FAN Bulletin 1009

Nov 13, 2008
 
Dear Supporter,

Below we will be discussing how both Australia and the UK attempt to thwart genuine democracy on the fluoridation issue. First, let me thank all those who kindly offered to translate the Professionals’ Statement into other languages. We already have offers under way for Danish, French, Italian, Spanish, German and Russian translations. So if you have friends and colleagues in any country speaking one of these languages please get your appeal letter ready for sending. We will post the translations on our home page as they appear.

Thwarting democracy.

We saw in the Nov 4 referenda in the US, as well as previous votes, such as in Juneau, Alaska, that when citizens are treated to a fair hearing of both sides of the fluoridation issue they tend to vote against the practice.  This is why pro-fluoridation governments are very reluctant to give citizens this choice. They know it is highly likely that citizens will reject this outdated practice at the ballot box. Thus, it is interesting to see the different ways that pro-fluoridation governments circumvent the public’s right to vote on this matter. Here I will compare the Australian approach and the UK approach.

Australia’s blunt approach

State governments in Australia, especially in New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria, are very blunt about it. They simply deny the right of citizens to vote at all. In various ways they tell their citizens: “You are getting fluoride in your water whether you want it or not.” They accompany this with the usual tactics:

– They give solo presentations behind closed doors, but refuse to defend their position in open public debate.
– They mobilize the medical and dental lobbies to provide their clockwork endorsements.
– They put out fluffy propaganda brochures (nearly always blue and white with smiling children gracing the cover).

The astounding ignorance of these state governments is only matched by their arrogance. The most gross example of that arrogance was shown by Premier Anna Bligh of Queensland who came storming into her “appointed” position with mandatory fluoridation at the very top of her agenda. Hopefully, when citizens in Queensland get the chance to vote at the next election they will remember the way their democratic rights have been treated by this individual.

The UK Consultation Process

In the UK, the government has set up a more subtle way of circumventing the citizen’s right to vote on fluoridation. They are setting up a “consultation process” whereby they provide the citizens the illusion of “participation.” Such a participatory process would be welcomed if at the end of the day the citizens got to vote on the matter. In the British process the same officials who have made it clear that they wholeheartedly endorse fluoridation will make the final decision.  

In Southampton, the pro-fluoridation “strategic health authority” (SHA) has set up an elaborate process which pretends to offers the citizenry a “say in the matter.” The British have an exquisite talent for making an intrinsically unfair process appear fair. They didn’t build a huge empire without a tremendous ability to do this.  

Within the confines of a “participatory process” in which the outcome is pre-determined they can afford to be very even handed.  For example, I have been invited to participate in three public meetings (October 20, November 18 and December 3). These public meetings feature two proponents (including the Chief Dental Officer of the UK) and two opponents. I am one of the latter. The press is calling these meetings “debates” but we are not being given the opportunity to make formal presentations. We are simply there to answer questions from the chair and the floor. I have to say that first meeting was scrupulously chaired by a well respected local radio host.

Even within these limited confines I hope we can expose what is going on and get local citizens angry enough to demand a vote on the matter. At the first meeting, even though the audience included a considerable number of employees from the pro-fluoridation local health authority, a show of hands indicated a sizeable majority was opposed to fluoridation, but this information didn’t quite make it into the press accounts ( http://fluoride.ecobytes.net/Alert/United-Kingdom/England/Southampton-No-winners-yet-in-fluoride-debate ).  Meanwhile, in what appears to be a carefully orchestrated PR campaign, local health bosses have already declared their support for fluoridation ( http://fluoride.ecobytes.net/Alert/United-Kingdom/England/Southampton-s-fluoride-plan-gets-backing-from-health-bosses ) and the Southampton council voted 4 to 3 to go ahead with the program ( http://fluoride.ecobytes.net/Alert/United-Kingdom/England/Southampton-Panel-split-on-fluoride-but-votes-in-favour-by-4-to-3 ). So much for hearing from both sides before making up their minds!

However, the promoters are not getting all their own way in controlling this discussion. This is what a local MP  wrote to the paper about the way he saw the process:

Fluoride ? is it a crooked ballot?
November 2, 2008, Daily Echo
By Julian Lewis
Conservative MP for New Forest East
http://fluoride.ecobytes.net/Alert/United-Kingdom/England/Southampton-Fluoride-is-it-a-crooked-ballot

LAST month South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) sent me its public consultation document on adding fluoride to the water supply in some parts of our area. In section 5 we are told that “all views and comments, together with the best scientific evidence, will be taken into account” before any final decision, which “will not be based solely on a simple count of the representation for or against the proposal”.

