Opinion – Fluoride In Water Or Not – The Debate Continues

As promised the Government is now passing legislation which  “passes the buck” to District Health Boards (DHBs) when it comes to making a decision on fluoridation of the water supply.  It would be much more efficient for a decision to be made by the Government which applied across the whole of New Zealand, but the politicians have dived for cover because the subject is so contentious.

I would be surprised if all of the DHBs didn’t make decisions in favour of fluoridation because the DHBs are used to making decisions of a medical nature, and it is the logical way to go.  The science is fairly clear cut in showing that low rates of fluoridation (far lower than the rates which would trigger any adverse effects) are extremely beneficial in lowering rates of tooth decay, especially in children.

I think too that public opinion – based on polling – is in favour of fluoridation and of course fluoride occurs naturally in the environment.

In reality most chemicals are toxic if you ingest them in high enough concentrations.  That even applies to common salt.  In the case of fluoride the amount ingested would have to be orders of magnitude higher than the amounts used in water supply to have any adverse effects.

However, there will continue to be groups of people virulently opposed to fluoride and there seems to be two sets of grounds for this:’

• The first is simply that it is a poison ( but see the discussion above) and I am sure that it is possible to find cases where adverse effects have occurred as it is with most things.  But I think we are talking very low probabilities here.  In reality I think the probability is close to negligible.
• The second grounds used are that mass fluoridation takes away the element of personal choice. Well yes it does.  But people can use bottled water only for drinking if they feel strongly about it, and the reality is that it is standard practice for some things to be done at a general level rather than left to the individual because the benefits are so clear.  An example is the pasteurisation of milk.  That is why we have  laws and standards covering all manner of things

So inevitably the debate will continue and equally inevitably those people holding strong views on the subject will continue to hold those views.