When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
2:50pm Thursday 25th June 2009 in
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.
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.
Comments(20)
Condor Man
says...
3:42pm Thu 25 Jun 09
John Hannides 69
says...
3:49pm Thu 25 Jun 09
ju_ju68 wrote:Don't use your taps!
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!
Frankacne
says...
3:53pm Thu 25 Jun 09
Oracle1
says...
4:01pm Thu 25 Jun 09
StanB
says...
4:42pm Thu 25 Jun 09
Polygonia
says...
4:53pm Thu 25 Jun 09
Jparcoeur
says...
5:15pm Thu 25 Jun 09
southy
says...
5:25pm Thu 25 Jun 09
ju_ju68 wrote: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.
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!
paul fareham
says...
5:47pm Thu 25 Jun 09
Oracle1
says...
5:58pm Thu 25 Jun 09
paul fareham wrote:Paul,
Why expect Nanny to allow you freedom of choice. Maybe all those who voted in this Nanny Party in '97 should appologise.
southy
says...
6:09pm Thu 25 Jun 09
Oracle1 wrote: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.
paul fareham wrote:Paul,
Why expect Nanny to allow you freedom of choice. Maybe all those who voted in this Nanny Party in '97 should appologise.
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...
6:22pm Thu 25 Jun 09
Grumpy San
says...
6:46pm Thu 25 Jun 09
saintjak
says...
7:12pm Thu 25 Jun 09
attwood
says...
7:45pm Thu 25 Jun 09
Condor Man
says...
8:14pm Thu 25 Jun 09
southy wrote: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.
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
Hythe
says...
9:15pm Thu 25 Jun 09
McSholing
says...
1:22am Fri 26 Jun 09
stephenpeckham
says...
9:30am Fri 26 Jun 09
Jparcoeur wrote: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.
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.
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Search for jobs with the Daily Echo
Search Now »
Find the right person for you with the Daily Echo
Search Now »
Search for homes with the Daily Echo
Search Now »
Search for cars with the Daily Echo
Search Now »
ju_ju68 says...
3:21pm Thu 25 Jun 09