When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
3:10pm Saturday 27th June 2009 in
GIVE us a vote. The Daily Echo today backs calls for a referendum on controversial plans to fluoridate Hampshire’s tap water.
Campaigners argue that faith in democracy has been damaged by health chiefs approving the scheme to add fluoride to the water supplies of nearly 200,000 homes, despite widespread opposition.
Calls for a direct referendum on the controversial plans have been made by opponents of fluoride, and one of the city’s most powerful politicians.
Earlier this month campaigners delivered a 15,300-name petition to Downing Street, urging the Prime Minister to step into the row over fluoridation.
During last year’s public consultation, more than 10,000 responses were submitted to South Central Strategic Health Authority.
Of those from people in the affected area, 72 per cent said they were against it.
In a separate phone poll of 2,000 residents, 32 per cent said they would like to see fluoride added to tap water.
But 38 per cent said they opposed the plans, affecting parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams.
The SHA board approved the scheme, saying they had gathered opinion as required by law, but were convinced by scientific evidence showing fluoride will improve dental health in the city.
Southampton city council’s deputy leader, Cllr Royston Smith, said he was normally opposed to using referenda, but wanted to see one on fluoridation.
“People are rightfully saying what’s the point of asking me and us being part of the political system if we’re just going to be ignored,” said Cllr Smith, who is standing for the Tories in Southampton Itchen at the next election.
“What annoys me is this is an act of political cowardice by the Government. They have devolved responsibility to the SHA and are then saying it’s not us that made the decision.
“Actually on this point, it is time we put it to a democratic vote and let the people have their say.”
Hampshire Against Fluoridation’s chairman John Spottiswoode said his group had always favoured a referendum as the best way to decide on the subject.
“Why have a consultation if you’re going to ignore what the people say, and the other issue is it is fundamentally unethical to force people to take something without their consent,” he said.
“A referendum would properly sort that one out.
“But if you do have a referendum it has got to be done on a level playing field and people are given proper access to information on both sides.”
SHA campaigns manager Kevin McNamara said the authority has no view over what the law should be, but simply follows what it says.
“The SHA is required to follow the law that’s in place at this current time, and if the law was subject to any change we would follow that,” he said.
“The issue of what that law should be is for politicians to debate in Parliament and decide on, we just work within that law.
“That’s what the politicians have done with this legislation, which was decided through a free vote, and we’re working within it.”
Comments(13)
soton1980
says...
12:36pm Sat 27 Jun 09
Big Boy
says...
1:43pm Sat 27 Jun 09
goard
says...
2:07pm Sat 27 Jun 09
Oracle1
says...
3:44pm Sat 27 Jun 09
Andy Locks Heath
says...
4:05pm Sat 27 Jun 09
southy
says...
4:24pm Sat 27 Jun 09
Redondo Saint
says...
4:27pm Sat 27 Jun 09
StanB
says...
5:23pm Sat 27 Jun 09
Condor Man
says...
6:17pm Sat 27 Jun 09
RJG
says...
6:51pm Sat 27 Jun 09
Condor Man
says...
7:10pm Sat 27 Jun 09
RJG wrote:how is not wanting flouride in water the same as denying climate change?
Could someone please ask John Spottiswoode whether he would also be in favour for a referendum on whether or not we should be cutting our carbon emissions? Because the arguments against fluoridation are exactly the same arguments as people who deny the scientific reality of climate change. He's not a real green- he's a Bad Science, reactionary, anti-science prat, and deserves to be called out as such.
Paramjit Bahia
says...
7:12pm Sat 27 Jun 09
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 »
steve7676 says...
11:25am Sat 27 Jun 09
First, Deborah Passow, special assistant to District Attorney Steve Cooley in Los Angeles, responded that attorney Thomas Papageorge, Head Deputy of the Consumer Protection Division, was given the list of eight counts of possible federal drug law violations by Metropolitan Water, which treats human tissues with its mixture without being registered with, nor approved by, the Food and Drug Administration. The fact that this DA didn't ignore the information is fantastic.
Second, the California Environmental Protection Agency placed fluoride salts in its highest category possible to review for regulations to minimize cancer-causing activity (http://www.fresnobe
e.com/547/story/1459
684.html). This turn of events occurred for several reasons: vast prospective experimental data on animal carcinogenity of unnatural fluoride, convincing epidemiological cancer data on humans in fluoridated versus non-fluoridated cities, and the fact that nearly 70 percent of U.S. water is injected with these agents. The FDA has been notified of these California activities.
The FDA labels toothpaste fluorides as drugs, fluoride drops as prescription drugs, and water fluoridation as uncontrolled use of drugs, where side effects and allowed daily doses can't be labeled.