“I urge the South Central Health Au-

thority to reverse their decision in the light of these figures. The people of Southampton would welcome such a move and it would do a lot to restore faith in the board. After all, their jus- tification for fluoridation has just gone down the plug hole."

However, health chiefs have vowed tocontinue with plans to add fluoride towater supplies and fight the JudicialReview. This is despite the improveddental health figures and continuinglocal opposition. The SHA have alsoacknowledged that the cost of install-ing fluoridation equipment could be twoor three times the original forecast.In a statement to the Echo, HAF mem-ber Stephen Peckham said:

“

It blows a hole in what they have con- sistently said that Southampton has some of the worst teeth in the country

–

that‟s patently not true, and probably

never was. It completely changes the economic analysis and the whole thing is now so shaky that the noble thing to do would probably be to accept they

were wrong in the first place.”

Latest figures blow a hole in thefluoridation argument

WWW.HAMPSHIREAGAINSTFLUORIDATION.ORG

Inside thisissue:

New dentaldecay figuresSouthamptonCourt LeetPolitics newsFluoride andmilk formulafor babies

www.hampshireagainstfluoridation.orgWebsite: hampshirea-

November 2009

CONTENTS

New dentaldecay figures1Court Leet 2Fluoride andoysters2HAF talks toshadow healthminister 3HAF Chair stands as MP3 New researchshows babies atrisk 4HAFmembership4

Last month the NHS released figuresfrom the latest survey of the dentalhealth of five year old children. Thisnational survey is undertaken every year and the survey found that thenumber of five-year-olds in the citywith dental decay has fallen dramati-cally, as has the average number ofdiseased teeth.The high decay rate for five yearolds in 2003 and 2005 was the keyargument that the Primary CareTrust used to justify water fluorida-tion.In Southampton the decay rate hasdropped to 1.13dmft (decayed, miss-ing & filled teeth) and only 31% offive year olds had some decay. Thiscompares to 1.76dmft and 42% in2005/6. This decrease was predict-able and rates are lower than in 2001.The figures reflect a continuingtrend in the decline in dental caries in

the city‟s children over the last dec-

ade or so and the city now has virtu-ally the same rates of decay as theEnglish average (1.11dmft) which isgood for a large urban area.Commenting on the new figures San-dra Gidley MP said:

WWW.HAMPSHIREAGAINSTFLUORIDATION.ORG

PAGE 2

On Tuesday 9th October StephenPeckham on behalf of HAF made apresentation to the annual South-ampton City Council Court Leetasking for the Court to refer thematter of water fluoridation backto the City Council for furtherdebate. His was one of four

„presentments‟ on fluoridation and

while this and another one by aresident were rejected by the jury, two further ones by SteveMatthews and Mary Williamswere accepted (see below for

Steve Matthew‟s presentment).

HAF requested the Court to re-fer the matter of fluoridation tothe City Council for further de-bate. It has become clear from

HAF takes its case to the Court Leet

the result of the consultationand the 15,300 signature peti-tion handed to Downing Streetthat many local people are op-posed to fluoridation and thesupport of Southampton CityCouncil was a strong factor in

the SHA‟s decision.

Recommen-dations from the Court Leetneed to be considered by theCity Council Cabinet and re-sponded to.With the recent acknowledge-

ment by the City Council‟s Dep-

uty leader Cllr Royston-Smiththat many councillors may nothave voted for fluoridation lastNovember if they had beenaware of the reductions in

Water fluoridation could harm local oyster fishing

At the Court Leet one of the accepted presentments was made by Steve Matthews who high-lighted his concerns about the impact of fluoride on local oyster fishing with the following:

