International Fluoride Information Network

IFIN BULLETIN: IFIN 839: The House of Commons vote.
September 8, 2003

Dear All,

Jane Jones reports (see below) that the voting in the House of Commons (UK) on the second reading of the Water Bill, including the very controversial clause which would indemnify water companies should they fluoridate their water and allowing local health authorities (non-elected) to make the decision, was passed 356 to 136. But she adds that it still "has to go to committee stage."

We have two other reports below, one for the ITV.com and another from the national newspaper, The Independent, both of which appear to have been written before the vote. There will be more coverage on this at the FAN web site http://www.fluoridealert.org

The bad news is that so many MPs have gone along with the propaganda of the BDA, BFS etc. The good news is that it has made a lot of others mad. I think we can anticipate more activity at the committee stage, and a lot of fireworks at the local level when efforts are actually made to start the fluoride (hexafluorosilicic acid) flowing.

I was disappointed with most of the press coverage I have read on this. There was little attempt to actually examine the health issues. Most simply rattle off a laundry list of concerns without tying them to any explanation or any authority. Most of the emphasis was placed on the dental "benefits" with huge deference paid to the British dental "authorities". It is intriguing how this PR was not balanced with the report that Basel, Switzerland halted the fluoridation (on April 9, this year) of their water after over 40 years, because it wasn't doing any good. Moreover, no one has yet to comment on the fact that over 300 scientists and public health activists from 38 countries are calling for "integrity" on this issue - integrity which was sadly lacking in the promotion activities of the pro-fluoridation lobby. Apparently, there is only one "authority" on this issue in the UK: the one that can't a scientist to defend the practice in open public debate!

The BCC news web site is asking for people to express their opinions on this issue. If you wish to do so scroll down to the end of the article on the following link and there will be a form.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3083566.stm

Many thanks to all of those who sent in letters to The Guardian.

Paul Connett.
____________________________________________________________
From Jane Jones jane@npwa.freeserve.co.uk.

We watched it on the Parliament channel (BBC) on our computer for ? five hours? Or more. It's a big Bill with lots of amendments (now "clauses"). Time after time, MPs stood up and made their comments on the Bill - and several announced their opposition to the clause ("Clause 61"). Very good speeches. We will get it on Hansard as soon as it's available and mail it out.

The voting on the second reading was 356 to 136 - FOR the Bill. But it has to go to committee stage . . . it is very obvious that the fluoridation issue hijacked the evening. The big boys are not going to be pleased.

There is more to come on all this - the war has only just begun.

Several of us made TV and radio broadcasts today - Sue King on the breakfast show - and me, too, (filmed a few days ago). Radio programmes around the regions were late catching up, despite our releases, but they soon realised they were missing out on a growing story.

Our day in the office started at 6.30 a.m. with radio interviews down the phone. Liz Vaughan and a number of key campaigners around the country did their stuff, too. Meanwhile, Sue, John Graham and other campaigners from Brighton and heaven knows where picketed the House of Commons with banners (there will be photographs available which we will mail).

Our website has been spinning today - we have never seen so many hits in one day from Parliament (about six hours in total, on various visits!!), the health authorities - even the MRC were on for 75 minutes. The BBC came in several times. The most visited page today? The press release about the British Muslims.

Our absolute all-time biggest hitting page (daily), "Dental Fluorosis: Smile, please, but don't say 'Cheese!'" was relegated to third place behind "The Public Perception of Dental Fluorosis". Incredible. We have had 1,036 page views and a whole flurry of new subscribers to the eList - including a guy from a health authority!

It's been another long day following a long day Sunday. More when we've had some sleep.

Repeat: The War Has Only Just Begun. And the cavalry has only recently arrived.

Best - Jane

The web page of the National Pure Water Association is http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk
______________________________________________________________
ITV.com
http://www.itv.com/news/1938787.html

Measures in the Water Bill would give local health authorities the power - only with the backing of local people - to ask water companies to add the chemical

MPs get free vote on fluoridation
23.12PM BST, 8 Sep 2003

Labour MPs will be allowed a free vote on moves to smooth the way for fluoride being added to drinking water.

Environment Minister Elliot Morley told the Commons the public should be given the option of backing moves to have their tap water fluoridated.

Measures in the Water Bill would give local health authorities the power - only with the backing of local people - to ask water companies to add the chemical.

Introducing the legislation, Mr Morley said that in recognition of strong opinions on both sides of the argument, MPs would be given the chance to vote when the Bill reached its report stage.

Water companies have had the power to fluoridate supplies since 1985 but have not done so for fear of legal action from consumers opposed to it.

The new proposals - already backed by the House of Lords - means that local health authorities will indemnify the firms where it is necessary for public health and if local people agree.

Mr Morley said: "The current law gives water companies the discretion whether to agree applications from strategic health authorities to add fluoride. This places too much responsibility on water companies to make a decision on what is, essentially, a public health issue when they do not feel qualified to do so." He denied the Government was trying to introduce a "central national fluoridation programme". "On the contrary, we believe that the choice should be made locally and we also believe that people should have that choice."

Offering the free vote, he said: "There are very strong opinions on this issue on both sides of the argument and reflecting this there will be an opportunity to discuss and, I am quite sure, vote on this issue at report stage. Because of the strongly held views it will be a free vote issue."
_______________________________________________________________
THE INDEPENDENT.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=441623

Plans to add fluoride to drinking water attacked by Tories as mass medication
By Marie Woolf 09 September 2003

Ministers were accused of forcing people to take medication without their consent yesterday as the Government moved to push through plans to add fluoride to drinking water.

The Tories, who allowed their MPs a free vote on the measures to make it easier to fluoridate water last night, said that they were unhappy about the Government adding medicine to the water supply.

Ministers were accused of planning "mass medication" of drinking water in order to improve the teeth of young children who do not have balanced diets or fail to brush their teeth regularly.

David Lidington MP, shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said during the second reading of the Water Bill that the government plans were ill thought out. "Fluoridation is an important element of the Bill, and I feel serious unease at the idea of giving the state the power to insist on putting medicines into the water supply," he said.

The Liberal Democrats, who with the Tories and Labour allowed their MPs a free vote, said water fluoridation should be a matter for local communities. "The case for what is effectively compulsory medication has not yet been made. But it is the right of local communities to decide on this issue," said Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat environment spokesman. "The decision to add or remove fluoride from the water supply must be given to locally elected bodies, not to unelected officials."

The Government was last night proposing an amendment to the Water Bill which would make it possible for local health authorities to force water companies to add the chemical to the water supply. The Green Party, which plans to table an emergency motion opposing fluoridation at its annual conference this week, said it was "patronising" for the Government to suggest that low-income families did not feed or look after their children properly, which meant they had bad teeth. They cited evidence showing that 48 per cent of people who have fluoridated water suffer dental fluorosis or unsightly mottling of the teeth. Studies have also suggested a link with Down's syndrome, cancer, brittle bones and thyroid problems. But ministers think that adding fluoride will help to prevent cavities in children from low-income families. They are backed by MPs from all parties.

Andy Burnham, Labour MP for Leigh, criticised "nonsense scare stories" about fluoridation of water supplies. He said a poll by the British Fluoridation Society, which has been campaigning for the addition of the chemical, showed solid public support for the move.

Some 6 million people already have fluoride in their water.

9 September 2003 00:04