January 2013 Councils take charge from April 2013

On the 31st March this year, SHAs will be abolished and their powers relating to water fluoridation will pass to local authorities. In March 2012 following over a year of contentious debate and political manoeuvring, the Health and Social Care Act was finally passed. Sections 35-37 are of particular relevance to the fluoridation debate and, most importantly, the current situation here in Southampton. So four years after ignoring the public outcry over water fluoridation, the South Central Strategic Health Authority will cease to exist. What does this mean? The Act amends the provisions of the Water Act 2003 related to water fluoridation schemes. From April 2013, decisions about whether to introduce and end schemes will be made by local authorities in our case Southampton City Council and Hampshire County Council. Fortunately both Councils currently oppose water fluoridation but if the SHA implements the scheme before April, both Councils will become financially liable for funding the scheme. While it would be technically simple for the Councils to stop adding fluoride to the water, it would be disgraceful for the SHA, at this late stage, to rush to purchase 100,000s worth of capital equipment with the full knowledge that it may never be used. From April Southampton City and Hampshire County Councils will also become responsible for oral health promotion. For Southampton City Council this would be a great opportunity to invest the money that would be wasted on water fluoridation in targeted community based oral health schemes such as those being pioneered in some areas of the UK. In particular, ChildSmile the national Scottish scheme has been shown to reduce levels of dental decay and inequalities in oral health. This month the Scottish Government announced that the scheme had been more successful than expected delivering substantial reductions in dental decay amongst young children by over 25% since 2006. More importantly Childsmile has been shown to have impact across all groups and ages with a dramatic decrease in dental caries among three-year-olds. This is the sort of scheme that our Councils should be considering if we really want to tackle dental health problems in the city. Water fluoridation is an obsolete policy based on outdated and poor research. Councils have the opportunity to take the lead in addressing oral health problems amongst the youngest children an approach that would receive the backing of local childrens services, schools, social services and community and voluntary groups. HAF has written to the City Council urging them to invite the Scottish ChildSmile team to Southampton to brief Councillors and Officers on how to emulate ChildSmiles success.

Hampshire Against Fluoridations team wishes you a happy and fluoride-free new year
.www.hampshireagainstfluoridation.blogspot.com/

SHA vows to go ahead but there are still many questions to answer ..
With only three months to go, the SHA is still insisting that water fluoridation will go ahead in Southampton. It seems that nothing will dent their enthusiasm and commitment to impose fluoridation on a local population that has clearly signalled it does not want it. It also flies in the face of the significant improvements in childrens dental health in the last few years and increasing amounts of research that casts doubt on the safety and efficacy of water fluoridation. Who would have thought that when the SHA made its ill-informed decision in February 2009 that four years later there are still unanswered questions:

Will the scheme go ahead? Which areas will receive fluoridated water? How much will it cost? Where will the dosing stations be located?

Southern Water have informed HAF that some areas identified in the original consultation may not receive fluoridated water, while other areas not included in the consultation may receive it! HAF has submitted another Freedom of Information request to the SHA to try and get further details of their proposals and we should get a response in mid January.

Success for ChildSmile in Scotland

A record two-thirds of primary school pupils in Scotland have no obvious sign of tooth decay, Public Health Minister Michael Matheson revealed yesterday. Figures for 2011-12 show 67 per cent of 5 yearold pupils have no obvious tooth decay, compared with 54 per cent in 2005-06. For the first time, all health boards have met the Scottish Government target for 60 per cent of first year primary school children to have no obvious signs of decay, statistics from the national dental inspection programme show. Mr Matheson said: It is fantastic news that record numbers of primary one children have no ob-

vious signs of decay and, for the first time, all 14 NHS boards have exceeded the target, that 60 per cent should have no obvious signs of decay. This tremendous progress is the result of our significant investment in childrens dentistry over recent years. It is also tribute to our work with the British Dental Association and the commitment of Scottish dentists to deliver the Childsmile programme.

The Childsmile Practice programme is designed to improve the oral health of children in Scotland from birth by working closely with dental practices. It provides a universally accessible child-centred NHS dental service and this is how it works: It is carried out through a network of primary care dental service providers. Childsmile is introduced to the family by a public health nurse or health visitor who will refer them straight to a dental practice or to a Dental Health Support Worker who makes contact with children from the age of three months. The Support Worker then provides the central link between dental services, the family and the health visitor, gives additional oral health support to children and families most in need and links children who have been identified as not currently attending a dentist, with local Childsmile dental services. Additional support is given to the children and families most in need through home visiting, community initiatives and primary care dental services. For the most vulnerable families, a longer period of home support is provided. A programme of Childsmile care, tailored to meet the needs of the individual child, is provided by the dental team including advice, dental check-ups, and where necessary treatment and fluoride varnishes. ChildSmile provides a model of best practice for oral healthcare services.

