SAY NO TO FLUORIDE AND FLUORIDATION

SAY NO TO FLUORIDE AND FLUORIDATION
INTERACTIVE MAILING LIST
HOSTED BY FRIENDS OF THE EARTH LOCAL GROUPS
UNITED KINGDOM

Dear all
Regarding 'forcing a referendum': local ( e.g. City, Metropolitan Borough and Town) Councils often have provision in their Constitution for a Citizen's Petition to request/demand a debate in Council. The number of petitioners required may be quite small e.g. 12 or 20 - this varies from council to council. It was through this route - a Citizen's Petition with a little over the minimum number of signatures put forward by a friendly Councillor - that we obtained the council-run debates (as to whether the respective councils should support fluoridation) in Doncaster on October 10th 1997 and in Sheffield on January 5th 2005. The Doncaster debate was run by the Council's Environment Committee and it was open for members of the public to speak but only councillors of the Environment Committee could vote. The vote was taken at the end of the debate. At the subsequent meeting of full council the Environment Committee's decision (9 to 2) not to support fluoridation was ratified.
The Sheffield debate was of the full council. The public could observe from the public gallery but were not allowed to participate. After two speakers for the motion and two against, councillors questioned all four speakers for about two hours. After that, councillors could give their observations and several made short speeches. Time was allowed for further deliberation and study of the issue, the vote being held at the subsequent council meeting (February 2nd 2005). On a free vote, 57 of the councillors voted for the Motion that Sheffield City Council reaffirm its opposition to fluoridation, 14 voted against the Motion and there were 3 abstentions.
NPWA does not approve 'referenda' on an issue (i.e. medication) that requires individual, informed consent. We consider mass medication unethical even if a majority votes for it. Council debates are a good way of airing the views of both sides of this contentious issue and alerting councillors (who have often already been extensively lobbied by the BFS) to the fact that there are logical scientific, legal and ethical aspects to fluoridation which the BFS have not brought to their attention. The involvement of the public and media reporting of such debates usefully exposes the arguments to a wider public. Although the proponents of fluoridation are often reluctant to debate, they usually agree to participate if invited by a council. Experience tells us we can win such debates.
Kind regards
Elizabeth McDonagh

Brian Jackson writes......
I strongly agree with Elizabeth McDonagh's comments about Referenda and i know that i am not alone. Its ok to make a statement and generate publicity by demonstrating the strength of public opinon against fluoridation but this has already been done countless times across the UK. A referendum fails to tackle the central fact that mass medication is the imposition of medication on a group or even an individual without their consent. This would be the case even if it was "safe and effective" and actually worked. The idea of fluoridation ignores and punishes those who in a democracy should not only have a right to refuse and vote against an idea but also to refuse medical treatment.except possibly in a case where an individual becomes a danger to others. As far as i am aware, tooth decay is not contagious.

Compulsory Fluoridation is a betrayal of democracy for which our parents and grand parents fought in world wars to uphold. Flawed it may be but its probably the best of the options currently available and it should therefore be strengthened rather than weakened. . Even now our sons and daughters are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to uphold and protect the principles and freedoms of democracy yet seemingly our own government does not see fit to allow its own citizens here in the UK to experience the benefits.

Not one single person should be forced to take fluoride without their individual consent, not even by a doctor and very certainly not by an elected MP or Government Minister with absolutely no medical qualifications and in many cases, little evidence of common sense or self preservation as recent events have demonstrated.. If i want to purchase a house i go to an estate agent not a politician, if i want to go on Holiday i visit a travel agent not an MP and if i want a medical examination or a prescription i visit a doctor and certainly not a government minister who one would expect to be busy with affairs of state or indeed a personal expenses claim. Even then i reserve the right to consider a doctors opinion and if i wish, refuse to accept the proffered medidation. A referendum on fluoride would give credibility to fluoride when we all know there is none and this would merely act as a distraction from the central issue.

The judicial review is a useful and important way of highlighting the illegality, and the lack of democracy and genuine consultation processes of fluoridation, but this should not even be necessary in a democracy just as unsafe and ineffective or uneconomic practices should not be used by a Government agency or public water supplier. It is high time that our elected representatives and their agents, realised that they are spending and in many cases, wasting OUR time and OUR money and that we as a nation can no longer afford this. If you have a toothache and i am forced to take a painkillerit not only sets a precedent for even more tampering with what should be pure and unadulterated water, it will not help you and may make me ill. Therefore we must be prepared to say no to fluoride at the local and National level, not only online but also in the media, the courts of law, and the ballot box.

Brian Jackson