.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

UK Against Fluoridation

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

USA - Fluoridation pact ready for approval

Fluoridation pact ready for approval
Posted: Tuesday, Aug 31st, 2010
BY: Jon Chown
..............Fluoridation has been an issue ever since 2002, after the City Council passed a resolution accepting a grant to fluoridate. In February 2002, Flouridation 2010 Workgroup offered the city $946,000 to fluoridate, but in November of that year, Watsonville residents concerned about the safety of fluoridation passed Measure S, banning all substances from the water not specifically approved by the Food and Drug Administration, which includes fluoride.

But a state law requires cities to fluoridate if given the funding to do so, and Watsonville lost its battle in court to honor the voters’ wishes. Since then, the city has sought indemnity from costs associated with fluoridation, such as a lawsuit.

At a quick glance, the contract does appear to give the city some protection in such a case. Section 23 section (a)(2) reads “The scope of the duty to defend and/or indemnify includes and may arise from or in any manner related (directly or indirectly) to:

• The City’s decision to fluoridate and the City’s compliance with the legislative intent and specific requirements set forth in state statutes, regulations or legislative materials or case law, excluding those claims specifically enumerated in Section 23(b)(2).

• Any damage or injury resulting from the sole negligence, willfull act(s) or criminal conduct of the Foundation, its principals, officers, agents, employees.”

The proposed contract was approved on a 2-1 vote Monday with City Council member Nancy Bilicich voting against and councilmembers Manuel Bersamin and Kimberly Petersen voting to approve it.

Bilicich said she was not satisfied with the indemnification clauses.

“It’s very complicated, but we did not have as much protection for the city as I wanted to see in there, but I know we had to negotiate what the CDAF would accept,” she said. “It was a long process. We had a lot of meetings. We definitely worked diligently on it.”...........