My father has had an oyster-fishing licence for 37 years and I am making this presentment on behalf of the Solent oyster and those individuals whose livelihoods depend upon it. It is a matter of scientific fact that fluoride is readily accumulated in the meats of oysters and that the growth rate of these shellfish is decreased and the mortality increased. (Moore 1969) Most of the hexafluorosilicic acid that will be added to the City's water supply will ultimately find its way into Southampton Water. This body of water directly flows into and is indeed a part of the Solent Oyster Fishery. Southampton Water is also part of a thriving commercial whelk fishery, not to mention also a newly discovered Mannila Clam bed near Hythe. Since the Solent oyster population is already un- der threat from the invasion of the 'tingle-driller-whelk' and the increase in red algal blooms, it is even more vital that the question of the toxicity of fluoride relative to the local native oyster be taken seriously. It is encumbent upon the City Council therefore to take steps to determine the possible effects upon the shellfish environment which may occur due to the presence of fluoride and to take steps to halt the fluoridation programme until the appropriate bodies have been consulted and a proper environmental assessment has been carried out. I would like to take the opportunity to remind this court that the quantity of fluoride ending up in Southampton Water will be in the region of 110 tonnes per year- not an insignificant quantity - and roughly equates to 440 fifty-gallon drums.

Alan Whitehead has been involved with the Marine & Coastal Access Bill which comes into force

this month and concerns the “wellbeing of the sea bed and protection of the natural environment”.Let’s hope the impact of fluoridation on the marine environment is now taken seriously.

dental decay, getting a new de-bate in Council is essential. Wehave written to him to urge theCity Council to reopen the de-bate. HAF members have alsowritten to local councillors tofind out if those who voted forthe scheme have now changedtheir minds given the changedcircumstances. We will publishthis in our next newsletter.

Deputation meets Tory Shadow Health Minister

PAGE 3

On Monday 19th October HAF member Stephen Peckham joined othercampaigners

—

Joy Warren (West Midlands), Tony Lees (UK CouncilsAgainst Fluoridation) and Robert Verkerk (Natural Health Alliance) -in a meeting with the Shadow Health Minister Mike Penning.

We received a warm welcome and Mike Penning made clear his own opposi-tion to water fluoridation but also was equally clear that a commitment tothe abolition of water fluoridation or even changes to the guidelines on

its introduction would not be in the Party‟s election manifesto.

However, he committed himself and the Conservative Party to overhauling the consultation guide-lines if they form the next government. He was unable to say how this would be done or what thenew guidelines might look like but he said he welcomed our views on this saying that he would havean open door if he was Health Minister.He said he had seen the SHA consultation document and thought it was deplorable. He felt people

had been ignored and that more account should have been taken of local people‟s concerns and

opposition. He was particularly interested in the European angle and Robert Verkerk is going tosend further information about this to him. Overall the meeting was positive and his statementsrepresent a small but important shift in Conservative views.

HAF Chairman stands for Parliament

HAF chairman John Spottiswoode has been selected as the prospec-tive parliamentary candidate for the Green Party in the SouthamptonItchen constituency. John helped found HAF and has been Chairmanfor the last two years. Here he explains why he feels fluoride is animportant political issue.

This irrational push for fluoridation by government and the health authorities raises fundamental questions about our Democracy. By what right can government force people to drink something that many consider a poison? Would a majority vote override the right of the individual to refuse enforced medication via the water supply? Also how are people on an unelected body such as the Health Authority Boards to be held to account for what they do? Especially when the Health Authorities use unsound science and their decision is likely to have a negative impact on the health of thousands of people. This is why water fluoridation has to be tackled at the political level, and why I am standing for parliament in Southampton Itchen as the Green Party candidate. I also want to encourage people to stand in the local elections in May to remove the pro- fluoridation Councillors. If our politicians think that they can get away with forcing people to drink fluoride, when most people clearly do not want it, then they must be voted out of office,both at local Council level and as our MPs. Fluoridation is not only based on bad science, it is mor- ally indefensible. Fluoridation is just one example of how politicians decide to pollute our environment, without even bothering with an Environmental Assessment in this case. How people convince themselves that putting a long term persistent toxin into our environment is somehow OK. How we fail to take any notice of the Precautionary Principle which says that where there are signifi- cant dangers then we do not do it. The corruption in Parliament over expense claims is negligible compared to the seriousness of what our politicians are prepared to do to us and our environment.