Water fluoridation has sparked a heated debate in New Plymouth, with opponents voicing their concerns at a recent council meeting. Anti-fluoride activists erected placards outside the council chambers as they criticized the city’s decision to reintroduce fluoride into the water supply. The issue has been contentious since 2011 when the council voted to remove fluoride from the drinking water.
During the meeting, several speakers expressed their opposition to the government’s decision to fluoridate the water. Kane Titchener from Fluoride Free New Zealand likened fluoride’s effects to those of lead, arguing that it was time to listen and stop fluoridation. Colleen Jones pointed out that the council was ultimately responsible for providing clean, safe water under the Health Act, and people should have the right to decide what is appropriate for their own needs and values. Chris Lind questioned whether the council had conducted a thorough risk review and whether it had been put out for public consultation.
James Kemp took aim at the former director-general of health, Sir Ashley Bloomfield, accusing him of misleading the public. Frustrated by the opposing views, Pip Abernethy, a grandmother from New Plymouth, stood up for science and children’s teeth. However, she was shouted down and escorted out of the chamber.
New Plymouth Mayor Neil Holdom acknowledged the strong opinions on fluoride but explained that the decision had been taken out of the council’s hands. The government had provided a directive, and failure to comply could result in hefty fines and criminal charges. The council had explored the possibility of providing a non-fluoridated supply for those who didn’t want fluoride but legal advice did not support the idea.
The Ministry of Health stated that strong international evidence demonstrated no adverse health effects from fluoride at the levels used in New Zealand’s water supplies.
The debate surrounding water fluoridation highlights the differing perspectives on public health measures. While opponents argue for individual choice and question the potential risks, proponents emphasize the benefits supported by scientific evidence. With emotions running high, it is crucial to maintain a balanced view of the topic and consider the well-being of the community as a whole.
Overall, the controversy in New Plymouth over water fluoridation serves as a reminder of the ongoing discussion surrounding public health initiatives. As the issue unfolds, it will be vital to consider the scientific evidence, listen to various perspectives, and make informed decisions that prioritize the well-being of the community.
