FLUORIDE could be added to Southampton's tap water even if a majority of residents say they do not want it.

Under the rules of the three-month consultation due to launch in August, health chiefs will not just look at how many people say yes or no to the controversial plans.

Instead they will also examine who has said what, and how they have arrived at their opinion.

It means that if people have said they are against the scheme, but have not relied on recognised scientific evidence to help form their conclusions, their views could be ignored.

The news comes just a day after the Daily Echo revealed results of our snapshot poll in which votes against fluoridation outnumbered those in favour by two to one.

We received more than 25,000 votes in our eight-day poll, designed to gauge residents' views ahead of the official consultation to be run by South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA), which oversees healthcare in the region.

An overwhelming 67 per cent said they were against the fluoridation plans, but city health chiefs behind the scheme have already dismissed the results as unrepresentative of actual public opinion.

They point to an independent survey carried out earlier this year which showed more people are in favour of fluoridation than against it.

But even that ICM poll concluded that just 28 per cent of Southampton people questioned backed the scheme, compared with 22 per cent against.

Another 20 per cent said they neither supported or opposed fluoridation, with the rest saying they didn't know.

In March, Southampton's political health supremo, Cllr Ivan White, sponsored a city council motion backing a full consultation, which gained cross-party support.

The Cabinet member for health last night said he would be concerned if some opinions were discounted during that consultation process.

"Some people are against it on strong moral grounds that they don't agree with the state imposing something on them," said Cllr White.

"That is a legitimate reason for objecting, but it's not based on scientific data, so would that count?

"The body of evidence out there is completely contradictory. You could read both arguments and then make a decision, but it comes down to a personal preference if you accept one side or the other.

"All views should, in my opinion, be taken into account. It would be pretty judgmental to discount some views and not others.

"I would like to look at, and discuss, the way the consultation will proceed."

Department of Health rules for consultations say the SHA must look at "the extent of support for the proposal and the cogency of the arguments advanced".

That means if someone gives an opinion on the scheme, but then admits they don't know much about fluoridation, their views could be discounted.

The guidelines also say the SHA "cannot base its decision solely on a simple count of the representations for or against the proposal".

Instead, health chiefs must look at whether responses are "evidence-based", the quality of research they are founded on, the relevance of the health arguments, and the nature of the individual or body making the comment.

The rules say the SHA can only then approve the proposal if it "is satisfied that the health arguments in favour of proceeding with the proposal outweigh all arguments against proceeding".

Click here for out extensive archive of reports, maps and stories relating to Hampshire's fluoride debate.