THE PRESS FRIDAY, AUGUST 29, 1980. Distractions on fluoridation

Press, 29 August 1980, Page 12

THE PRESS FRIDAY, AUGUST 29, 1980. Distractions on fluoridation

The Christchurch City Council, led by the Mayor, Mr Hamish Hay, and by Cr Mollie Clark, is engaging in a serious misdirection of public understanding and assessment of the fluoridation question. Convinced, or fearful, that the subject of fluoridating water supplies to protect teeth against decay is a matter of great public contention, they do not want the matter to become an election issue. That is fair enough if it distracts from more important matters and can be settled in its own way.

If both factions in the council stick to the view that a referendum should determine whether the city’s water supply be fluoridated, that is also, reasonable and the view that the electors should first be well and reliably informed on the question is beyond dispute. If the council wants to evade making the decision itself, it should at least ensure that the referendum is conducted with the local authority elections in October. The fact that the council has taken no steps to do so suggests : that it is not even serious about getting an informed opinion from the majority of electors. The referendum could probably, still be arranged for October. If all the rubbish and distortions about fluoridation were thrown away, the question is not a difficult one to con-, sider and to present to the public. The reallv. disquieting part of the handling'of the issue is in the efforts of Mr Hay and Cr Clark to' drag in arguments about other spending by the council and the Government and topretend that this offers preferable

alternatives to a measure for dental health. In the broadest sense; any public expenditure on any item is an. alternative to/ spending ‘on - another item. Every need is relative to every other need if resources are limited.- To propose, as city leaders have(proposed, that public money would be better spent on extending the Christchurch Airport runway or ridding the city of smog is an evasive misdirection. State money has been allocated for these purposes, or will be allocated in due course. The central question is whether ratepayers be invited to spend a dollar or two a year to obtain better dental health, particularly for children, or to go on paying very many times that amount on personal and public bills for dentistry. If huge sums of public and private money can be diverted from dental bills, the chances of finding money for other services can only be increased, not diminished, by a small expenditure on fluoridation.

If th,e Christchurch City Council wants to. allocate money for an airport extension it has the cash standing to its credit to do so and this is money that cannot be spent for any other purpose. If the important battle for clean air is to be fought more keenly it can be fought without reference to money spent on dental care. The Government subsidy for fluoridation is no doubt much less than.the public cost of the dental damage that fluoridation could avert. This.is not a reason for rejecting the subsidy and for failing to offer a benefit to citizens that is enjoyed elsewhere without any known harm.