The Post

Top court sinks teeth into fluoridati­on case

- COURT REPORTER

The Supreme Court looks set to tackle the issue of whether adding fluoride to water supplies amounts to medicating citizens to reduce tooth decay.

The court yesterday reserved its decision on an appeal by New Health New Zealand, a group that opposes fluoridati­on of water supplies.

New Health appealed against a decision that South Taranaki District Council should be allowed to put fluoride in the water supplies of Waverley and Pa¯ tea, two areas with poor oral hygiene.

One of the planks of New Health’s appeal was the Bill of Rights Act guarantee that anyone had the right to refuse to undergo medical treatment.

Fluoridate­d water supplies delivered medication, said New Health’s lawyer, Mary Scholtens, QC.

The right to refuse medical treatment was subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as could be justified in a free and democratic society.

For the minister of health, Crown lawyer Austin Powell argued fluoridate­d water was a public health measure, not medical treatment.

If the court found that adding fluoride was authorised, reading several provisions together, then it would be

"There is a substantia­l body of evidence that fluoridati­on is a safe and effective way of reducing widespread disease."

Council lawyer Duncan Laing

prescribed by law and the real issue would become whether it was justified, Powell said.

The council has defended the science behind fluoridati­on and said fluoridate­d water was not medication, lawyer Duncan Laing said.

Fluoridati­ng water was not delivering medical treatment, but even if it was medical treatment, it was legally allowed and was a minimal intrusion, he argued.

The Ministry of Health encouraged local authoritie­s to fluoridate, after evaluating the scientific evidence and commission­ing its own studies. It had been looked at on human rights grounds, and by a commission of inquiry.

‘‘There is a substantia­l body of evidence that fluoridati­on is a safe and effective way of reducing widespread disease,’’ Laing said.

New Health has said that fluoride added to the water is not the same as medical-grade fluoride found in fluoride tablets and toothpaste.

New Health said the water additive was a product of the fertiliser industry but Laing said that was not always the case.

Additives to drinking water had to comply with comprehens­ive water standards and it was not credible to say it added dangerous or inappropri­ate elements from the fluoride.

New Health said fluoride was not proven safe or effective in reducing tooth decay.

Until 2002, local authoritie­s had a clear power to add fluoride to water supplies. A law change removed the specific reference to it but a parcel of provisions, including a general duty on local authoritie­s to improve, promote and protect public health, continued the power to fluoridate, Laing said.

The court has been told that just under half the population lives in areas where fluoride is added to the local water supply.

A proposal to change the law to give district health boards the power to make decisions and give directions about the fluoridati­on of local government water supplies in their areas is still before Parliament.

 ??  ??
 ?? PHOTO: RACHEL HOCKRIDGE ?? A box of ka¯ka¯po¯ skulls recovered by Te Papa staff from the floor of the cave near Martinboro­ugh.
PHOTO: RACHEL HOCKRIDGE A box of ka¯ka¯po¯ skulls recovered by Te Papa staff from the floor of the cave near Martinboro­ugh.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand