September 2011 City Council vote to oppose Fluoridation

On Wednesday 14th September, Southampton City Council officially withdrew its support for the water fluoridation scheme in Southampton. The debate was triggered by HAFs petition signed by 6,500 people well over the number needed to initiate a council debate. Two motions on water fluoridation were put forward. The first of these was moved by Councillor Moulton and commits the Council to explore its legal powers in the light of changing legislation contained in the Health & Social Care Bill currently being debated in Parliament. This motion was passed unanimously. The second motion, moved by Councillor Gerry Drake was more hard-hitting, directly calling on the Council to reject 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 fluoridationreversing its original support 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 SHAs consultation process, arguing that fluoridation was mass medication and an affront to democracy. However, some councillors displayed an appalling ignorance of the evidence on water fluoridation and appeared unaware of the current data on dental health in the City. Certain Labour councillors branded campaigners purveyors of bad science! Councillors Noon (representing Bargate ward) and Furnell (representing Millbrook ward) made disparaging comments about campaigners, insinuating that we do not use good evidence to support our argument. Cllr Noon asserted that 97% of scientists, including geologists support water fluoridation. This somewhat bizarre reference to geologists resulted in laughter from the public gallery! Hampshire Against Fluoridation have, of course, continued throughout the campaign to use only the highest quality research evidence. It is not clear exactly which councillors voted for and against the motions and we urge anyone interested to contact their local councillors to find out how they voted. HAF is keen to compile a list of councillors viewsso let us know if you receive a reply.

Inside this issue: More on the SCC Vote; Professor Paul Connett in Southampton; North West
SHA abandons fluoridation plans; Black and Hispanic Civil Rights groups campaign to halt fluoridation in the USA; More cities stop fluoridation in Canada, USA and New Zealand...

.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 Southamptons water supply and will use all its present and any future powers it may be given to prevent the implementation of a fluoridation scheme. 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 antifluoridation position. This is important because, in 2008, the council voted to support the SHAs plans to implement water fluoridation and this has been used by the SHA to support their decision to go ahead with the scheme. However, this vote was taken BEFORE the Council knew the outcome of the Consultation which resulted in 72% of local respondents registering their opposition to the proposed fluoridation plan. The other motion which received unanimous support, was put forward by Councillor Jeremy Moulton. It is much wordier and merely commits the Council to debating the issue again when the Health & Social Care Bill has been finalised. As it stands, it seems that Councils WILL have the power to either implement or REVERSE fluoridation schemes when SHAs 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 the motion 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 public 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 propose the termination of a scheme. Council further notes that the Health & Social Care Bill is currently 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 & Social Care Bill, the Government has emphasised how important it is for public health decisions to be made by democratically accountable local councils. For the SHA to push ahead would be ridiculous now that Southampton 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 to implement a targeted scheme such as the one introduced in Northamptonshire. In fact, the cost of good targeted programmes would be less than the predicted revenue costs of the fluoridation scheme and provide children with lifelong dental hygiene skills... Over the next 18 months there is the opportunity for the SHA to take a strong leadership role in improving oral health by supporting the development of effective, targeted dental health schemes in the arealeaving a legacy to be proud of. Please write to your MP and express your concern at the unelected SHAs continuing insistence to force the scheme upon the areadespite the objections of local people and ALL local councils.

.www.hampshireagainstfluoridation.org

Professor Paul Connett

On Saturday 10th September we were lucky to have the opportunity to once again hear a talk by Professor Paul Connett of the Fluoride Action Network. The talk, at Solent University, was attended by over 100 people and was extremely informative and entertaining. Paul talked at length about the cities in North America that are abandoning water fluoridation and about the involvement of Civil Rights groups. Indeed, the daughter of Martin Luther King is involved in the campaign to stop water fluoridation in the USA. It is acknowledged as a civil rights issue to forcibly medicate the public drinking water, causing fluorosis rates to soar. Professor Connett updated us on the recent evidence on fluorosis, including the US governments recent proposal to reduce fluoride levels in drinking water. It was heartening to hear just how many communities in Canada, the US, Australia and New Zealand are voting out their local fluoridation schemes. Councils in these areas are taking note of evidence-based information and statistics showing marked increases in dental fluorosis. When councillors are given the opportunity to listen to reasoned debates from experts such as Professor Connett instead of merely hearing the argument of the promoters of water fluoridation, it seems more sensible and informed decisions are made. Pauls 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 and H.S. Micklem. Chelsea Green, 2010). It seems that while in England the government are still promoting water fluoridation, many other places are stopping this outdated practice. In Canada many areas have stopped fluoridating their water in the last year. These include Waterloo, Ontario; Calgary; Alberta, where the City Council voted to stop fluoridation of 1.1 million people. Other Alberta communities are expected to follow and the mayor of Toronto is considering ending fluoridation on economic grounds. In many other Ontario communities there are active campaigns including Hamilton, London, Oakville, and Ottawa. In New Zealand two CouncilsHamilton and Hastingsare discussing ending fluoridation and Tauramanui Council recently voted to end fluoridation. In the USA, 11 cities have ended fluoridation in the last year alone. Those cities that are ending fluoridation are beginning to raise issues of cost as well as questioning benefit. 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 fluoridating: http://www.fluoridealert.org/communities.aspx

North West Abandons Water Fluoridation Plans

In a unexpected development, the North West Strategic Health Authority announced that it has abandoned plans for water fluoridation across the region. Citing rising costs, technical difficulties and legislative uncertainty when strategic health authorities are abolished in 2013, the Chief Executive stated that water fluoridation plans were now no longer on the agenda. Hampshire Against Fluoridation welcomes this news and hope that it has an impact on the decisions currently facing our own Strategic Health Authority. The controversial Hampshire scheme has not been re-costed since 2008; there is continuing uncertainty over which scheme will actually be implemented as it has been disclosed that places outside the designated fluoridation areas identified during the Consultation, may also receive fluoridated water. All in all, the whole scheme is looking increasingly unfeasible, especially now that Southampton City Council have vowed to use their powers to oppose any fluoridation scheme introduced by the soon-to-be-abolished SHA.

Interesting Letter in the Local Press

With the SCSHA signalling their intent to continue plans for forced medication of the population of Southampton, a very dangerous precedent is being set. If SCSHA get their way, we will lose the most basic human right of controlling what goes into our body. Where could this dangerous path lead if unelected people who care nothing for people's choice are allowed to destroy our most fundamental human rights? I have had the opportunity to debate with the SCSHA on Radio the dangers of fluoridation and when I raised Dr Jennifer Luke's work which showed increased concentrations of fluoride in the Pineal gland in areas with water fluoridation. They had no answer other than saying it was safe, they have made no attempt to repeat or explore her research. There is a huge body of evidence which shows fluoridation is dangerous which is why almost every other week I read of another city which has stopped fluoridation or is in the process of stopping it, eg. Calgary in Canada, Alaska in USA the list is too numerous to quote here. What of the rights of religious groups or people with philosophical objections who believe it is against their belief system to be force medicated. Well the answer according to SCSHA is shut up and take your medicine. ARSHAD SHARIF, Chairman Muslim Council of Southampton.

Contacts: Chairman: Stephen Peckham 02380 493776 Secretary: Ann Richards 02392 463761 HAF is a non political voluntary group and relies on subscriptions and donations. Membership for one year is 5.00. Please send a cheque together with the form or pay by Paypal through our website.

Join Hampshire Against Fluoridation

Please complete and send the membership form to: Ann Richards, 4 South Road, Hayling Island, PO11 9AE Tel: 02392 463761 annpeter@richards177.fsnet.co.uk

I wish to join HAF: Name: . Address: . . Post code:... Email address:.

http://hampshireagainstfluoridation.blogspot.com/