City Councillors reject fluoridation for Christchurch

Press, 17 July 1979, Page 1

City Councillors reject fluoridation for Christchurch

A proposal to fluoridate the Christchurch water supply was defeated hv the Citv Council last night on a 10-7 vote.

As one councillor said, it was obvious that no-one changed his mind during an hour-long debate. Traditional arguments were made on both sides. Two councillors voting against fluoridation said they gave their own children fluoride tablets, but had no right to make that decision for others. Sir Robert Macfarlane said there were a “tremendous amount of people” opposed to fluoridation. It was their right to be consulted, through a referendum, even if councillors thought it was a good idea. Fluoridation supporters put opposing evidence to one side, and would not listen to critics, said Sir Robert. "That’s nonsense.” said Sir Terence McCombs.

Sir Robert said medical evidence was divided.

“Hardly at all,” said Cr Helen Garrett. “That’s nonsense.” Sir Robert said the council “has no mandate to deal with this matter.” Christchurch was, as usual, “a whole generation out of date,” Cr Garrett said. Fluoridation had been “a spectacular success” in other parts of New Zealand.

Opponents of fluoridation were misguided, she said, and the council had no right to “inflict unnecessary pain on children” by depriving them of fluoride. All councillors’ minds were already made up, said Cr D. F. Caygill. No-one was being persuaded in the debate. A referendum would be useless, said Cr Garrett. The average citizen would rely on hearsay, emotion and prejudice. Cr R. Lester said fluoridation had been called desirable, but not essential. It was a matter of financial priorities, and there was a cheap alternative in tablets. It would be a great injustice to impose fluoridation costs on all ratepayers. “Certainly we should not attempt tn med.ile with one

of nature’s greatest gifts,” said Cr P. J. R. Skellerup.

“I think doctors themselves are not sure. “Why did Holland declare fluoridation illegal?” he asked. “Whv did the White House and the Pentagon not have it when the Washington, D.C., water supply was fluoridated?” “I give my children fluoride tablets, but that is my choice,” said Cr R. A. Bamford. At the next election, councillors should take a

stand on fluoridation. Then they would see public opinion at work. ‘lt is quite clear the people I represent want me to vote against it,” said Cr Noala Massey. “1 oppose it myself.” Cr P. N. G. Blaxall said the matter should be reviewed in five years. By that time, there might be more conclusive evidence, one way or the other. The council reiected that

proposal. It could have been interpreted as closing off options to debate the issue again within five years.

Cr D. C. Close said he understood the concern of opponents, and respected their sincerity. But he was “amazed, astounded at the capacity of them and fellow councillors to ignore facts and evidence.”

The proposal’s defeat was “a victory for alarmist propaganda,” he said. Cr Mollie Clark said fluoridation supporters- in rejecting a referendum, reflected “health theorists who appear to have a low opinion of common men and women.” Sir Terence said for centuries many people had been drinking naturallyfluoridated water without harm. It was not a new experiment.

Those who voted against the fluoridation proposal were the Mayor (Mr H. G, Hay) and Crs Skellerup, Blaxall, Newton Dodge, R. H. Arbuckle, Bamford, Lester, Massey, Clark and and Sir Robert Macfarlane.

Supporting fluoridation were Crs Garrett, W. J. A. Brittenden, Close, D. J. Rowlands, P. W. AndersonCaygill and Sir Terence McCombs.