Fluoridation

Press, 2 July 1979, Page 16

Fluoridation

Sir, —The decision to reject fluoridation of the city’s water supply by the health and public utilities committees of the City Council is to be commended. However, some of the comments made by Crs Close and Garrett, who support fluoridation, are disturbing. Cr Close said that maximum public freedom was desirable, “but only so far, as it is, for the public good.” Many citizens will be concerned at such a remark from a democratically elected councillor and will see it as an abuse of his position to adopt such a cavalier manner towards the rights and individual choice of those who elected him. Crs Close and Garrett were elected to look after the general interests and local services to ratepayers, not to be our “guardians of health” and endeavour to push their views of dental treatment by compulsory fluoridation.

Their energies would be better spent in trying to reduce expenditure.—Yours, etc. C. G. MARSHALL. June 29, 1979.

Sir,- —-Your report (June 29) on Sir Robert Macfarlane’s statement that “medical opinion throughout the world is divided about the effects of fluoridation” is a clear indication of the utter futility of a referendum on this subject. Here is a respected citizen with easy access to information who has apparently not made the effort to read it. How then can we expect other lesser mortals to research the question and make informed decisions? Anti-fluoridation groups try to create the illusion of a scientific and medical controversy on the subject but no such controversy exists. Included among strong advocates of fluoridation are the World Health Organisation, Royal College of Physicians, American Medical Association, and New Zealand Department of Health. From which other medical authorities must Sir Robert have a favourable report before he is satisfied as to the proven safety and effectiveness of fluoridation? —Yours, etc.,

L. A. GLASS. June 29, 1979.

Sir, —Dr Stanley, of the dentists’ fluoridation committee attacks Mr Meechin and the Metropolitan Ratepayers’ Association for “inaccurate propaganda.” It is a historical fact that on September 25, 1978, Judge Flaherty at the Allegheny Court in the United States pronounced the cancer-fluorida-tion link proven. The judge said that point by point every criticism the defendants made of the BunkYiamouyiannis study was met by the plaintiffs. Often the point was turned against, the defendants (the dentists). This court was compellingly convinced of the evidence in favour of the plaintiffs.. It is significant that Dr Daniel Traves, a witness called on behalf of the defendants, acknowledged certain unresolved doubts concerning the safety of fluoridation. The judge’s ruling is not propaganda.—Yours, etc., PAMELA PHIPPS. June 30, 1979.