.www.hampshireagainstfluoridation.org

News from abroad

Irish campaigner, Robert Pocock of Ireland Against Fluoridation (www.irelandagainstfluoridation.org/news) continues to expose the way the Irish government misleads the public about water fluoridation. Robert says that EU Embassies in Dublin were today warned that the guide for healthcare professionals Best practice for infant feeding in Ireland published by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland in November 2012 is seriously misleading and not protective of bottle-fed babies. What is described as 'Best practice for infant feeding' in Ireland is not even safe or indeed legal in other EU memberstates. Since the Irish government propagates misleading advice which actually places the most vulnerable (newborn infants) at risk, Ambassadors may wish to warn their fellow nationals in Ireland. In particular they should advise parents of newborns here not to use Irish tap water to make up infant formula, contrary to official Irish government advice. Here is what he has to say about our local situation: Hampshire people would be mad to let fluorida-

tion into the county when they see the epidemic of dental fluorosis it has caused in a whole generation of Irish teenagers, only two-thirds of whom have normal tooth enamel.
In Canada, the USA and New Zealand many places have stopped fluoridating their water with several million people now enjoying fluoride-free drinking water. Since September 2012 alone, some half-amillion people have stopped receiving fluoridated water. These include the following communities: December 2012: November 2012:

October 2012: Spetember 2012:

Pine Island, Florida (13,000 water customers), Kirkland Lake, Ontario, Canada (8,133) Milton, Florida (7,000), Bradford, Vermont (788), Romulus, New York State (400), Pulaski, New York State (2,367), Wichita, Kansas (385,000), Harvard, Nebraska (1,000), Crescent City, California (14,000) Pulaski, New York (2,367), Lake View, Iowa (1,300) Cassadaga and Lily Dale, New York State (900) Waipukurau, New Zealand (4,000)

In New Hampshire in the USA, local water suppliers will now have to include a warning on water bills advising customers about the risks of using fluoridated water for infant formula. Most recently in Australia, the State of Queensland has revoked the law on mandatory water fluoridation and many Councils are now considering ending fluoridation. Current battles are being waged in Portland, Oregon and many smaller communities across the world. In these places, as in Southampton, local councils and local people are fighting to keep their water fluoride-free. For more news about these communities and for up-to-date information about fluoridation see the Fluoride Action Network website: http://www.fluoridealert.org/

Support AVAAZ Petitions Against Water Fluoridation

There are currently two AVAAZ petitions on water fluoridation - please sign these. In the UK a petition has been started to send to the UK Government. You can sign the petition here on the AVAAZ site: http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Stop_Poisoning_Our_Water_With_Fluoride In the USA, a stop fluoridation petition has been started by Gerald Steel a lawyer from Washington State who has been fighting fluoridation at the legal level. The petition is also on the AVAAZ.org site. Sign the petition at: http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Stop_Water_Fluoridation/?eqTIiab Please help by sending these to everyone you know.

Latest Research
Over the last year more academic papers have raised important scientific, legal and ethical questions about water fluoridation, adding to the substantial body of research highlighting professional and scientific concerns about this public health policy. A study by the West Virginia University Rural Health Research Center found that fluoridation was not significantly related to the measures of either caries or overall condition of the teeth for urban or rural areas. (Water Fluoridation and Dental

Health Indicators in Rural and Urban Areas of the United States Policy Brief - January, 2012). In a recent review in Environmental Health Perspectives (Vol120(10): 13621368) a team of Harvard scien-

tists concluded that fluorides effect on the young brain should now be a high research priority. noting that Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain. Last year two important articles were published that question the legal and ethical basis of water fluoridation. In the journal Medical Law International (Vol12(1), 11-27) Dr David Shaw sets out a powerful argument that the fluoridation of water should be considered as medication and therefore subject to medicinal licence. His paper Weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth: The legal fiction of water fluoridation, provides an analysis of the jurisprudence and legislation concerning the fluoridation of water in the UK. Water fluoridation is currently permitted by the Water Act 2003, but this appears to contradict legislation and regulations governing food and healthcare in the UK and the EU. It concludes that the status quo rests on the legal fiction that fluoridated water does not constitute a medication. He uses the Southampton case to illustrate the bizarre loophole that water fluoridation falls into. In a paper in Public Health Ethics (Vol 5(2) 161-172), Professor Niyi Awofeso discusses fluoridation in Australia and concludes that there is insufficient ethical justification for artificial water fluoridation. Finally, in an article in Critical Public Health (Vol 22(2), 159-177) on the application of evidence in decisions about water fluoridation, HAF member, Professor Stephen Peckham, concludes Given the

unknown balance between benefit and harm in relation to water fluoridation, we should be more cautious in pushing forward with further schemes and focus more on developing good oral health strategies that target support for those children and their families who experience the worst dental health. There is good evidence that when delivered well such schemes are highly effective.

Contacts: Chairman: John Spottiswoode 02380 789230 Secretary: Ann Richards 02392 463761 HAF is a non-political voluntary group and relies on donations. Membership is 5.00. Please send a cheque together with the form or pay by Paypal through our website.

Support Hampshire Against Fluoridation

Please complete and send the membership form to: Ann Richards, 4 South Road, Hayling Island, PO11 9AE Tel: 02392 463761 annpeter@richards177.fsnet.co.uk

I wish to join HAF: Name: . Address: . . Post code:... Email address:.

http://hampshireagainstfluoridation.blogspot.com/