Fluoride referendum ‘a stalling tactic’

Press, 18 December 1985, Page 8

Fluoride referendum ‘a stalling tactic’

Waimairi District councillors are using the fluoridation referendum as a “stalling tactic,” according to an anti-fluoridationist, Mr Niel Kay. “We have got no faith that the referendum will be acted on,” said Mr Kay, who is a member of the Concerned Citizens of Waimairi Association.

The council had already called for public opinion on the fluoride debate, but had ignored it. Last December, in spite of 175 submissions against and only 22 submissions for fluoridation, the council had opted to keep adding fluoride to the water.

The recent ratepayer survey had shown a clear majority of 56 per cent against fluoridation (of the 15,000 who responded), but instead of removing fluoride the council decided last evening to hold a referendum at the local government elections in October.

“If they can’t disseminate information to the public from the opinion poll, why should they be able to do so from a referendum?” Anti-fluoridationists would now “hit them where it hurts most — at the ballot box,” said Mr Kay.

The principal dental officer of the Health Department, Mr H. B. Brinnan, is also not particularly happy with the decision to hold a referendum. Referenda traditionally resulted in the loss of fluoride from the water supply, he said. The council’s decision had passed over the scientific facts and any further decision would be political. There was no evidence to suggest that fluoride did not work or was dangerous. Fluoride had existed in groundwater naturally in large parts of India, Africa, and Europe for years and the only difference appeared to be that teeth were naturally better in those parts. It was easy to produce a smear campaign against fluoride. Anti-fluoridation-ists had kept up with the times in their choice of syndromes that fluoride was supposed to have caused. A.I.D.S. and cot deaths were the latest fluoride-induced syndromes in a list which included mongolism, cancer, and repetition strain injury he said. “It is highly emotive stuff,” said Mr Brinnan. A member of the Dental

Association, Mr E. B. Dick, was surprised that the council should need to hold a referendum after conducting what it considered was a “very successful” survey. From the survey it appeared that 20 per cent of Waimairi’s adult population were opposed to fluoridation. (There are 41,000 electors in Waimairi). Mr Dick said he would assume that everyone who wanted to get rid of fluoridation would have made sure they were included in the survey. “I am surprised that the council was not able to decide whether to continue fluoridation for themselves.” He thought the final decision on fluoridation would probably be one of political expediency. Fluoride was a safe, and economical way of preventing tooth decay, he said. There was no evidence to link it with the conditions described by anti-fluorida-tionists. If there were all the harmful effects, people living in towns such as Hastings, which had been fluoridated for 30 years, would be in a dreadful medical condition. They were not. Criticism had been levelled at the medical and

dental experts for not publicising the case for fluoride enougtL

Mr Dick said there was probably some truth in that criticism because dentists and the Dental Association, who had promoted the use* of fluoride for years, were now tired of the issue.

At the moment they were not enthusiastically pushing for fluoride when it would seem from studies and scientific evidence that the benefits of fluoride were obvious.

“You need only to look at the teeth of children today and compare them with those of their parents.”

The outcome of the referendum was not necessarily a foregone conclusion, he said. Although most referenda did result in fluoride being removed, a referendum in Nowra, Australia, had resulted in its retention.

The Waimairi District Clerk, Mr Peter Chapple, said that the result of the referendum would be accepted by the council unless there was an extraordinary reason not to, such as a onevote difference.