Fluoridation

House of Lords written question – answered at on 21 December 2010.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Crossbench

To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 26 October (WA 256), whether the absence of citation of any free websites at references 12 and 13 of the South Central Strategic Health Authority's consultation document on water fluoridation, which would facilitate the assessment of the evidence by an average member of the public, conforms with the intentions for public consultation under the Water Act 2003.

Photo of Earl Howe Earl Howe The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health

The requirements for consultations under the Water Industry Act 1991 are detailed in the Water Fluoridation (Consultation) (England) Regulations 2005. The regulations require that a "strategic health authority shall:

publish details of the steps they propose to take, and the manner in which individuals who would be affected by it and bodies with an interest can make representations regarding the proposal in one or more newspapers circulating within the area to which the arrangements relate; andin such other media accessible within that area as the authority consider appropriate for the purpose of bringing the proposal to the attention of individuals affected and bodies with an interest".

Does this answer the above question?

Yes0 people think so

No5 people think not

Would you like to ask a question like this yourself? Use our Freedom of Information site.

Annotations

Sustianbility Yours
Posted on 22 Dec 2010 7:59 pm (Report this annotation)

Is it I, or are all the answers given by the Government over issues with fluoridation of public drinking water supplies purposely designed to fail to answer most of the questions asked?

I would consider this continued avoidance of a definite answer, such in this question, as very questionable. It would seem to imply that the Government's position on this issue is not based on safe scientific practice or proper legislation that reflects good jurisprudence, nor is it in line with human rights.

It is especially questionable given the lack of legal status of mass fluoridation and the apparently cynical way in which the Water Act 2003 requires consultation over fluoridation of water supplies, but allows any such consultation to be ignored with impunity. The Act is written in such a way as to imply people will actually want fluoridation when the history of attempts to fluoridate public waste supplies nationally over the last 40 years has always been for the public to reject it through the local democratic systems.

In these times of clear global scientific concern relating to ‘accepted’ low fluoride dosage and human health it would seem at the best unhelpful of the Government to continue to take this stance, and perhaps also, considering the time taken, places it in the position of future legal suits against its continued apparent circumvention of good legal practice, protection of human health and the environment and is a potential breach of human rights in regards to safe food, water and the freedom for an individual to choose there medication, which should be based on their individual health status.