FLUORIDE WARS - DOWN IN THE TRENCHES IN NEW ZEALAND

by Paul Connett

Dear All,

On Saturday June 8 I flew from Auckland in the North Island to Christchurch in the South Island. In Christchurch I was met by Don Church who filled me in on the recent victory in his home town of Ashburton.

Ashburton had been fluoridated for many years. Don Church has always been uneasy about fluoridation. He is an accountant and a very well known and respected member of the community. The turning point in the anti-fluoridation effort came when Don published a series of eight weekly articles in the local paper. I have read these articles and they are well researched and easy to read. They are also packed with references. I plan to distribute these articles via the IFIN bulletins as I think they will help crystallize the issue for many other communities in New Zealand and beyond. I hope Don will also distribute them in a booklet form. Shortly after these articles appeared the vote came before the council and they voted to halt fluoridation in Ashburton.

With fluoridation stopped in Ashburton it leaves only two cities and one small community fluoridated in the South Island. The two cities are Dunedin and Invercargill and the small community is Methven.

Methven is about 30 minutes from Ashburton. The population is about 1000. Recently the council there, in the wake of the Ashburton vote, voted 4 to 2 to continue fluoridation. I spoke in the local church in Methven on the evening of Saturday June 8. Even though we were competing with two major sporting events on TV we still managed to get about 25 people to the meeting. As usual all the local dentists and health district officials who support fluoridation in the area refused Don Church's invitation to a debate. Instead I donned my "dead chicken" tie in lieu of any "live" opponent. However, one of the councillors who voted for fluoridation, but who his well known for his fairness and open-mindedness, agreed to chair the meeting. After exposure to about two hours of the case against fluoridation citizens are hopeful that this councillor will change his mind. Meanwhile local campaigners, including a Green Party candidate, are organizing a door-to-door petition/questionnaire.

On Sunday, June 9, Don and Robin Church drove me to Timaru where we met up with anti-fluoridation legend Imelda Hitchcock. I was tempted to call her Dame Imelda because her voice was identical to that hilarious comic "Dame Edna". Imelda is 75 years old and is a great example of "grey power" in non-stop action. She has opposed fluoridation in Timaru for over 20 years.

Fluoridation began in Timaru in 1973. In 1985 after an informal poll organized by Imelda and other citizens, the council voted to remove fluoride from the water without a formal referendum because they realized the citizens would win the vote. But, those promoting fluoridation didn't throw in the towel and finally forced a formal referendum in 1995. However, after a three-on-three debate between the team of Dr. John Colquhoun, Dr. Mark Disiendorf and Dr. Bruce Spittle and local pro-fluoridationists, the citizens of Timaru voted over 2 to 1 to maintain their anti-fluoridation status. Still the pro-fluoridation forces haven't given up and continue to push for re-fluoridation. They are supported by the local health board and more recently by Ms Karen Poutassi (see part I). Like a rock Imelda has hung in there organizing a letter writing campaign to keep the pro-fluoridationists at bay.

For my visit Imelda organized a meeting on the evening of Monday June 10 at the Institute of the Blind , where she is an official. Imelda had hoped to get a debate but once again a whole host of people on the other side declined to participate and the "chicken tie" had to come out again. A coloured picture of myself wearing this chicken tie appeared on the front page of the local the newspaper the next day (see <http://www.fluoridealert.org> for an account of my visit to Timaru).

On Tuesday June 11 I travelled by bus from Timaru to Dunedin. It was a beautiful sunny day and the scenery on the journey was breathtaking. For much of the four hour journey the sea shore was on my left and mountains on my right, with gentle rolling hills in between.

In Dunedin I was met by Dr. Bruce Spittle who works in the department of Psychiatric Medicine at the Otago Medical School. Bruce had also attempted to get a debate on fluoridation at the Medical School but despite very polite and persuasive letters to various deans and officials at both the Otago Medical School and the Otago Dental School, there were no takers.

This was extremely unfortunate for several reasons; 1) the Otago Dental School has been at the forefront of promoting and supporting fluoridation in New Zealand; 2) their refusal to accept the challenge to debate certainly lessoned both press and public attention to the event. Strange isn't it? I would have thought that this would have heightened press attention, and 3) the Dunedin council takes its cue from the famous Otago Dental School. It would be a brave council which ignored the advice of the mighty citadel in its midst.

Ironically, the day before my visit, a suburb of Dunedin (Brighton) had its water supply fluoridated. This generated a little TV coverage and Bruce was able to talk about the meeting in a short interview.

Despite heroic efforts by Bruce - small ads in several papers, letters to the editor, and small posters around the centre of town - there was a relatively small attendance at the meeting - about 30. It seemed to be evenly split between local citizens and students and a couple of professors from the Dental school. Again I wore my chicken tie and suggested that the University change its motto from Sapere Aude (Dare to be wise) to Nolite Auctoritatem Interrogare (Don't Question Authority)! Ironically, the hall in which I spoke is called the "Colquhoun Lecture Hall" but it is not the same John Colquhoun, who tried so hard to reverse fluoridation until he died in 1999. When I asked people here how it was that the New Zealand authorities ignored John's work, they told me that the government spokespersons say that John's work has been "discredited"! It seems to me that this would be extremely difficult to do considering how meticulous John was in everything he said and did.

Among other evidence I cited in my talk were 4 modern reviews which showed the lack of effectiveness of fluoridation: 1) From the US, the Brunelle and Carlos (1990) finding of 0.6 tooth surface difference (out of 128 tooth surfaces in a child's mouth) between children who lived all their lives in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities, a finding which was probably not statistically significant.

