Controversy over fluoride levels in Hamilton
In a move that has sparked controversy, the Hamilton City Council in New Zealand has decided to stop adding fluoride to its drinking water supply. This decision, made in June 2013, followed a month-long public consultation that received a total of 1,557 submissions.
The decision has been met with criticism from public health experts and dental professionals, who argue that water fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure for preventing dental caries (tooth decay). The current scientific consensus supports this view, with major health organizations like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Dental Association (ADA) endorsing the use of fluoridation.
Dr. Jonathan Broadbent, Senior Lecturer in Preventive and Restorative Dentistry at the University of Otago, has stated that the decision undermines public health in New Zealand. He notes that fluoridation reduces cavities in children by 40% to 70% and tooth loss in adults by 40% to 60%. It is also considered a cost-effective intervention that saves billions in dental treatment costs annually.
However, the debate over water fluoridation is not just about public health. It also raises questions about individual rights and medical autonomy. Critics of fluoridation argue that individuals should have the right to choose whether to consume fluoride, and that water fluoridation uses the public water supply to deliver a drug to a person who has not given their consent for this.
The fluoride debate is not unique to New Zealand. In the United States, some states have recently banned water fluoridation, citing concerns about individual rights and "forced medication." Proponents of these bans argue that individuals should choose whether to consume fluoride through other means like toothpaste or supplements.
The Hamilton City Council's decision has been defended by Sir Peter Gluckman, the Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister at the time. He commented that the fluoride debate is a classic example of "science being a proxy for values debates." He also noted that values debates are critical for a healthy democracy, but they cannot proceed usefully if the debate is shifted inappropriately to another domain.
The World Health Organisation, the World Dental Federation, and the International Association for Dental Research have all stated that 'universal access to fluoride for dental health is part of the basic human right to health.' Despite this, the Hamilton City Council voted 7-1 to stop the fluoridation when stocks run out.
The fluoride debate is not without its complexities. Concerns about risks of bone disease, thyroid disease, brain disease, and cancer with regards to fluoride are not supported by scientific evidence. However, some submitters have linked fluoridation to a number of illnesses and risks, including bone cancer, arthritis, thyroid dysfunction, kidney disease, dental fluorosis, negative effects on brain development (particularly in infants and young children), and negative effects on the pineal gland (resulting in the earlier onset of puberty).
The majority of submissions (1,385) wanted the council to stop adding fluoride to the city water supply. After 4 days of hearings, the council made its decision. The decision infuriated experts, dentists, and scientists throughout the country, who labelled the anti-fluoride campaign as inaccurate scaremongering.
Sir Peter Gluckman wrote in his statement on 12 June 2013 that we need to examine what the debate is really about. He noted that the balance between doing good (reducing caries) and not doing significant harm (minimal dental mottling) is scientifically clear, but the debate has analogies to the immunization situation and to the imposition of regulations such as those requiring the wearing of seat belts.
The fluoride debate is partly based on inappropriate extrapolation from studies conducted at much higher doses of fluoridation. Misinterpretations and sometimes deliberate misuse of science can hijack the debate about fluoride in water.
In a surprising turn of events, the Hamilton City Council voted to recommence fluoridation in March 2014, just over a year after the initial decision. This reversal highlights the ongoing and complex nature of the fluoride debate, which continues to raise important questions about public health, individual rights, and the role of science in policy-making.
- The debate surrounding water fluoridation is not confined to New Zealand, as some states in the United States have banned it, citing concerns about individual rights and 'forced medication.'
- The controversy over water fluoridation extends beyond medical-conditions and health-and-wellness, as it also involves politics, with discussions revolving around individual rights and medical autonomy.
- Despite scientific evidence not supporting links between fluoride and illnesses like bone cancer, arthritis, thyroid dysfunction, kidney disease, dental fluorosis, negative effects on brain development, and negative effects on the pineal gland, many still question its safety.
- The fluoride debate, often rooted in values beliefs, is complex and dynamic, as demonstrated by the Hamilton City Council's decision to recommence fluoridation just over a year after stopping it, highlighting its ongoing nature.
