News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


Anger as MPs say no to Southampton fluoridated water review


IT was a plea from 15,000 residents – but one that looks set to be ignored.

Campaigners opposing a bid to fluoridate water supplies in Hampshire had called on the Government to re-examine the plans.

But in what has been branded a “kick in the teeth”, ministers have knocked back calls to look again at the scheme to add fluoride to the water supplies of nearly 200,000 homes in and around Southampton.

It comes just a month after campaigners delivered a 15,300-name petition to the Prime Minister calling on him to intervene and take action.

Click below to see a video of today's headlines in sixty seconds

Announcing the decision in the Commons, Ann Keen, the parliamentary under-secretary of state for health services, said the Government is firmly in favour of fluoridation “because of the potential it offers for reducing inequalities in oral health”.

It comes despite Gordon Brown telling the Daily Echo earlier this year the decision should be “up to local people”.

And this month, Southampton’s two Labour MPs said they believe the scheme must be put on hold because of public opposition.

Mrs Keen said the law stated the Stragic Health Authority (SHA) did not have to listen to public views opposing it, if it was happy the scientific evidence proves fluoride would improve dental health.

She also said it “would not be appropriate” to call in the SHA’s decision for examination, because of a legal bid that has also been launched against it that could yet see a judicial review into the process.

As revealed in the Daily Echo, the Royal Courts of Justice is considering an application from a Southampton woman to scrutinise the SHA board’s unanimous decision to give fluoridation the green light.

Chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation John Spottiswoode said he thought the legal challenge was an excuse for the Government to hide behind.

“They don’t need to wait for the judicial review – they could just tell the SHA not to contest it, and save all the time and money involved,” he said.

“They are just refusing to listen to the people.

“It’s a kick in the teeth for those people who have clearly said they don’t want it, and I think they will feel angry they are being ignored.”

The SHA, which has set aside £400,000 to fight the legal challenge, has repeatedly insisted it met all legal criteria during its public consultation last year.

During the consultation, of the 10,000 responses received 72 per cent of those from residents in the affected area – covering parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams – were opposed to fluoridation.

New Forest East MP Julian Lewis, who has already lodged a complaint with the health service ombudsman because he believes the SHA was biased, said he was disgusted with Mrs Keen’s comments in response to questions he tabled.

See today's paper for more on this story


Comments(20)

ju_ju68 says...
3:21pm Thu 25 Jun 09

There we are! yet again the public have no voice! we are not allowed to choose our PM, and we are not allowed to choose if we drink poision or not!

Condor Man says...
3:42pm Thu 25 Jun 09

It's simple, vote Denham and Whitehead out next year. They were too quiet for too long on this matter.

John Hannides 69 says...
3:49pm Thu 25 Jun 09

ju_ju68 wrote:
There we are! yet again the public have no voice! we are not allowed to choose our PM, and we are not allowed to choose if we drink poision or not!
Don't use your taps!

Frankacne says...
3:53pm Thu 25 Jun 09

A PM who is scared a tells lies, MPs who lie through their teeth, MPs who follow thei herd for their own safety, MPs who are in total denial about the scientific and medical facts of fluoride, MPs like Burnham that pushes flurodie through parliament whilst gettting money from parliament to promote fluoride. he is not really Minister of Health he is minister of death to democracy. Give him and his crony, Johnson the push as soon as possible. No way am i voting for this bunch of morons.

Oracle1 says...
4:01pm Thu 25 Jun 09

Regardless of the overwhelming medical evidence that says fluoridation is a bad idea, the fact is we have said no. You have got to wonder what the overall agenda is, why be so persistent?

Statute law dictates that this can only go through with the consent of the governed, either passively or actively. We will need the majority to stand up to this and say no, it only takes a letter otherwise it will go through passively due to the number of people in the region. Do something for someone else, your kids, their kids, animals etc.

StanB says...
4:42pm Thu 25 Jun 09

I believe it is against the law to dispose of this toxic waste in the seas. some 90% of this water with the fluoride added will finish up in Southampton Water, how can this be allowed?

Polygonia says...
4:53pm Thu 25 Jun 09

The answer is easy,just vote out all the Councillors and MPs that have forced us to have Fluoride against our will.

Jparcoeur says...
5:15pm Thu 25 Jun 09

I honestly don't know what worries me more, that people ignore all of the data on flouride which has been used safely for fifty years or that the government is completely ignoring what the people want. The only thing more dangerous than an uneducated population incapable of critical scientific thought are leaders telling them what to do. I guess that puts me on the side of anti-flouridators, but for democratic, not scientific reasons.

southy says...
5:25pm Thu 25 Jun 09

ju_ju68 wrote:
There we are! yet again the public have no voice! we are not allowed to choose our PM, and we are not allowed to choose if we drink poision or not!
really you should not vote for a PM he not the party, you should be voting on there manifest, this where a lot off people make errors, ever since 1979. when a woman was voted in and not her manifest if people took the time just to read the manifest and try to under stand what its about and how it will work for you.

paul fareham says...
5:47pm Thu 25 Jun 09

Why expect Nanny to allow you freedom of choice. Maybe all those who voted in this Nanny Party in '97 should appologise.

