future initiatives to address this major area of concern," said Perry Wallace, professor of law at American University and who worked with the groups on petitioning EPA.
Sulfuryl fluoride was first registered in 1959 as a fumigant to control termites in wood structures. In 2004 and 2005, EPA approved the registration of sulfuryl fluoride as a pesticide to be used to kill insects in harvested and processed foods such as cereal grains, dried fruits, tree nuts, cocoa beans, coffee beans, and insect infestations in food handling and processing facilities.
The pesticide breaks down into fluoride, whose residues can contaminate food. Over-exposure to fluoride can be toxic, causing dental fluorosis (mottling and loss of tooth enamel) and skeletal fluorosis (joint pain, stiffness and bone fractures).
Some studies point to a possible link between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma, commonly known as bone cancer, neurotoxicity and disruption of thyroid function. Read more about fluoride and FAN, EWG, and Beyond Pesticides work on the issue here: http://www.ewg.org/featured/222
# # #
EWG is a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, DC that uses the power of information to protect human health and the environment. http://www.ewg.org
Beyond Pesticides, a national grassroots nonprofit, protects health and the environment with science, policy and action. http://www.beyondpesticides.org
7 Jan 2011
Anti-fluoride campaign prepares for court battle
Anti-fluoride campaign prepares for court battle
CAMPAIGNERS against fluoride being added to Southampton's water supply, which would affect around 8,000 Totton residents, will travel to London this month for the judicial review into the controversial issue.
The South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) gave its approval for the chemical to be added to the city's supply in 2009 after the local primary care trust said it was needed to combat child tooth decay. The plan affects 190,000 people around Southampton, including Totton because of the layout of the pipes.
A two-day legal challenge to the scheme is due to be heard in the High Court from January 19th and the judge will look at whether the SHA examined all available evidence fully, as well as whether it listened properly to residents' views.
During the consultation 72% of responses were against fluoridation, but a Mori poll showed a different picture with only 38% opposed,
compared with 32% in support.
Campaign group Hampshire Against Fluoridation plans to travel to London for the hearing and members will also hold a demonstration on the steps of the High Court.
A spokesperson for the group said: "The judicial review will be heard in public and we would like to get as many supporters as possible to attend the hearing."
To book a seat on the coach to London email peckhams@yahoo. com or call 023 8049 3776
CAMPAIGNERS against fluoride being added to Southampton's water supply, which would affect around 8,000 Totton residents, will travel to London this month for the judicial review into the controversial issue.
The South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) gave its approval for the chemical to be added to the city's supply in 2009 after the local primary care trust said it was needed to combat child tooth decay. The plan affects 190,000 people around Southampton, including Totton because of the layout of the pipes.
A two-day legal challenge to the scheme is due to be heard in the High Court from January 19th and the judge will look at whether the SHA examined all available evidence fully, as well as whether it listened properly to residents' views.
During the consultation 72% of responses were against fluoridation, but a Mori poll showed a different picture with only 38% opposed,
compared with 32% in support.
Campaign group Hampshire Against Fluoridation plans to travel to London for the hearing and members will also hold a demonstration on the steps of the High Court.
A spokesperson for the group said: "The judicial review will be heard in public and we would like to get as many supporters as possible to attend the hearing."
To book a seat on the coach to London email peckhams@yahoo. com or call 023 8049 3776
The Fluoride Hoax
The Fluoride Hoax
By Bette Dowdell on 01/06/2011
We’ve been told a lie. The poobahs said if we added fluoride to our water it would strengthen our teeth and bones. And we believed them. Even encouraged them to fluoridate our water.
But they lied. The fluoride added to our water is a waste product of aluminum and phosphate fertilizer processing. And it’s not even calcium fluoride that appears naturally in water, but sodium fluoride, which is a whole different thing–and loaded with bad news.
In fact, sodium fluoride has no good news. Except for a few suspect reports by the people selling the stuff, study after research study proves that sodium fluoride does not protect our teeth, and it does a number on our bones. And on other body parts, too, including our thyroid gland.
Unfortunately for us, fluoride does its work in secret. Oh, we have health issues. Maybe even a lot of issues, but we never connect them to fluoride.
So let’s connect a few dots here.............
By Bette Dowdell on 01/06/2011
We’ve been told a lie. The poobahs said if we added fluoride to our water it would strengthen our teeth and bones. And we believed them. Even encouraged them to fluoridate our water.
But they lied. The fluoride added to our water is a waste product of aluminum and phosphate fertilizer processing. And it’s not even calcium fluoride that appears naturally in water, but sodium fluoride, which is a whole different thing–and loaded with bad news.
In fact, sodium fluoride has no good news. Except for a few suspect reports by the people selling the stuff, study after research study proves that sodium fluoride does not protect our teeth, and it does a number on our bones. And on other body parts, too, including our thyroid gland.
Unfortunately for us, fluoride does its work in secret. Oh, we have health issues. Maybe even a lot of issues, but we never connect them to fluoride.
So let’s connect a few dots here.............
4 Jan 2011
Scotland - New plea to add fluoride to water
New plea to add fluoride to water
By Judith Duffy
The Express
January 3, 2011
DENTAL experts have reignited the controversy over fluoride by calling on ministers to add it to Scotland's water supplies to tackle "unacceptably poor" oral health.
Latest figures show progress has been made, but more than 50 per cent of primary seven children north of the Border are suffering tooth decay.
Andrew Lamb, director for Scotland at the British Dental Association (BDA), said it was a "preventable disease". He said: "In Scotland, there remain communities in which oral health remains unacceptably poor and young children are having teeth extracted as a result.
"The Childsmile scheme is doing good work in providing advice and encouragement about oral health and encouraging good habits among those it engages, but the benefit of water fluoridation is that it reaches everyone in the area it targets. The benefits can be seen in fluoridated Birmingham, where five-year-olds enjoy far better oral health than their peers in non-fluoridated Manchester."
He added: "The BDA will be lookin g to the Government elected in May to consult communities that would benefit from its introduction."
Dr Lamb welcomed the recently published dental workforce review, which showed the dental health o f 11- to 12-year-olds has significantly improved in recent years. A national target for 60 per cent of children to have no obvious dental decay by 2010 was reached a year early.
A spokesman for Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon said the Scottish Government was "not convinced by the need for fluoridation".
They never stop trying.
By Judith Duffy
The Express
January 3, 2011
DENTAL experts have reignited the controversy over fluoride by calling on ministers to add it to Scotland's water supplies to tackle "unacceptably poor" oral health.
Latest figures show progress has been made, but more than 50 per cent of primary seven children north of the Border are suffering tooth decay.
Andrew Lamb, director for Scotland at the British Dental Association (BDA), said it was a "preventable disease". He said: "In Scotland, there remain communities in which oral health remains unacceptably poor and young children are having teeth extracted as a result.
"The Childsmile scheme is doing good work in providing advice and encouragement about oral health and encouraging good habits among those it engages, but the benefit of water fluoridation is that it reaches everyone in the area it targets. The benefits can be seen in fluoridated Birmingham, where five-year-olds enjoy far better oral health than their peers in non-fluoridated Manchester."
He added: "The BDA will be lookin g to the Government elected in May to consult communities that would benefit from its introduction."
Dr Lamb welcomed the recently published dental workforce review, which showed the dental health o f 11- to 12-year-olds has significantly improved in recent years. A national target for 60 per cent of children to have no obvious dental decay by 2010 was reached a year early.
A spokesman for Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon said the Scottish Government was "not convinced by the need for fluoridation".
They never stop trying.
3 Jan 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
