Discussion on the fluoride content in Hamilton's water supply

Discussion on the fluoride content in Hamilton's water supply

Article: The Ongoing Debate Over Community Water Fluoridation in New Zealand

The debate over community water fluoridation in New Zealand continues to be a contentious issue, with strong arguments on both sides. The practice remains a supported public health measure, mandated under legislation, but faces political debate and resistance.

The primary argument for community water fluoridation is the strong scientific evidence supporting its role in preventing dental decay and promoting oral health on a population level. This aligns with public health ethics, aiming to reduce health inequalities, particularly for children and disadvantaged groups. All children drinking fluoridated water can benefit from a reduction in dental caries, complemented by advice from health professionals to minimize sugary drinks and snacks that contribute to decay.

Sir Peter Gluckman, the Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister at the time, noted that both the very young and the old benefit from fluoride in the water supply, reducing the incidence of dental caries and the downstream effects such as the need for invasive dental surgery associated with problematic dental status. This is supported by the World Health Organisation, the World Dental Federation, and the International Association for Dental Research, who have all stated that "universal access to fluoride for dental health is part of the basic human right to health."

However, the debate is not without opposition. Some argue that water fluoridation uses the public water supply to deliver a drug to a person who has not given their consent for this. Concerns about risks of bone disease, thyroid disease, brain disease, and cancer are not supported by scientific evidence. Studies in rats or from humans with fluoride poisoning or living in areas with extremely high concentrations of fluoride are being misinterpreted.

In June 2013, a public consultation on the issue ran for a month, receiving a total of 1,557 submissions. The majority (1,385) wanted the council to stop adding fluoride to the city water supply. After 4 days of hearings, the council voted 7-1 to stop the fluoridation when stocks run out. This decision infuriated experts, dentists, and scientists throughout the country, who labeled the anti-fluoride campaign as inaccurate scaremongering.

Despite this, the debate continues due to a misinterpretation (and sometimes deliberate misuse) of science. The misuse of science in the fluoride debate is leading to inappropriate interpretations of studies, as noted by Sir Peter Gluckman. He stated that the balance between doing good (reducing caries) and not doing significant harm (minimal dental mottling) is scientifically clear, and any remaining debate has analogies to the immunization situation and to the imposition of regulations such as those requiring the wearing of seat belts.

In conclusion, New Zealand officially supports community water fluoridation as an evidence-based public health strategy to prevent dental decay, with ongoing enforcement and political debate. The consensus among health experts favors fluoridation for population health benefits, while some political and public resistance persists related to autonomy and risk perceptions. It is crucial to examine what the debate is really about, as values debates are critical for a healthy democracy, but they cannot proceed usefully if the debate is shifted inappropriately to another domain.

[1] Ministry of Health. (n.d.). Community Water Fluoridation. Retrieved from https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/population-groups/child-and-youth-health/oral-health/community-water-fluoridation

[2] Gluckman, P. (2013, June 12). Statement on the debate around community water fluoridation in New Zealand. Retrieved from https://www.pmc.govt.nz/about-us/our-work/science-advisory-group/statements/statement-on-the-debate-around-community-water-fluoridation-in-new-zealand/

[3] New Zealand First. (2021). Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. Retrieved from https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/document/BILL_102181/health-fluoridation-of-drinking-water-amendment-bill

1. The debate over community water fluoridation in New Zealand has strong political and public opinions.
2. The practice of community water fluoridation is a supported public health measure, mandated under legislation.
3. The primary argument for community water fluoridation is its role in preventing dental decay and promoting oral health on a population level.
4. Public health ethics aim to reduce health inequalities, including for children and disadvantaged groups.
5. All children drinking fluoridated water can benefit from a reduction in dental caries.
6. Sir Peter Gluckman, former Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister, supports the benefits of fluoride in the water supply.
7. The World Health Organisation, World Dental Federation, and International Association for Dental Research also support universal access to fluoride for dental health.
8. Opponents of water fluoridation argue that it uses the public water supply as a means to deliver a drug without consent.
9. Concerns about risks of bone disease, thyroid disease, brain disease, and cancer are not supported by scientific evidence.
10. Studies in rats or from humans with fluoride poisoning or living in areas with extremely high concentrations of fluoride are being misinterpreted.
11. In June 2013, a public consultation on the issue received 1,557 submissions, the majority of which wanted the council to stop adding fluoride to the city water supply.
12. After 4 days of hearings, the council voted 7-1 to stop the fluoridation when stocks run out.
13. This decision infuriated experts, dentists, and scientists throughout the country who labeled the anti-fluoride campaign as inaccurate scaremongering.
14. The ongoing debate continues due to a misinterpretation (and sometimes deliberate misuse) of science.
15. The misuse of science in the fluoride debate is leading to inappropriate interpretations of studies.
16. Sir Peter Gluckman has noted that the balance between doing good (reducing caries) and not doing significant harm (minimal dental mottling) is scientifically clear.
17. Any remaining debate has analogies to the immunization situation and to the imposition of regulations such as those requiring the wearing of seat belts.
18. New Zealand officially supports community water fluoridation as an evidence-based public health strategy to prevent dental decay.
19. The consensus among health experts favors fluoridation for population health benefits.
20. Political and public resistance persists related to autonomy and risk perceptions.
21. It is crucial to examine what the debate is really about.
22. Values debates are critical for a healthy democracy.
23. The debate cannot proceed usefully if it is shifted inappropriately to another domain.
24. It is important to consider the impact of chronic diseases such as cancer on health and wellness.
25. Fitness and exercise, nutrition, and mental health are key factors in maintaining cardiovascular health.
26. Autoimmune disorders, respiratory conditions, digestive health, eye health, and hearing are other important health issues.
27. Medical advances in science have led to breakthroughs in treating and managing various chronic diseases.
28. The manufacturing industry plays a significant role in environmental science and sustainability.
29. Climate change poses a threat to the economic growth of various industries, including finance, energy, and retail.
30. Cybersecurity, technology, artificial intelligence, and data and cloud computing are essential aspects of modern business, venture capitalism, and personal finance.
31. Lifestyle choices, including fashion and beauty, food and drink, and home and garden trends, also play a role in wealth management, banking and insurance, real estate, and stock market investments.

Read also: