Fluoridation Again Discussed In House

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27426, 12 August 1954, Page 12

Fluoridation Again Discussed In House

PARLIAMENT

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, August 11. The Public Petitions (M to Z) Committee had no recommendation to make on the petition appealing against the continued application of fluorine to the Hastings Borough Council’s water supply, the chairman of the committee (Mr J. G. Barnes) reported to the House of Representatives this afternoon.

Mr S. I. Jones (Government, Hastings), discussing the report, said that the amount of fluorine being put into the water supply was one part to 1.000,000, “or as much as could be put on a pinhead and then put into four gallons of water.” Referring to evidence given to the committee. Mr Jones said that on the average of one in 18 eighteen-year-old recruits to the armed forces had 18 teeth either missing or decayed. Seven per cent, of all recruits had to have their teeth extracted. “There can be no doubt in the mind of anyone that we have to take steps to prevent dental caries in the teeth of the youth of the country,” he said. The Hastings-Havelock North experiment would have to continue for 10 or 15 years before it would become fully effective, continued Mr Jones. Many letters from persons complaining that their health had been affected by the experiment had been produced before the committee, but it could be said that many of the ills were psychological rather than physical but even if they were psychological they were causing people unhappiness. Optional Methods Optional methods of fluorine treatment were placed before the committee. and he thought they should be considered. However, because of the conflict of evidence he thought the ctamittee had made the only possible decision, said Mr Jones. Mr W. Anderton (Opposition, Auckland Central) said there were plenty of ether ways of administering fluorine than by the wholesale method adopted the Hastings Borough Council He did not think the borough council hao the authority to act as it had without first consulting the people. The committee should have added a rider to its recommendation that before similar, experiments were conducted the local authorities should first consult their citizens.

Mr F. L. A. Gotz (Government, Otahuhu) said that nothing evil could be attached to the motives of those involved in the experiment at Hastings, but he considered no-one should have to take fluorine compulsorily and that no-one should be subjected to mass medication. The Government could not interfere with the Hastings experiment, and it was a matter the local inhabitants sßould have out with their council, said Mr Gotz. He added that means should be devised of giving fluorine to those who wanted it. The substance was one of the deadliest rat poisons known.

Mr C. L. Carr (Opposition, Timaru) said that if one part in 1.000,000 of the most virulent poison was introduced ir'b a water supply “it would not kill a fly.” Mr Anderton: It will in time. Mr Carr: Oh, yes. The fly will die sooner or later, but so do we all—fluorine or no fluorine.

Hastings was built on a swamp, and from its artesian water supplies might come marsh gas. which could cause the ills some persons claimed they felt and attributed to the fluorine in the water, continued Mr Carr. “When we have the frightful record we have in this country of dental caries. then it is not asking much even i if people are compelled if necessary to protect the nation in this manner,” “No possible deleterious result can comfr from that infinitesimal quantity of fluorine,” said Mr Carr. Mr T. L. Hayman (Government, Oamaru), urged the Hastings community to keep an open mind on the ex-

periment. The opposition to the fluorine experiment fell into the same category as that which was opposed to vaccination and other similar health protection measures. In the United States the record of 32 “paired” cities —fluorine and non-fluorine—showed no deterioration in the physical health of the inhabitants, but a great improvement in dental health.

“If we don’t improve our dental health, then the Social Security Fund will have one more load to bring it nearer collapse,” said Mr Hayman. “Whole Case Badly Handled” Mr A. H. Nordmeyer (Opposition, Brooklyn) said he could not escape the conclusion that the whole case had been badly handled. Much of the opposition to the Hastings experiment could have been avoided had there been a wiser approach to it and had the borough council sought the confidence and support of the people. A commission of inquiry into fluoridation should be set up, said Mr Nordmeyer, to decide whether a-local body should conduct the experiment. There was no basis for an inquiry, and the case against fluoridation had been grossly exaggerated, said Mr T. P. Shand (Government, Marlborough).

It was part of a world-wide experiment.

Mr Carr: Not to see whether it’s any good, but to see how good it is. Mr Shand: That’s it exactly. I object to the attitude taken up a few moments ago where members were trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Mr H. G. R. Mason (Opposition, Waitakere) said that New Zealand had a clear duty to investigate fluorine, and it was surprising that it had been left for so long. The consent of a community was important, but there was a clear duty to make the experiment. Miss M. B. Howard (Opposition, Sydenham) said that no council had the right to use a group of people in ” experiment withr '.heir

an -mem .<.nout their consent, and in this case the Health Depart-! ment was doing so willy-nilly.. She said that 300 American towns had rejected fluoridation in public water’ supplies, and nine towns had aban-1 doned the experiment. In Britain, the Ministry of Health had approved the, experiment, but housewives had op-' posed it. Not nearly enough investiga-i tion had been made of the value of! fluorine, and it had many distinguished opponents.' In -New Zealand, housewives might band together in opposing its introduction. “It might become an election issue.” she said. “It should become an election issue.” Minister’s Views

The Minister of Health (Mr J. R. Marshall) doubted whether many Would support legislation prohibiting the addition of fluorine to water supplies. “I think we should at least give it a trial and see whether it works. a$ I personally hope it will?’ he said. A referendum was not the % wisest method for the community to decide. Properly the decision was for elected representatives controlling the water supply. The Health Department, he said, was making cheeks continually as the experiment in Hastings continued.

“I think it can be said without fear of contradiction that all public health authorities have approved fluoridation,” he said.

Mr Anderton: Conditions,in England are entirely different. Mr Marshall: That is so. and we are dissuading other authorities until we see the results from Hastings. Mr J. Mathison (Opposition. Avon): What are you afraid of if you’re discouraging them? Mr Marshall: I didn’t say we were afraid. We simply want to see the results of progress in Hastings. Replying to the discussion, Mr Barnes said that definite results from the Hastings experiment might not be available for 10 to 15 years, but he understood some indications would be available in six years.