This may seem like a strange time to come back from a prolonged posting drought, but I want to show I still have faith in Steemit. I’ve got posts for the next two days in my head as well. Maybe they’ll only make pennies, maybe they’ll make nothing, but I need to get my groove back on regardless!
So where have I been? Well, we had some changes in our business circumstances which meant that I’ve had to put in extra hours in our business. That’s not going to change, but it has settled a little. Then there was this Parliamentary business, which I’ll get on to shortly. I’m an introvert, so it completely emptied my fuel tank. That was followed three days later by some performing with the Community Choir, which I’ll post about tomorrow. That was a lot of fun, but tiring as well. But I’ve got some fuel back in my tank. I should be using it to start on our end of year accounts, but it’s the weekend, so I’m taking time to Steem On!
One last thing before I launch into it – thanks to all my followers for hanging in there, and hello to the new followers who have kindly joined me despite my recent dry spell.
OK, so this is a bit controversial, so I’ll start by saying that I’m not trying to change anybody’s mind on this issue, just talking about where I stand, and how things are here.
Water fluoridation in New Zealand
For as long as I can remember, the decision on whether to fluoridate has been the responsibility of the local councils.
In Wellington, the Greater Wellington Regional Council fluoridates the water, but it’s up to the individual councils – Wellington, Lower Hutt, Upper Hutt, Porirua, Kapiti and Wairararapa – to decide whether they want it. At present, most of the region is fluoridated, though there are a couple of small areas who are not. There are a couple of fountains in our area (well, half an hours drive) that are pure aquifer water, which caters to those who don’t want to ingest fluoride. Like us.
Nationwide, there are some areas fluoridated, and some not. Currently only 23 councils out of 67 choose to fluoridate, which equates to about 50% of the population. This doesn’t seem to please our government, who have decided that the decision needs to be made by the District Health Boards, who take their advice from the Ministry of Health. The MoH are firmly in favour of fluoridation.
While many citizens are not…
Proposed new legislation
So there is legislation in the pipeline to change who makes the decision. If the DHBs make the decision, basically the whole of NZ is in danger of being fluoridated. Yes, our government is trying to legislate for mandatory fluoridation, without actually calling it that.
Earlier this year, they called for submissions on the bill. About 90-95% of the submissions opposed the bill. In March, those who wanted to were able to make oral presentations to the Parliamentary Select Committee for Health. I didn’t want to, public speaking is not my favourite thing, but it’s important, so I did it anyway. Because @sift666 and I put in individual submissions plus submissions on behalf of our business and the Weston A Price foundation, I ended up with quite a bit of speaking time – most people only got 5 minutes!
Saying my piece
I didn’t have to speak in front of too many people – 3 members of the committee, some admin staff, maybe 3 from the press and a handful of public.
For the first block of time I spoke for @sift666 and covered his 12 reasons why he opposes fluoridation. Some of you will already be aware of those reasons, but I’ll just quickly mention three of them:
• It doesn’t work! Yes, used topically, it may make teeth harder, but they become brittle rather than strong. Used internally, it doesn’t work at all.
• What it does do is cause all sorts of health issues including hypothyroidism and arthritis.
• The true cause of tooth decay is nutritional, and it doesn’t address that.
I didn’t go into the health risks in any detail, because many other presenters were covering those. But I summed up by recommending a program like the successful Scottish ChildSmile.
For our business and the Weston A Price foundation, I talked about the true causes of tooth decay being nutritional, and how Weston Price’s researched demonstrated that.
But what I most want to share with you is my own presentation about our democratic and personal rights being violated. This is true whether you believe in the effectiveness and safety of fluoride or not.
My presentation
The premise underlying this legislation is that “Water fluoridation is a safe, effective, cost effective way of preventing tooth decay”.
It been proved that fluoridation is neither safe nor effective. But today I want to show that this legislation would still be unfair and illegal, even if the premise were true.
We know that the hydrofluorosilicic acid put into NZ water isn’t a nutritional element. It’s an industry by-product ie. a chemical.
