Press Release Fluoride Action Network New Zealand, 21st June 2013

Call for Referendum “Grandstanding”.

Councillor Ewan Wilson’s call for a referendum on fluoridation in Hamilton is nothing but grandstanding and would end up either wasting more of the rate-payers money or putting councillors in the precarious position of being responsible when they cannot guarantee safety. Therefore a referendum would achieve nothing except give the said councillor publicity. It is a shameless display of electioneering that puts political gain over the health and well-being of the community.

It is even worse in light of the knowledge that last year Cr Wilson voted against having a referendum and later voted for a Tribunal style Hearing. It seems Cr Wilson was not too concerned about people’s democratic rights when he thought the decision would go his way.

The Council’s Tribunal was virtually the same as the one the New Plymouth District Council used in 2011 when they looked at the issue and also decided to stop fluoridation. The New Plymouth District Council had chosen this process as this was the preferred process advised by the Report issued by Environmental Services Research.

Council received 1577 submissions, of which 89% where opposed to fluoridation. Over 130 people presented at the Tribunal, the vast majority being against fluoridation. Many of these were doctors, dentists, other health professionals, scientists and academics. But more importantly everyone did have an equal opportunity to have a say, just as much as they do with a referendum. The 2006 referendum only had 38% turnout so that was in no way representative of the whole community. People have had just as much opportunity to let their views known as they will with a referendum.

It is likely that if the issue did go to referendum that more Hamiltonians would look beyond the MoH and DHB spin and find out the real truth about fluoridation. They may be surprised to learn that the Councillors were able to find the common ground between the pro and anti camps. That being, fluoride works by contact with the tooth surface, swallowing fluoride toothpaste is harmful and swallowing fluoride confers no benefit to the teeth before they have erupted into the mouth. This means there is not even a claimed benefit to babies or the elderly who do not have teeth. The sometimes still quoted “fluoridation especially benefits the very young and very old” is completely off the mark and harks back to when the dentists thought children had to swallow fluoride so that it could be incorporated into the growing tooth enamel. That theory has now been well and truly consigned to the dust-bins of other theories we thought at one time were facts.

Cr Wilson and two other councillors, who are also DHB members, were given legal advice not to participate in the Tribunal as their membership on the DHB precludes them from voting against fluoridation. Two other councillors opted out of the process claiming their opposition to fluoridation was so strong they would not be able to attend with an open mind.

Mayor Hardaker and councillors Chesterman, McPherson, Hennebry, O’Leary, Bell , Forsyth and Bos should be congratulated for their diligence in listening to four whole days of testimony from both sides of the issue. I am sure none of these councillors took the issue lightly and made a decision based on putting the public interest above politics, unlike Cr Wilson appears to be doing.

ENDS

© Scoop Media