'We'd throw fluoridation out with SHA' (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
'We'd throw fluoridation out with SHA'
9:30am Thursday 24th March 2011 in Fluoride
'We'd throw fluoridation out with SHA'
HEALTH chiefs are wasting time and money pressing ahead with plans to fluoridate water supplies – because council bosses would be able to simply switch it off again once they are handed public health powers, it was claimed last night.
South Central Strategic Health Authority has insisted it wants to go ahead with the scheme to add the chemical to tap water, saying it is needed to improve poor dental health in Southampton.
There are just months left before strategic health authorities are axed and their powers over public health are handed over to elected councillors.
The law is not yet in place, as the Health and Social Care Bill 2010-11, which includes the proposal to axe SHAs, is currently at the committee stage in Parliament.
A Department of Health spokeswoman said the de-tails would only be thrashed out once the bill has passed.
She added that no decision has been made on how that secondary legislation pro-cess will be completed and whether councils will be given the chance to have their say in how their powers are shaped. But if the law remains the same, even if the SHA is successful in getting fluoride into the water supply before it is scrapped, campaigners claim council bosses would be able to simply stop buying the chemical once they are in charge.
Hampshire Against fluoridation chairman Stephen Peckham said: “It could be done simply, subject to their will to do it.
“If they don’t think it is cost effective, they could cease water fluoridation, based on the law as it stands.
“Even if they have to go to consultation, if the law stays the same that consultation would surely mean they just have to stand outside the Civic Centre and ask someone what they think and that would be enough.”
Southampton’s deputy leader Jeremy Moulton said last night the council is “looking into” its legal position before any decision on how to proceed can be made.
He said: “If they put it in at considerable expense and then the council takes it out again at great expense that would not be very sensible.
“I would be making the case to the SHA that it would be crazy to make the decision and have it reversed.”
Comments(7)
waggers5
says...
9:55am Thu 24 Mar 11
Public health is too important to be used as a political football. If local councillors are not going to take their new responsibilities seriously, central government should think again about whether they are fit take them on.
SpittingFire
says...
10:04am Thu 24 Mar 11
waggers5 wrote:Why are you fretting waggers5? Have you not read the subtext in Jeremy's comments he made last night... The SHA will put it in, you are right. And if its at cost to the Council to have it taken out again it would not be "very sensible" - Money is tight at city hall.
"It would be crazy to make the decision..." - the decision has already been made, and it was the right one. Fluoridation is sorely needed in this area, and perfectly safe as evidenced by its use in Birmingham. The decision has been made by experts in healthcare and should not be reversed by politicians trying to score points.
Public health is too important to be used as a political football. If local councillors are not going to take their new responsibilities seriously, central government should think again about whether they are fit take them on.
southy
says...
11:30am Thu 24 Mar 11
SpittingFire wrote:i had said the same thing in the pass, once sha has lost it powers fluoride can be turned off, but its not the council that will have the power to do so, they can only ask, its the water supplier (swa) who have the power to do so. and they will because every additive that is added to water cost the swa money.
The title of this piece has been quoted. but the quote it is not in the article. Is it from Royston? Oh please let it be he! another great corker!
Shergold
says...
4:04pm Thu 24 Mar 11
you stated
"Fluoridation is sorely needed in this area, and perfectly safe as evidenced by its use in Birmingham"
What a load of rubbish!!! around 35% of kids in birmingham have flourosis !!so do 35% kids in ireland. Flouride solves nothing at all exept build up in your bones over time and give you more health problems later on in life.
But making parents more accountable or having a school tooth brushing program like they did in Sweden is a much better idea - and they had a worse problem than we did.
Experts have NOT made this decision the SHA were not the most ill informed/unqualifed lot to even amke a decision in the first place.
porkiepie
says...
6:57am Fri 25 Mar 11
pqp
says...
8:30am Fri 25 Mar 11
porkiepie wrote:If fluoride is effective or not this is not the issue here.
It's used in a few parts of England. I was bought up in the midlands so I have had it in my water for25 yrs of my life I don't have any health problems and my teeth are in pretty **** good condition. You state that .35% have flourish. What about the remaining ..... that obviously don't.... are u one of these half empty cup peeps... and id hardly say that is an accurate percentage. All for it in my water....bring it on.
The issue is we don't want to be forced-fed unwanted medication.
If you want to keep taking it, fine. But not my family please
ty
SpittingFire says...
9:50am Thu 24 Mar 11