It appears that the Government wants to see fluoride added to all drinking water in England. The Government is also talking about what it describes as ‘consultation’ on this very important matter. Consultation is a word that has been severely devalued by experience - post office closures being just one example. Nevertheless, I hope that in the case of possible mandatory fluoridation this is a genuine intention because fundamental issues are raised.
There is evidence, although it can be exaggerated out of all proportion, that fluoridation does have some impact on dental health, especially amongst those who habitually neglect their teeth. But those people who do look after their teeth will benefit much less on this account and will of course experience the downside. Decay rates have been improving across countries whether or not they add fluoride to their drinking water. There is a negative affect in terms of fluorosis (mottled teeth) and some research has suggested possible links to hip fractures and bladder cancer.
In Birmingham, fluoride has been added to our otherwise superb water since the 1960s. I do not recall that the people of the city were given any choice in the matter. Certainly there is no choice as things now stand, since the water filters that can be bought by the general public do not remove the fluoride, a fact of which many people are not aware and which by no co-incidence is not much publicised - nor often stated on the box.
The fluoride issue is an important example of population dosing, others being under consideration. I am concerned about this process not simply on the grounds of basic individual freedom (think also of the loss of same in our surveillance society) but also because, while experts are usually right, at least when they agree, when they turn out to be wrong the price that the public pays can be very high indeed. In my view there should be a fundamental human right not to be medicated by your government.
If there is to be a genuine public debate on fluoridation rather than the closely managed and selective ‘consultations’ that we have seen with post office closures and hospital closures, then I for one would welcome this in principle.
But there are some important questions about any such public discussion. For example, what form would such a debate take? Who would judge its outcome? Would the Government take any notice anyway? And will those of us who already live in fluoridated areas be given a choice? On this last point I somehow doubt it.
As, I assume, we are not likely to have a referendum on this question, then at least there should be a professional and independent opinion poll that would carry a measure of public trust. More on the subject of fluoridation can be found on various websites including the Fluoride Action Network at http://www.fluoridealert.org/
There is evidence, although it can be exaggerated out of all proportion, that fluoridation does have some impact on dental health, especially amongst those who habitually neglect their teeth. But those people who do look after their teeth will benefit much less on this account and will of course experience the downside. Decay rates have been improving across countries whether or not they add fluoride to their drinking water. There is a negative affect in terms of fluorosis (mottled teeth) and some research has suggested possible links to hip fractures and bladder cancer.
In Birmingham, fluoride has been added to our otherwise superb water since the 1960s. I do not recall that the people of the city were given any choice in the matter. Certainly there is no choice as things now stand, since the water filters that can be bought by the general public do not remove the fluoride, a fact of which many people are not aware and which by no co-incidence is not much publicised - nor often stated on the box.The fluoride issue is an important example of population dosing, others being under consideration. I am concerned about this process not simply on the grounds of basic individual freedom (think also of the loss of same in our surveillance society) but also because, while experts are usually right, at least when they agree, when they turn out to be wrong the price that the public pays can be very high indeed. In my view there should be a fundamental human right not to be medicated by your government.
If there is to be a genuine public debate on fluoridation rather than the closely managed and selective ‘consultations’ that we have seen with post office closures and hospital closures, then I for one would welcome this in principle.
But there are some important questions about any such public discussion. For example, what form would such a debate take? Who would judge its outcome? Would the Government take any notice anyway? And will those of us who already live in fluoridated areas be given a choice? On this last point I somehow doubt it.As, I assume, we are not likely to have a referendum on this question, then at least there should be a professional and independent opinion poll that would carry a measure of public trust. More on the subject of fluoridation can be found on various websites including the Fluoride Action Network at http://www.fluoridealert.org/
No comments:
Post a Comment