Oracle1 says...
5:58pm Thu 25 Jun 09

paul fareham wrote:
Why expect Nanny to allow you freedom of choice. Maybe all those who voted in this Nanny Party in '97 should appologise.
Paul,

I apologise, I do however think the left and right now are just puppets for the true power in this world.
For anybody that's interested look up a new organisation called 38 degrees, they are well worth looking at, concerned with people power, change etc.

southy says...
6:09pm Thu 25 Jun 09

Oracle1 wrote:
paul fareham wrote:
Why expect Nanny to allow you freedom of choice. Maybe all those who voted in this Nanny Party in '97 should appologise.
Paul,

I apologise, I do however think the left and right now are just puppets for the true power in this world.
For anybody that's interested look up a new organisation called 38 degrees, they are well worth looking at, concerned with people power, change etc.
umm what left power, theres been none since 1979, labour is now right wing, thats how come this 38 degrees has so much power well not power more off a say it what,s going to happen and its all people with money doing the dictating, 80% off the worlds wealth is owned by 2% off the worlds population.

southy says...
6:22pm Thu 25 Jun 09

if you really want change and you want it that badly then the best thing you can do is vote for the socialist party, its a party by the people for the people

Grumpy San says...
6:46pm Thu 25 Jun 09

Whatever the pros and cons are of adding fluoride to the water my argument is that these people are taking away my rite to drink water ( that I pay for)without fluoride in it unless I buy bottled water.If I smoke, drink, or take drugs that is MY choice. This Labour government brought in the human rites act why then don't they abide by it and take notice of what many people are saying?

saintjak says...
7:12pm Thu 25 Jun 09

congrats to all those who voted Labour...

attwood says...
7:45pm Thu 25 Jun 09

I have a son who has only one kidney we live in totton were the fluoride is supposed to be added if these people want the fluoride added to the water if its safe why can't they tell me if the fluoride will damage my son's only kidney I have ask the question but no one will answer me.I have been told it can get into your body through the skin as well and the liver and kidney's cannot get rid of it .Please can someone tell me is this fluoride going to damage my son's health!!

Condor Man says...
8:14pm Thu 25 Jun 09

southy wrote:
if you really want change and you want it that badly then the best thing you can do is vote for the socialist party, its a party by the people for the people
really? a party for the people? not people who go to work every day, have mortgages (all property is theft), have pensions and investments or want to succeed in life.

Hythe says...
9:15pm Thu 25 Jun 09

It is disgusting that they can do this, I won't be drinking the water, but it won't but the council will prefer that, using less water. I have good teeth and have never needed flouride posioned water, the problem is the kkids with rotting teeth, will drink coke etc rather than water, and prob arn't incouraged to clean their teeth!! its absolutley wrong!

McSholing says...
1:22am Fri 26 Jun 09

Is it me or is this getting real scary now? It appears THEY have decided that a lot of the population of South central England WILL be force-fed this s**t. Increased prices on bottled water coming our way soon no doubt.

stephenpeckham says...
9:30am Fri 26 Jun 09

Jparcoeur wrote:
I honestly don't know what worries me more, that people ignore all of the data on flouride which has been used safely for fifty years or that the government is completely ignoring what the people want. The only thing more dangerous than an uneducated population incapable of critical scientific thought are leaders telling them what to do. I guess that puts me on the side of anti-flouridators, but for democratic, not scientific reasons.
Unfortunately there is not a large amount of evidence that shows water fluoridation is safe. In fact the three most recent reviews of the research (York Review 2000, Australian NHMRC 2007, USA NRC 2006) raise a number of concerns about safety. The York Review which is considered still to be the most thorough analysis of the research identified that there was a lack of any good research and that it was not possible to state confidently that water fluoridation is effective or safe. There have been consistent calls for further research - especially on the effects on children. In fluoridated areas studies have shown that dental fluorosis (an indication of systemic toxicity) are anywhere between 30 and 58%. Levels of moderate to severe dental fluorosis (which causes damage to the tooth enamel)have been shown to affect at least 2% of the population. Other countries are either withdrawing water fluoridation of reducing the levels of fluoride in the water (Canada, Eire an dHong Kong). The harmful effects of fluoride are well documented. Fluoride accumulates in the body and it is accepted that ingested fluoride has no effect on dental decay. It is important that people are aware of the evidence on fluoride - and the lack of evidence on effectiveness. What is needed is a little more honesty about the evidence from those who are so keen to pursue the introduction of water fluoridation.


No winners yet in fluoride debate Anger as MPs say no the fluoride review

Most popular






Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses