Kapiti Coast District Council

COUNCILLORS

Councillor	Fluoridation	Position Statement
Diane Ammundsen	For	In my experience fluoride has beneficial effects on reducing cavities in teeth. When I remember family members who had their teeth removed at a comparably young age, the fillings I have had to have and the health of my children’s and grandchildren’s teeth (who have had fluoride all their lives) this tells me that fluoride has been beneficial. I know that diet is important but I think that people of previous generations did not eat all the take-a-way food that young ones do now, which cannot be good for them. Qualified health professionals recommend fluoride and I respect their views.
Roger Booth	Supports referendum	I believe that every citizen has the right to their personal opinion on fluoride and I do support it. My brother was a dentist across the introduction of fluoride, and that profession struggled for work and had to branch (in retrospect quite usefully) into decay protection (mainly then called plasma) and teeth straightening to find work, because the introduction of fluoride had such positive effects. My children certainly benefited, as they all have remarkably good teeth as adults with their own children. I do not believe that councillors should make decisions on whether or not fluoride should be in our water, or at what strength. It is absolutely something that should be decided by referendum, and the recent council decisions were unfortunate and will hopefully be re-litigated by the new council. Kapiti has never had a referendum on this matter, and should from time to time.
Mike Cardiff	Not sure	I have no firm view either way on the fluoridation of the district water supply. The present Council has made a decision on this and it may well transpire that the new Council could have a different view if the matter is considered again.
Ross Church	Not sure	There are more than 2 sides to this. Some say it's a heavy metal and shouldn't be forced upon us. Others (including dentists) say it's been shown to be good for a communites' collective teeth. Other say it should be optional. Others say..............etc etc. My initial reaction was to say that 'it never did me any harm'. I genuinely believe that. However I can understand the concerns people have about fluoride, and because it can be bought either as tablet or in toothpaste, I'm starting to swing around to the idea that it should be up to the individual. My difficulty with that is we know that you can 'educate' people all you like (take all the education about drink driving for example) but people still don't take advantage of that education. So, we can 'educate' people to take fluoride if they wish, but will they, and will their teeth-health suffer as a result? So, I'm still unconvinced one way or the other, and am open to peruasion. Being open to education, and being very much a user pays type of person, I guess my bias is towards no fluoride in our water, and let the individual decide. My fear with that is that the collective health of the community will go backwards, as we know that many people don't have the education, or the will, to properly care for their health, or the health of their children. But, as already said, I'm still open to persuasion.That's not sitting on the fence. That's a genuine belief that no side has a proven case, so the jury is still out. I would support more expertise and research being applied to this, 'til such time as one side clearly demonstrates a persuasive argument, such that I could confidently go one way or the other.
Peter Ellis	For	Mr Ellis voted to continue fluoridation in Kapiti in 2010. He voted against lowering the fluoride levels. He voted against warning parents not to use fluoridated tap water. - ed
Penny Gaylor
Tony Lester
K Gurunathan	Supports consultation	This is a serious human rights question. People have a right to choose to be medicated. Given the complex and conflicting information on the matter I would support a referendum with a neutral authority providing both sides of the information so it does not advantage those with resources especially state funded resources.
Tony Lloyd
Hillary Wooding	For	Voted to continue fluoridation in 2010 - ed