Given the purpose (improving health) and the means (an ingested chemical), it’s indisputable that fluoridating the water is a medical intervention, so we must consider it as such when determining the suitability of this legislation.
I now refer to the 1996 Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights - a regulation under the Health and Disability Commissioner Act. It grants a number of rights to all consumers of health services in New Zealand, and places obligations on providers of those services. This includes any organisation providing a health service to the public - whether that service is paid for or not. I think we can all agree that water fluoridation falls into this category.
Some of those rights are:
• Right 1 - Right to be Treated with Respect. Every consumer has the right to be provided with services that take into account the needs, values, and beliefs of different cultural, religious, social, and ethnic groups, including Maori.
o There is no such allowance in this bill
• Right 2 - Right to Freedom from Discrimination, Coercion, Harassment, and Exploitation.
o We would be coerced into having fluoride in our water whether we want it or not
• Right 6 - Right to be Fully Informed. Every consumer has the right to the information that they need to make an informed choice or give informed consent.
o Only part of the information is being made available to the public now, so we know that consumers will not be fully informed
• Right 7 - Right to Make an Informed Choice and Give Informed Consent. Services may be provided to a consumer only if that consumer makes an informed choice and gives informed consent.
o There will be no informed consent. This intervention will be forced on us.
o Some will say that we can filter the fluoride out if we feel that strongly about it. But the reality is that most fluoride filters don’t work, or only filter out some, or they put aluminium in as a by product of the process.
o The only other alternative is to install our own water tanks. But this would be a financial burden that most people could not afford. This then goes back to Right #2 which allows us the right to be free of financial exploitation.
• Right 5 - Right to Effective Communication and Right 10 - Right to Complain
o It’s unlikely that we would have either of these rights.
This bill would give the DHBs complete power to make decisions about fluoridation of the water supply. The DHBs would have no obligation to consult with communities but would be able to give directives. So some communities who want to remain unfluoridated would be unable to do so. Also, there would be:
• No informed consent
• No ability to make our own decisions
• No way to implement a dose tailored for a particular person’s needs
• No way for people who are sensitive to fluoride to avoid it
• No assessment of the impact on those sensitive populations e.g. the elderly or people with kidney, thyroid or arthritic conditions
• No assessment of the health of the entire person – the only concern seems to be dental health
• DHBs would not be obliged to look for non-fluoride options of reducing dental decay
• DHBs would only be required to assess financial impact on dental health costs. They wouldn’t be required to take into account the increased health care costs of increases in conditions such as hypothyroid, arthritis, kidney issues and diabetes.
• There is not even any requirement to assess increases in these conditions over time, or to monitor accumulation of fluoride in teeth, bones and pineal glands in the population.
• The DHBs will be informed by the Ministry of Health, and there is no guarantee that this information will to informed, up-to-date and unbiased.
So this legislation would completely contravene an existing legislation that was implemented to protect health consumers. This makes it unfit for purpose.
The decision about whether to take fluoride should be in the hands of each individual. It is a medical intervention and no organisation of any kind should have any say in it. This includes local or national government, health boards and the Ministry of Health.
One last comment about the democratic nature of this proposal – people who favour fluoridation seem to get very upset about “anti-fluoridationists” denying them the right to have fluoride in their water. I have no issue with other people ingesting fluoride if they want to do so. That is their right. What I have an issue with is those same people telling me that I have to ingest a neurotoxin because they want to.
Dental decay is a very real public health issue, but this isn’t the way to address it. Instead, I would favour a program similar to the successful Scottish ChildSmile.
Was it a waste of my time and energy?
Yes, probably. One of the other people presenting was told by one of the committee members that we all approached it wrong. The legislation is a done deal and there is no way we could have stopped it. But we could maybe have had some influence on the wording of it.
So ultimately, this is not a very cheerful post to start back with. But it is what it is. Sometimes you need to stand up for what you believe in, even when it’s pissing into the wind.
Thanks for reading and the next post will be more uplifting!
Follow me for more health, nutrition, food, lifestyle and recipe posts.
