On Wednesday 14th September, Southampton CityCouncil officially withdrew its support for the waterfluoridation scheme in Southampton.

The debate was

triggered by HAF‟s petition signed by 6,500 people—

well over the number needed to initiate a council de-bate. Two motions on water fluoridation were put for-ward. The first of these was moved by CouncillorMoulton and commits the Council to explore its legalpowers in the light of changing legislation contained inthe Health & Social Care Bill currently being debatedin Parliament. This motion was passed unanimously. Thesecond motion, moved by Councillor Gerry Drake wasmore hard-hitting, directly calling on the Council toreject fluoridation. In a vote passed by a 2 to 1 majority, the Council voted to oppose water fluoridation. With this vote, the City Council is now officially opposed to water fluoridation

—

reversing its original sup-port in 2008 and bringing the Council into line with all other local councils who have opposed the scheme

from the beginning. In what was often a heated debate, many councillors denounced the SHA‟s consultation

process, arguing that fluoridation was mass medication and an affront to democracy. However, some coun-cillors displayed an appalling ignorance of the evidence on water fluoridation and appeared unaware of thecurrent data on dental health in the City. Certain Labour councillors branded campaigners purveyors of badscience! Councillors Noon (representing Bargate ward) andFurnell (representing Millbrook ward) made disparaging com-ments about campaigners, insinuating that we do not use goodevidence to support our argument. Cllr Noon asserted that

“97% of scientists, including geologists support water fluori-dation….” This somewhat bizarre reference to geologists re-

sulted in laughter from the public gallery! Hampshire AgainstFluoridation have, of course, continued throughout the cam-paign to use only the highest quality research evidence. It isnot clear exactly which councillors voted for and against themotions and we urge anyone interested to contact their localcouncillors to find out how they voted.

HAF is keen to compile a list of councillors‟ views—

so let usknow if you receive a reply.

City Council vote to oppose Fluoridation

Inside this issue:

More on the SCC Vote; Professor Paul Connett in Southampton; North WestSHA abandons fluoridation plans; Black and Hispanic Civil Rights groups campaign to halt fluorida-

tion in the USA; More cities stop fluoridation in Canada, USA and New Zealand…...

.www.hampshireagainstfluoridation.org

September2011

.www.hampshireagainstfluoridation.org

More about Southampton City Council debate

The motion put forward by Councillor Drake was as follows:

“

This Council now opposes the addition of fluoride to Southampton’s water supply and will use all

its present and any future powers it may be given to prevent the implementation of a fluoridationscheme

”.

While there were many abstentions and some votes against the motion (mainly from the Labour side),the motion was carried and this means that Southampton City Council now has an official anti-

fluoridation position. This is important because, in 2008, the council voted to support the SHA‟s plans

to implement water fluoridation and this has been used by the SHA to support their decision to goahead with the scheme. However, this vote was taken BEFORE the Council knew the outcome of theConsultation which resulted in 72% of local respondents registering their opposition to the proposedfluoridation plan.The other motion which received unanimous support, was put forward by Councillor Jeremy Moulton. Itis much wordier and merely commits the Council to debating the issue again when the Health & SocialCare Bill has been finalised. As it stands, it seems that Councils WILL have the power to either imple-

ment or REVERSE fluoridation schemes when SHA‟s are phased out in 2013. However, there may be

amendments to the Bill so it is a question of waiting and watching what happens. The wording of themotion is abridged below:

“

Council welcomes the petition and thanks all those who have signed it for doing so. Council

acknowledges that this is an issue of concern to many……..Council further notes that the new pub-lic health role for the Council is subject to the passage of the Health & Social Care Bill…..It is

unclear what requirements would be placed on a Council in the future if it were minded to proposethe termination of a scheme. Council further notes that the Health & Social Care Bill is current-ly progressing through Parliament and is now in the House of Lords, and that those with strong

views on fluoride might wish to make representations to Parliament on the Bill….Finally, Council

resolves to urgently debate the issue of local fluoridation again should powers be granted to the

Authority which give it any powers to influence the progression of a fluoridation scheme”.

What now?

HAF has sent a letter to the SHA requesting it to shelve the scheme. In promoting the Health & SocialCare Bill, the Government has emphasised how important it is for public health decisions to be made bydemocratically accountable local councils. For the SHA to push ahead would be ridiculous now thatSouthampton City Council is committed to reversing any scheme when and if they have the power to do

so. The HAF letter adds “

Based on just the cost of the consultation, it would have been possible toimplement a targeted scheme such as the one introduced in Northamptonshire. In fact, the costof good targeted programmes would be less than the predicted revenue costs of the fluoridationscheme and provide children with lifelong dental hygiene skills... Over the next 18 months thereis the opportunity for the SHA to take a strong leadership role in improving oral health by sup-porting the development of effective, targeted dental health schemes in the area

—

leaving a lega-

cy to be proud of”.

Please write to your MP and express your concern at the unelected SHA’s continuing insistence to

force the scheme upon the area

—

despite the objections of local people and ALL local councils.

Professor Paul Connett

On Saturday 10th September we were lucky to have the opportunity toonce again hear a talk by Professor Paul Connett of the Fluoride ActionNetwork. The talk, at Solent University, was attended by over 100 peopleand was extremely informative and entertaining. Paul talked at length aboutthe cities in North America that are abandoning water fluoridation andabout the involvement of Civil Rights groups. Indeed, the daughter of Mar-tin Luther King is involved in the campaign to stop water fluoridation in theUSA. It is acknowledged as a civil rights issue to forcibly medicate thepublic drinking water, causing fluorosis rates to soar.Professor Connett updated us on the recent evidence on fluorosis, including

the US government‟s recent proposal to reduce fluoride levels in drinking

water. It was heartening to hear just how many communities in Canada, theUS, Australia and New Zealand are voting out their local fluoridation schemes. Councils in these areasare taking note of evidence-based information and statistics showing marked increases in dental fluoro-sis. When councillors are given the opportunity to listen to reasoned debates from experts such as Pro-fessor Connett instead of merely hearing the argument of the promoters of water fluoridation, it

seems more sensible and informed decisions are made. Paul‟s excellent book is available from Amazon

and locally from October Books (

The case against fluoride. How hazardous waste ended up in our drinking water and the bad science and powerful politics that keep it there

by Paul Connett, James Beck andH.S. Micklem. Chelsea Green, 2010).It seems that while in England the government arestill promoting water fluoridation, many otherplaces are stopping this outdated practice. InCanada many areas have stopped fluoridating theirwater in the last year. These include Waterloo,Ontario; Calgary; Alberta, where the City Councilvoted to stop fluoridation of 1.1 million people.Other Alberta communities are expected to followand the mayor of Toronto is considering endingfluoridation on economic grounds. In many otherOntario communities there are active campaignsincluding Hamilton, London, Oakville, and Ottawa.In New Zealand two Councils

—

Hamilton and Has-tings

—

are discussing ending fluoridation and Tau-ramanui Council recently voted to end fluoridation. In the USA, 11 cities have ended fluoridation in thelast year alone.Those cities that are ending fluoridation are beginning to raise issues of cost as well as questioningbenefit. In the USA, the publication of government fluorosis statistics showing that over 40% of 12-15 year-olds suffer from fluorosis has led many authorities to question whether fluoridation really is a

„good thing‟. Fluorosis disproportionately affects children from disadvantaged communities,

Check out the Fluoride Action Network for more communities which have stopped fluori-dating: http://www.fluoridealert.org/communities.aspx