OTHER CANDIDATES 2010 ELECTIONS

Candidate	Fluoridation	Position statement
Beryl Barr	Against	No I do not support fluoridation. I will endeavour to keep the pressure on to have it either taken out or lowered further to what has just been done.
Mark Benton	Not sure	Until recently I had no interest in the fluoridation debate, and the pros and cons of the argument remind me a bit of American TV where one expert is then rebutted by another. I'm neither for or against, so I would support a referendum or some sort of consultative process.
Don Briggs	Against	Based entirely on the fact of uncertainty I believe that ALL fluorination should be stopped. For the same reason I believe that a referendum would simply give us the the collective sum of the same uncertainty rather than an objective answer.
Mike Clulee	Against	I do not support Fluoridation but if elected as Mayor I would insist on a referendum and then do all within my power to support the peoples wishes.
Peter Daniel	Against	1. I do not support Fluoridation. I have now done over 1500 hours research on the internet and reading books on the subject, and I have been careful to research both sides of the argument. The proponents of fluoridation have only five or six statements one or more of which they continue to quote in every report they make. Every one one of them can easily be dissected and proved to be wrong. There is a massive amount of indisputable research worldwide that proves beyond doubt that fluoridation is the biggest corporate hoax of the 20th century and now in the 21st century we are still fighting this hoax. Health authorities in the west choose to ignore the huge amount of scientific data from the east proving the horrors of fluoridation. This maybe unwise as China and India are the emerging super powers. 2. I have been fighting it and have been subject on two occasions to being warned not to vote because of a bias. I am the only one who has done extensive research on council, some have done none and rely totally on the proponents MOH. My crime is my dedication to knowing exactly what fluoridation is, how it began and its affects on human kind and the environment. I will never give up the fight to stop this mad charade of pretense that fluoride is good for us. 3.No. We now live in a world where not only can we think for ourselves but we can educate ourselves namely through the internet. Education is the key. Overall people are becoming more savvy on almost every issue and this is opening up Pandoras box in that lies, ignorance and deception are being uncloaked by millions of ordinary citizens worldwide. 4. I will support anything that leads to the cessation of fluoridation both in Kapiti and throughout New Zealand.
Trevor Daniell	Not sure	Would support referendum or some sort of consultative process.
Helene Donaldson	For	If successfully elected to Council, I would not presume to therefore be an expert on all subjects and would seek information and advice. This is a difficult issue as it appears that for every 'expert' on one side of the debate, there is an 'expert' on the other side; all giving conflicting information. To that end, I do wonder if this should be a decision for central government to make, after a nationwide referendum and submissions to a Select Committee. I believe as a Councillor I would have a duty to listen to the views of the wider community and also take on board expert advice (from both sides of the issue). To date, the research I have read/heard makes me still support fluoridation. I would support a referendum to give a clear indication of the wider community views.
David Dowd	Supports debate and referendum	If there is more recent evidence to be considered, I would prefer to see all sides of an up-to-date discussion/debate leading to a referendum. To lessen the costs involved, that process should ideally occur when other issues were to considered by communities. Perhaps the next review of LTCCPs could be an opportune time. I would align my public opinion to the result of such a democratic process.
Steve Eckett	For	Obviously no-one should be disregarded totally on any matter and I do not think that has happened in this case. Would support a referendum or some sort of consultative process.
Nick Fisher	Against	I do not agree with the fluoridation of the water supply. I would vote to discontinue, until such time as there is irrefutable evidence of its effectiveness. To date there has been no truly scientific survey done. Even if fluoride were proven to be effective in dental health, I do not believe that the water supply is an appropriate method of distribution.
Richard Halliday (Waikanae Ward, Waikanae Community Board)	Against	I do not support fluoridation. At this stage I think the claims of its benefits are dubious and also it takes away choice. It is a poison. I need to research it more so I could put up a solid case to try to persuade Council to leave it out. I think the council ought to regard the opinion of the people, but how much is that steered by the MoH and the Council, dentists, etc? Is it a bit of a matter of indoctrination that we were brought up believing it was good for us? Therefore I'm not sure I'd trust a referendum. I'm not fully informed myself yet. If elected to Council or Community Board for Waikanae, steps I'll take: I'll do more research, prepare a motion to Council or Community Board to have fluoridation at Waikanae Water Treatment Plant discontinued. Ask you to assist me to get some press in the local papers to inform the community, by way of preparing articles, etc. Ask some questions of the Council CEO and/or any re-elected Councillors as to why they didn't can fluoridation. If Council has the authority to decide to discontinue, I want to exercise that, not defer to central Government itself or its agencies/departments for a decision.
Jane Holborow	Supports consultation	I think that apart from any health benefits or otherwise, fluoridation is a matter of personal choice and freedom. Fluoride is easy and cheap to buy as a supplement, if people wish to take it. I think that it should be a nation-wide decision and debate, and so I would be active in encouraging central government to consult over fluoridation. This does not mean that we should necessarily act on the advice of the health ministry, but rather let people have the choice. I would be active in ensuring that a vast majority of people want their water fluoridated if we are to continue to add it to our water. This would, I believe, warrant a referendum if we are to have fluoridated water, otherwise, if we need fluoride, we should be educated in how to best obtain it in other ways.
Tony Jack	Against	I do not support the ongoing addition of fluoride in the central water supply. Residents have a choice to self medicate if they wish. I have proposed that Council move to binding referenda on such issues as a part of my election statements.
