Decision Reserved On Fluoridation

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30230, 7 September 1963, Page 15

Decision Reserved On Fluoridation

(New Zealand Procs Association) WELLINGTON, September 5. The addition of fluoride was not necessary in any way to achieve a supply of pure water, Dr. G. P. Barton, counsel for plaintiff, submitted today in the Supreme Court.

He wae address: ng Mr Justice McGregor after the conclusion of evidence in the action in which the Court is asked to make an order refraining the Lower Hutt City Corporation from adding fluoride to the domestic

water supply. Although the nominal plaintiff was shown as the Attorney-General, the action is brought by two Lower Hutt residents, Robert Richard Lewis, a printer, and Eric Bernard Elliott, a warehouseman. His Honour reserved his decision.

Dr. Barton said the plaint:ffs were “concerned on behalf of a much broader sec•on of persons who think the same as they do about this question.” He submitted the evidence had established the fact that equipment for introducing fluoride was not equipment for the purpose of collecting or conveying water to any part of the Lower Hutt city district.

The fluoride introduced Into the water had no action on the water itself. The water was merely a vehicle for conveying the fluoride to the body. He also submitted that the evidence established that the ingestion of fluoride changed the structure of teeth. Dr. Barton contended that Lower Hutt city had no legal power to instal and op-

erate a plant for fluoridating tile water.

He said the equipment used did not fairly fall within the definition of waterworks.

Dr. Barton said the debate about fluoridation was a world-wide one and there had been considerable litigation about this question in other countries. "There has even been some argument that in fluoridating their water supplies local authorities have been practising medicine.” In his address. Mr D. L. Matheson, counsel for the Lower Hutt City Corporation. said the statutory powers upon which the corporation relied for its action in adding fluoride to the water were contained in the Municipal Corporations Act. 1954, and the Health Act. 1956.

“If anybody can be said to suffer from the fluoridation of the water supplies at Lower Hutt it is people who suffer only in respect of their opinions,” said Mr Matheson. “Whether or not these opinions are formed on scientific, moral, rational or fanatical grounds it is their opinion,” he said. “The evidence I submit clearly establishes that if there is any suffering involved it is not physical or medical suffering. It is suffering of an intellectual or emotional nature only.”