Something in the water?
1st August 2013
It took Hamilton City Councillors about one hour to banish fluoride from the city’s water supply on 5 June, a move Waikato Medical Officer of Health Dr Felicity Dumble said discounted the mainstream opinion of the vast majority of dentists and doctors in Hamilton and in New Zealand.
A 2006 referendum showed 70 percent of participating Hamilton voters supported continued fluoridation. The result was supposed to be binding. The most recent quarterly residents’ survey found 50.2 percent support, with 31 percent opposition, while a citizen’s panel on-line survey showed 56.1 percent wanting continuation, and 43.9 percent opposed. The sample sizes were small and margins of error large, but the community’s support for fluoridation was clear.
There are many who live outside the city boundaries who access the Hamilton water supply: I am one of them. But the effects of this decision are going to be felt even more widely. According to the NZ Herald (7 June), Fluoride Action Network New Zealand spokeswoman Mary Byrne said other cities were discussing the removal of fluoride and her organisation would “definitely” be a part of their conversations. “Whakatane and Hastings are holding referenda already, Palmerston North have put aside $10,000 to look at fluoridation and the Kapiti Coast District Council said they were going to review fluoridation but they haven’t decided how.”
FAN has already applied to the High Court at New Plymouth for a judicial review against the decision by the South Taranaki District Council to fluoridate Patea and Waverley’s water supply, on the basis that the council had no express or implied power under the Local Government Act 2002 or any other act to fluoridate. The Hamilton City Council identified this review as one of the risks it needed to consider when making its decision.
Other reasons for the decision include simple finances. The annual cost of fluoridation in Hamilton was $48,000 per annum - not inconsiderable in a city where there have been several disastrous financial decisions in recent years, notably the annual hosting of a round of the V8 Supercar series.
But what about the science? It seems it wasn’t even considered. The report prepared by the council prior to the hearing noted that much scientifically verifiable information was provided, but that council staff do not have the expertise to review that information. And as stated, fluoridation had wide public support. So how was the decision reached? Dr Dumble had a clear opinion: “They have listened to a highly vocal minority (many of whom are not Hamilton residents) and as a result the oral health of Hamilton residents will suffer.”
