Fluoride decision a win for common sense
1st August 2014
So after a break of almost 13 months, fluoride is now back in Hamilton’s water supply. It was 5 June last year that the council, after three months of public consultations, submissions and hearings, decided to cease fluoridation, despite clear support for the practice from the Hamilton populace and the medical profession. In doing so they bowed to pressure from a well-organised and well-funded lobbying campaign, and ignored scientific evidence, which they said they lacked the expertise to assess (for background on the funding of the anti-fluoride lobby, see Ken Perrott’s excellent analysis at openparachute.wordpress.com/2014/01/12/who-is-funding-anti-fluoridation-high-court-action(.
Then followed a citizens-initiated referendum in October when 70 percent of respondents voted for fluoridation to resume, and a High Court judgement on 7 March in the case of New Health NZ Inc v South Taranaki District Council, which ruled in favour of that council’s decision to fluoridate (seeNZ Skeptic 111 ). Hamilton City Council’s decision to resume fluoridation came on 27 March, and this was put into action on 3 July.
The story is not over yet. New Health NZ has appealed the South Taranaki decision, and another anti-fluoride group, Safe Water Alternative NZ (SWANZ), lodged a statement of claim with the High Court on 28 April for a judicial review to test the HCC decision; the High Court hearing is scheduled for 9 September. SWANZ appears to be of recent origin and presumably was set up for the express purpose of taking this action, so as to protect its supporters from incurring legal costs. HCC doesn’t have this option, and will face yet another hefty legal bill as the affair drags on through another round.
But the anti-fluoridationists may be on the back foot. Many in Hamilton were angry at the way a minority pressure group was able to have a civic service with wide popular support curtailed, and the lobbyists’ ongoing efforts to overturn the democratic outcome of the referendum, with resulting legal costs which ultimately ratepayers will have to meet, are winning them no friends. Supporters of fluoridation are now much better organised, and submissions for this year’s Kapiti District Council draft annual plan ran 366 to 261 in favour of fluoridation, compared with 1375 to 170 against in Hamilton last year. We must still await the outcomes of the next rounds in the courts, but for now we can be cautiously optimistic that decisions on fluoridation will continue to be based on sound science.