2) From Australia, a review by Spencer, Slade and Davis (Community Dental Health 13, Supplement 2, 27-37, 1996) which cites "recent evidence that lifetime exposure to fluoridation is associated with average reductions of 2 dmfs (first teeth, PC) and between 0.12 to 0.30 DMFS (permanent teeth, PC) per child compared with non-exposed children". This latter figure would mean less than a 0.3% saving of the 128 tooth surfaces in a child's mouth, while the authors admit to dental fluorosis rates in excess of 56% of 12 year olds in South Australia (1992-3) and in 40% of 12 year olds in Western Australia (1990). I queried how anybody in their right mind would countenance a practice with such a slight benefit at the cost of damaging the tooth enamel in 40-56% of the children in question.

3) From New Zealand, a review by Betty de Liefde, who reported a difference of DMFT for 12 year olds in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (1.3 versus 1.5) of 0.2 teeth which she described as being of "no clinical significance".

4) From Canada, a review by Dr. David Locker ( commissioned by the Ontario Government) in which he said that, "The magnitude of the effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance". I further went through the four recent studies published between 1997 and 2001, showing no increase in dental decay after fluoridation has been halted in several communities in former East Germany, Finland, Cuba and Canada.

I also outlined the many health concerns resulting from systemic exposure to fluoride as well as the CDC's major concession that the miniscule benefits (such that might exist) of fluoridation, are predominantly achieved topically not systemically.

Throughout my talk the dental professors remained stony faced. One left about half of the way through. I got the occasional chuckle from the dental students and most of the reactions and questions came from the local citizens. I was surprised that the professors did not fire questions at me, or come back with any kind of defence of fluoridation. Perhaps, like Karen Poutassi, they will wait until I am safely out of the country!

The Dunedin paper did not report on the meeting.

During my stay Bruce Spittle showed me the venue (Knox College) for the next conference of the International Symposium for Fluoride Research which will be held in Dunedin January 21-24, 2003. This should be an exciting conference. It is expected that Hardy Limeback, Anna Strunecka, Bill Hirzy, Albert Burgstahler and Mark Diesendorf will be there.

On June 12 I flew to Christchurch at the invitation of the group Sustainable Cities to help fight the proposal by the Christchurch council to build a huge trash landfill instead of sticking to its Zero Waste by 2020 commitment. On arrival I was met by an associate of the group who was not only into alternative methods of handling waste but was strongly anti-fluoridation (Christchurch is unfluoridated). He drove me from the airport to Sustainable Cities office.

I gave two talks on Zero Waste: one in the evening of the 12th at the Conference Centre (about 40 people) and another the next day at lunchtime to a variety of city and local officials and activists. The meeting got very heated when local officials tried to explain how they could defend a policy of supporting Zero Waste 2020 while at the same time forming a consortium with Waste Management and Envirowaste to build a giant landfill to last for 35 years or more! This gave a whole new definition to "pragmatism"! Unlike the fluoridation debate, my presence in Christchurch and my very vocal opposition to the building of this landfill generated a great deal of press attention: three local newspapers, two local radio stations, one local TV station; one national TV station and one prime time interview on national radio. The pro-landfill councillors were furious and are rumoured to be attempting to disband the Target Zero group on the council who had been persuaded by Sustainable Cities to pay my airfare from Dunedin to Christchurch.

On the 13th I flew to Invercargill. There I was met by my original hosts for the NZ trip: Julian and Jill Mess. They had organized my going to New Zealand in order to testify in a hearing on a proposed incinerator near their home in Kennington, just outside Invercargill. Even though the incinerator company withdrew before my arrival we decided to go ahead with the trip anyway. Julian works at Southern Institute of technology. On Friday June 14 I gave two talks (one on zero waste and one on fluoridation) to some students studying for a diploma in environmental technology. The talks went on for over two and a half hours. Both the students and professors were very attentive and shocked by what I had to say on fluoridation (Invercargill is fluoridated). After the talks I had a meeting with the Southland Regional District representative who had rejected the incinerator (the hearing was to hear an appeal by the incinerator company). And then a meeting with a local journalist, and then a haircut, fried oysters (!) and then more world cup football on TV.

Today (June 15) my tour (at least the work) ended with a videotaped interview so that other communities faced with a similar incinerator proposals will be armed with some useful information and arguments and will not to have to re-invent the wheel. And tonight we have a victory party at the little Kennington Community building!

Tomorrow, I leave for Auckland on the return journey to the USA. I will be stopping off in Honolulu to get some R & R and meet up with the indomitable fluoridation foe Thelma Martindale and the other fluoridation fighters in Hawaii. One more talk and back to Canton on June 21.

As far as the fight against fluoridation in New Zealand is concerned, I am extremely optimistic. There are some tremendous activists here: Linda Kennington, Mary Byrne and others in Wellington; Andrew Montgomerie and others in Taupo; Linda Sandford, Siggi Henry and others in Hamilton; Bill Wilson and Tim Leitch in North Shore City; Laurie Brett in Wangerai; Don Church in Ashburton; the Greens in Meethven; Imelda Hitchcock and her group in Timaru and Bruce Spittle in Dunedin. They are all fighting like tigers in their own communities but practically none of them have met each other. When they do the collision (coalition) will send light waves through New Zealand's forces of darkness on the fluoridation issue. The proponents can only hold onto this silly practice by keeping the public and the press in the dark. Their days are numbered. It was significant when New Zealand became the second to North America to start fluoridation in 1953, it will be equally significant when they stop.

Paul Connett's New Zealand Tour - Part II, 16th 2002.
www.fluoridealert.org