ePetition details

Petition against water fluoridation

We the undersigned petition the council to reverse its endorsement of the Strategic Health Authority’s scheme to fluoridate the city’s water supply. We also ask that when it assumes responsibility for public health, the Council will not implement a fluoridation scheme.

In November 2008, the City Council voted to endorse the South Central Strategic Health Authority’s proposed scheme to fluoridate the local water supply. In March 2010, responding to public protest, the City Council passed a resolution stating that no new scheme should go ahead without a local referendum. However, the Council’s endorsement of water fluoridation was not reversed. When the SHA is abolished next year, the City Council will assume responsibility for the implementation of water fluoridation; it is, therefore, vitally important that the Council withdraws its current support for the scheme. Adding fluoride to the water supply is unethical because it constitutes mass medication without consent. The Council has not taken into consideration the most up-to-date evidence of the impact of water fluoridation. Recent research has demonstrated that young children in fluoridated areas ingest fluoride in excess of recommended upper limits and that dental fluorosis is endemic. In September 2010, the European Union Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risk described water fluoridation as “a crude and rather ineffective form of systemic fluoride treatment to prevent dental caries without a detectable threshold for dental and bone damage ...” and that “... there is no obvious advantage in favour of water fluoridation compared to topical application..” In the last year, three major cities in Canada (Waterloo, Gatineau and Calgary, totalling some 2 million people) have stopped water fluoridation due to health concerns. The USA government is considering reducing fluoride levels from 1ppm (the level recommended in Southampton) because of research showing that over 40% of children have dental fluorosis and concerns about other potential harms.

This ePetition ran from 18/03/2011 to 17/06/2011 and has now finished.

614 people signed this ePetition.

Council response

The Council received the following petition from Mr Peckham. As the petition contained 1,500 signatures, under the Council’s Procedure Rules the petition was a qualifying petition which must be debated at Council:

“We the undersigned petition the Council to reverse its endorsement of the Strategic Health Authority’s scheme to fluoridate the City’s water supply. We also ask that when it assumes responsibility for public health, the Council will not implement a fluoridation scheme.”

The Council agreed to suspend Council Procedure Rules 14.2 - 14.9 to enable flexibility in debate.

Councillor Moulton moved and Councillor Smith seconded:

“Council welcomes the petition and thanks all those who have signed it for doing so. Council acknowledges that this is an issue of concern to many.

Council notes that there is no scope for reversal of the Council’s endorsement of “the SHA’s scheme. The consultation has been completed and there is no opportunity or requirement for continuing support or consultation. At the time the Council were supportive. The SHA made a decision and that decision has been upheld by the Court. There is now a legal obligation on the Water Undertaker to implement a fluoridation scheme in Southampton unless there is a change in the law.

Council further notes that the new public health role for the Council is subject to passage of the Health and Social Care Bill. If passed as currently drafted the Council will not be responsible for implementing the scheme. The responsibility continues to rest with the Water Company.

The Council does not have a specific role in the process of implementing the legal obligation placed on the Water Company to fluoridate the water in Southampton. Until the Bill receives Royal Assent, it is unclear what requirements would be placed on a Council in the future if it were minded to propose the termination of a scheme.

Council further notes that the Heath and Social Care Bill is currently progressing through Parliament and is now in the House of Lords, and that those with strong views on fluoride might wish to make representations to Parliament on the Bill, as the wording will potentially impact on current and any future fluoridations schemes.

Finally Council resolves to urgently debate the issue of local fluoridation again should powers be granted to the Authority which give it any powers to influence the progression of a fluoridation scheme”.

Councillor Drake altered and moved and Councillor Turner seconded:

‘This Council now opposes the addition of fluoride to Southampton’s water supply and will use any future powers Southampton City Council may be given to prevent the implementation of a fluoridation scheme.’

UPON BEING PUT TO THE VOTE THE MOTION IN THE NAME OF COUNCILLOR MOULTON WAS DECLARED CARRIED

UPON BEING PUT TO THE VOTE THE MOTION IN THE NAME OF COUNCILLOR DRAKE WAS DECLARED CARRIED