For frequent updates from September 2013 to date, see other pages
Earlier in 2013
August 28: In Australia, there is a proposal that the New South Wales government may over-ride the discretion of councils to choose what goes in to their water supply. Lismore Council voted against adding fluoride last week, the second north coast town to reject the ‘health benefits of the chemical’, and the governor is describing the trend for towns to reject fluoridation as ‘alarming’. Will they never give up?
August: Recent legal action in Israel has confirmed that state-mandated fluoridation will end next year. However, it is unclear whether individual regions will continue or even extend fluoridation programmes. The motive behind the public pronouncements may be the protection of the considerable trade Israel has with its neighbours in the sale of desalinated water.
July 2: New Zealand: In the last week or so, there has been increasing activity reported in Auckland. Campaigners are following their success in Hamilton and have already organised meetings and a petition to stop fluoridation in the country’s largest city. However, the press remains largely hostile and many comments published from proponents are of a highly offensive and irrational nature. There have also been several existing schemes confirmed and even a couple of new proposals. In Hamilton itself, a referendum is being proposed, seemingly in the hope of reversing the decision. Meanwhile, the fluoride tap was turned off on June 21st.
In the U.S. a meeting in Harvard, Connecticut to publicly hear both sides became a farce when the fluoridation proponents all pulled out because they objected to debating with a fanatical extremist, one Professor Connet, who was left as the only speaker.
June: Hamilton, New Zealand, has just voted after a four-day public debate, to end fluoridation
.May: Portland, Oregon , the second largest non-fluoridated U.S. city has, for the fourth time, voted AGAINST fluoridation. A citizen’s vote of over 60% No defeated a campaign with three times its resources
See links on the SWIS Facebook page.
How new schemes can be proposed in the U.K.
In England (not Wales or Scotland) responsibility under the 2003 Water Act for fluoridation proposals that was given to the Strategic Health Authorities has now passed back to local councils who would be expected to co-operate regionally to promote large schemes..
The Health and Social Care Act that makes these changes law, deals in significant detail with fluoridation proposals, incorporating measures from the 2003 Act and earlier acts. In rewriting the earlier provisions new guidelines are being issued on public consultation.
The public consultation process is vital, because the terms of the consultation will determine the chances for resisting new schemes or even ending current ones
SWIS argued for a fair, unbiased and well –informed process. We are confident that such a genuine consultation would be almost certain to reject fluoridation. Furthermore, the same legal process is intended to cover temination of existing schemes, providing important new opportunities for campaigners .
As was expected, the recommendations of the DoH published. https://www.wp.dh.gov.uk/publications/files/2013/02/responses-to-consultation.pdffalls fall far short of our demands.
How existing schemes could be terminated
1.The process for termination will be the same as for proposing a new scheme, complete with the formal consultation process. At first sight this seems to be progress as there at least there is now a formal process for ridding an area of fluoride. However, it is extremely cumbersome and unnecessary. If the local elected council does mot want fluoride, all is has to do is turn the taps off!
2. The real sting is – whether or not a new scheme is approved, the decision stays for 20 years. That’s great if a new scheme has been rejected – but if you are trying to get rid of fluoride, you had better be sure of the voting by those of your elected (and non elected) representatives because you only get one chance in 20 years!