There is no doubt that highly qualified scientists disagree about the possible long-term effects on adults of adding a chemical to the water supply primarily for the benefit of infants. For that reason, I incline towards the “no” camp; “if in doubt leave it out” seems to me a sensible precaution where adding chemicals to everyone’s water supply is concerned.

The problem with the SHA document is that its authors clearly have their mind made up. The pros and cons are supposedly set out on pages 15-23. The first page-and-a-half sets out the benefits without challenge. The remaining 7 pages set out the objections ? but only to rebut them in each and every case.

Partiality

The prize for partiality must go to Southampton City Primary Care Trust, which has evidently spent shedloads of public money producing and distributing blatantly one-sided propaganda. My favourite is the glossy postcard (with prepaid first-class postage) for people to sign and send off to the SHA ? despite the fact that the SHA says it will not be relying solely on the number of responses received.

We all know a crooked ballot when we see one ? and this is a crooked ballot. The SHA reserves the right to disregard the numbers of people responding and to reply instead on its own assessments of the arguments deployed. Yet, they themselves have already indicated their complete rejection of the arguments deployed against fluoridation. They will undoubtedly use a flood of returned postcards ? with little space to deploy arguments ? to boost their already-made decision in favour for fluoridation, even though these had been unfairly generated by the abuse of public funds to promote only one side of the argument.

The Cabinet Office code of practice on such consultations requires that “Responses should be carefully and open-mindedly analysed”. This is clearly not happening. Has someone out there enough money to bring a court case to stop a tainted consultation leading to a tainted water supply?

I would add that the South Central SHA’s public consultation document (referred to above) is  very slick. Many unsuspecting citizens will be fooled. I will be reviewing the propaganda material in this brochure in a future bulletin because similar material is being used in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.

More good news is coming from the New Forest District Council, which contains the town of Totton which will be affected by the plan to fluoridate. Interestingly the charge is being led by a former dentist, Tony Swain, who is on the Council. This is how the press reported the meeting where the New Forest District Council’s Health and Wellbeing review panel, agreed that the authority should fight fluoridation.

Excerpt from:  Former dentist raps fluoridation scheme
November 10, 2008, This is Hampshire
http://fluoride.ecobytes.net/Alert/United-Kingdom/England/Southampton-Former-dentist-raps-fluoridation-scheme

Cllr Swain, who represents Lymington, said the first community to have fluoride added to its drinking water was Grand Rapids in Michigan, USA. “That was 60 years ago and we’re still arguing about it,” he said. “If it’s so wonderful why hasn’t it been done everywhere?”

Cllr Swain said people who wanted to guard against dental decay should brush their teeth three times a day and use a fluoride rinse. He added: “I wouldn’t recommend people to drink a glass of fluoridated water because it wouldn’t do any good at all. Fluoride has got to go on the teeth.”

Lyndhurst councillor Pat Wyeth warned that there too many “unknowns” surrounding fluoride in drinking water.

Brockenhurst member Maureen Holding added: “Fluoride is a poison. We’re told it can help people in small doses but I’m not sure that it does.”

Members spoke out after studying a report produced by Annie Righton, the council’s head of public health and community safety. She said: “I’ve worked in public health for 22 years and I don’t think I’ve ever dealt with an issue as controversial as this.”

Panel members agreed to urge the full council to oppose fluoridation.

In a separate debate, members of Totton and Eling Town Council described the scheme as an unwanted form of mass medication.

Former council chairman David Harrison said: “I’m totally opposed to proposals to add fluoride to the water. If I had any doubts about the matter they were quickly dispelled by the poor quality of the consultation undertaken by the health authorities. Instead of adopting a neutral, listening approach they have been engaging in the worst kind of spin.”

In a couple of days I will be of to Europe to participate in the second and third public meetings, Nov 18 and Dec 3, with a trip to Italy in between.

Paul Connett.

PS -  When I get back in December we will be launching our annual fund raising effort. Those who wish to give us a much needed head start on this can make a tax ?deductible contribution by going to FAN’s secure online DONATE NOW site at https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?aid=5061

Meanwhile, don’t forget to use this site for many of FAN’s videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/fluoridealert