Fluoride subsidy unlikely to woo Chch council

Press, 26 August 1980, Page 1

Fluoride subsidy unlikely to woo Chch council

STAFF REPORTERS

A big Government fluoridation subsidy announced last evening by the Minister of Health (Mr Gair) is unlikely to change the minds of Christchurch councillors who oppose fluoridation. Mr Gair told the Dental 'Association’s national conference, in Dunedin, that the Government would give a $1 for $1 subsidy to every approved local body fluoridation project from April 1. Some Christchurch councillors have argued that fluoridation would be too expensive, but most arguments have centred on the political issue. About a year ago, the capital cost of chlorination and fluoridation of the citv- water supply was estimated at $900,000, with a veariv running cost of about $150,000 for the system; .■ Water fluoridation was rejected in principle in 1979'by a 10-7 vote on other grounds. Two councillors said they gave their own & children fluoride tablets, , but had no right tomake that decision for other residents. - In. Dunedin, the Dental Association is making fluofdiation expansion its main discussion topic. One of its remits says that the association “believes that the .Government should make mandatory the fluoridation of all water supplied, and should provide ,a full subsidy on fluoridation equip’ men.t.” Under the present water subsidv programme — until the April' 1. change — local bodies have been required to meet in full an initial cost of fluoridation capital works. That cost is $5 for each person in the community being served. ■

Mr Gairsaid the capital cost of providing fluoridation was generally less than $5 a resident. In some rases. »t could be about $2 a resident. Cr Helen Garrett, asked whether the increased financial assistance would change the local vote.

said: “I think it should, but I do riot think it would.” ’ , .

Last year’s move had been towards approval in principle for fluoridation, subject' to finance, becoming available but it had still been- rejected. ' Sir Terence McCombs, another.fluoride supporter, said' he. could: not 'say; how much' the' subsidy would influence councillors.. In hearings 20 years ago, he had said that the main difficulty in obtaining fluoridation was local body opinion. Councillor Mollie Clark said the new subsidy would not change her mind on the issue. She had always felt that the total cost should come out of the-health vote.

.Even then, the issue should be decided through a referendum. “If they (the ratepayers) wish it to come oiit of rates, so be it,” Cr Clark said. ■The Government’s present $1 for $2 fluoridation subsidy has been in existence since 1969. Christ-church-is one of nine big unfluoridated New Zealand centres. The others are Rotorua, Whangarei, Wanganui, Napier, Nelson, Blenheim, and Levin.

Mr Gair said the new subsidy would mean, ..in effect, that the Govem-

ment would meet half the costs of fluoridating water, including equipment, pipework and necessary buildings. About 54 per cent of New Zealanders now drink fluoridated water. Mr Gair’s announcement follows last week’s Human Rights Commission decision that fluoridation was riot an infringement of human rights.

Fluoridation was the single most effective way to prevent tooth decay, Mr Gair said.

The annual filling rate for the teeth of schoolchildren in fluoridated areas had dropped an average of 64 per cent since 1965, he said. The drop had been 58 per cent for each teen-ager since 1968 in those areas.

“In spite of the obvious benefits of this scienti-tifically-proven and safe public health measure, there, is a small minority of people who have sought to denigrate fluoridation by spreading groundless scare stories about an alleged link between fluoridation and cancer,” Mr Gair said. When that had failed, the group had tried to discredit fluoridation on legal grounds. That stand had been discredited by the Human Rights Commission decision.