Don Moselen	Against	Personally I do not favour fluoridation, in another life I learned much about the subject when I was employed by Sir Dove-Meyer Robinson at which time he was campaigning against adding fluoride to Auckland ’s water. A great deal more is known today and regrettably the average person does not seem to care one way or another or they prefer to listen to the MOH. I would prefer that the incoming council sponsor a referendum on the matter, I do not believe that it is something which 11 people should decide.
Mary O'Sullivan	Supports stopping until evidence re-examined	I think there are pros and cons in the fluoride debate and admit to being not fully informed on the issue. As a lecturer in public health I can see the evidence in deprivation areas for dental health, however there are also other factors which are a cause for concern, such as effects on infants etc. I would support discontinuing fluoride in the water supply until a thorough examination of the evidence can be carried out and a referendum may also be possible. If there are risks to health or people who are sensitive to fluoride suffering effects it should be discontinued. I also have other concerns about the reliability of fluoride additives to our water and have some concerns about the levels of fluctuation which occur. There is a big difference between 0.8 and 1.3. Rather than add fluoride to the water we should consider providing free enamel treatments and dental hygiene treatments to young people. In this day and age there are probably better targeted actions than adding fluoride en masse and as a public health measure it has probably had its day.
Marc Pettie (Waikanae Community Board)	Against	There is more than one way for someone to take fluoride based on their needs (toothpaste, tablets, drinking water being examples). I also support the principal of individual choice. In terms of ability to exercise individual choice I consider the debate from a perspective of the ease anyone can 'opt in' or 'opt out' of taking fluoride. It's probably easier for an individual to seek a dose of fluoride by tablet or toothpaste than for someone who doesn't want or need to have fluoride in their water to put in place filters or set up an alternative water supply. I also look at it from a cost/benefit perspective. "Dosing" the entire population at the rate payer's expense to alleviate decay derives a benefit to the national health system by reducing the burden for dental intervention which I believe is paid for by the tax payer through health subsidies for young children. I therefore consider it unfair that KCDC rate payers are subsidising national health budgets. I would, at very least, like to hear more from both sides of this argument. I would support a referendum or something similar to encourage public discussion, and accurately gauge the level of support for retaining fluoride in the water supply.
David Scott	Against	You know that I am deeply concerned about the fluoride in our water. We managed to reduce the level to a WHO ‘safe’ (sic) level of -7 per million. I would feel happier with none and I am of the same opinion as Dr Kevin Baker. I voted for the reduction but abstained from the next time we voted on it because I saw it was clearly lost.
Michael Scott (District Wide and Waikanae Community Board)	For but open to reviewing position	The currently water supply quality is mandated by the Ministry of Health. The level of flouride to be added to water is also mandated by the ministry however its implimentation is left to local authorities. From the research that has currently been placed on the table, I am not currently convinced that flouride should be removed from the Kapitit water supply. I consider the recent KCDC decision a sensible one to take but would not support the removal of flouride from our current water supply. Non flouridated water is now more available in Otaki and Paekakareki for those members of our community who chose use non flouridated water. I will be interested as the Eurpoean review of data advances and am certainly prepared to review my position in the future if further adverse data is disclosre.
Marilyn Stephens	Against	I do not support fluoridation. It is a very '70s idea and we have moved on, I would hope, from the concept of fluoridated water for all as the answer to children's tooth decay. Many factors influence tooth decay in children and the main culprits are lollipops and sweetened drinks - especially from a bottle. Over the past 40 years there has been sufficient advance in knowledge about fluoridation and children's tooth decay to cast doubt on the benefits of mass consumption of fluoride. If elected I would work to repel fluoridated water supplies in the Kapiti area.
Harold Thomas	For	I support fluoridation of water at the level which has just been approved by council. What about the other chemicals in the water treatment process such as chlorine and lime, both of these if not used correctly are worse in terms of affecting health.
Adrian Webster	Supports consultation	I consider that communities should be free to make up their own mind as our village did almost 30 years ago.
Renwick Wright (Paekakariki Community Board)	No problem with fluoridation, but will support community majority	First of all, I am standing for the Paekakariki Community Board, so I will answer your questions primarily with reference to the township of Paekakariki rather than district-wide. The majority of the Paekakariki community clearly prefers a non-fluoridated water supply; I respect that so have absolutely no intention to try to change that situation either now or in the future. Personally, I have no problem with fluoridation although I believe that KCDC’s recent decision to reduce the level to 0.7 mg/L is a reasonable compromise. If elected I will support the ongoing non-fluoridation of the Paekakariki water supply. I do not intend to become involved in the issue with reference to the wider Kapiti district. I think it is acceptable for councilors to take MOH advice into account and to consider it along with input from all sides of the debate. and to then make what they believe is the best decision for the district. Council also have to consider the opinions of all people living in the district, whether they be for or against, but as opinion is polarised they will upset people no matter what they decide. At this stage, I personally see no need for a referendum and I note that while reviewing submissions on the Annual Plan in relation to fluoridation:
Doris Zuur	Against	I oppose fluoridation. The recent decision is progress but it needs to be followed up further – I would strongly support any initiative towards it but my focus will remain the opposing of the expressway and I wonder how many big issues one can carry? I always support consultative process – it should be the basis of an decision making.

Back to main elections page