Wellington City Council
COUNCILLORS| Councillor | Fluoridation |
Position Statement |
| Celia Wade-Brown (mayor) |
Mayor Wade-Brown has been contacted on numerous occassions and each time she argues why she believes fluoridation needs to continue (ed) | |
| Ray Ahipene-Mercer |
Mr Ahipene-Mercer was on the Wellington Regional Council Review of fluoridation in 1993 which voted to continue fluoridation. | |
| Ngaire Best |
||
| Stephanie Cook |
||
| Jo Coughlan |
For |
1. Do you support fluoridation? Yes. 2. If you do support fluoridation, do you believe that it is acceptable for councillors to rely on the advice by the Ministry of Health and disregard the opinion of the people who pay for and drink the water? At this stage. |
| Paul Eagle |
||
| Andy Foster |
When Mr Foster has been contacted on the phone he argued in support of fluoriation | |
| Leonie Gill |
||
| Justin Lester |
For |
1. Do you support fluoridation?
Yes, at 0.7ppm, the lower end of the rate prescribed by the Ministry of Health and the World Health Organisation. 2. If not, what definite steps would you take, if you are elected, to stop fluoridation in this area? At this stage none, subject to my response to number 4 below. 3. If you do support fluoridation, do you believe that it is acceptable for councillors to rely on the advice by the Ministry of Health and disregard the opinion of the people who pay for and drink the water? The Ministry of Health is the organisation responsible for policy decisions on New Zealanders health and are better equipped than local government to make such decisions. I would expect the Ministry to make its decisions based on sound, evidence based research. 4.If you are not sure, would you support a referendum or some sort of consultative process? I’d support a citizen based referendum if the required number of signatures were obtained. |
| Ian McKinnon |
||
| Simon Marsh |
Not sure |
I do not have sufficient information to make an informed decision either way. If an overwhelming majority of water drinkers were quite opposed to the fluoridation of our water supply then I would hope the democratic process would prevail. If an overwhelming number of water drinkers indicated their opposition to fluoridation through a petition then a referendum would probably not be necessary but a review of the practise would be in order. |
| John Morrison |
||
| Iona Pannett |
For |
1. Do you support fluoridation? Yes, as I believe it assists with dental health but think it should be added in at the minimum level to be effective, not the maximum. 2. If not, what definite steps would you take, if you are elected, to stop fluoridation in this area? I support my colleague Celia Wade-Brown's attempt to look at a spring fed source of water for those not wanting to drink fluoridated water. 3. If you do support fluoridation, do you believe that it is acceptable for councillors to rely on the advice by the Ministry of Health and disregard the opinion of the people who pay for and drink the water? I think we need to rely on a variety of scientific evidence. If further evidence were to emerge that fluoridation is harmful, then we need to look at the issue further. 4. If you are not sure, would you support a referendum or some sort of consultative process? I would encourage anyone concerned with fluoridation to continue talking with councillors about this issue. I would also be happy to support some kind of consultation process if the community gave the Council a clear signal that it wanted to engage in such a process. We do however need to prioritise our resources; it is not possible to consult on every issue so such a move would need to be supported by many. I note also that there are some people convinced that fluoridation is positive for this city and think that their views need to be taken into consideration as well. |
| Bryan Pepperell |
Not sure |
Supports referendum or some sort of consultative process. |
| Helene Ritchie |
OTHER CANDIDATES 2010 ELECTIONS
| Candidate | Fluoridation |
Position statement |
| John Bishop |
Supports consultation |
My
position is very simple. Personally I support fluoridation and I
benefitted from it as a child. However it cannot be imposed on people.
Therefore where it is present I support having a referendum process to
remove it, and where it is not present, I support having a referendum
process to put it in. |
| Camilia Chin |
Supports consultation |
I am not sure if water should have fluoride added. There are so many arguments for and against.
However,
I would support a referendum or some sort of consultative process as I
belive in following a democratic process to ascertain the wishes of the
people. |
| Rob Goulden |
Against |
I
am prepared to debate the issue with officials and Councillors. We
should listen to all points of view. I would support a referendum and
consultation process on the issue because I don’t know what the wider
community thinks about this issue. I know some are opposed. |
| Greg McPhee |
Not sure |
As I find this one of the more difficult questions asked.
I have done a bit of research of my own. There seems to be a lot of conflicting view point's on this subject.
So the jury is out for me and the position statement 4, at this stage would be the preferred option. |
| Mike Mellor |
For consultation |
I do not in general support the principle of mass medication, but there appears to be considerable evidence that fluoridation has improved dental health. I would need to take a detailed look at independent peer-reviewed scientific evidence. If I came to the conclusion that continuing fluoridation was undesirable, I would use council procedures to try and stop it. The Ministry of Health is a major source of scientific and professional advice, and I am not aware of any great groundswell of public opinion in this matter. I don't see this as an "either/or" question since it's not clear to me that there are major differences here - but I'm willing to be educated! A consulative process would be a good idea, based on independent scientifically-verified and peer-reviewed evidence. |
| Will Moore (Southern Ward) |
Against |
Firstly: toxic waste byproduct; cannot be dumped into landfills, rivers, seas, or streams. Because it is TOXIC.
Secondly: the waste is sent throughout Canada, Northern Ireland, America,
Australia and NZ for filtering by humans, animals, and the environment. |
| Rex Nairn |
Against |
Currently I do not support fluoridation of municipal water supply. I have researched this subject and would like to make a couple of points about fluoride in drinking water: For fluoride to strengthen teeth it needs to be applied topically so I can see no way putting it in our drinking water can have any benefits. Many people who support fluoridation point out that it occurs naturally in water, however, the fluoride added to drinking water is, in fact, silicofluoride which is a waste by-product of aluminium smelting and does not occur naturally. Sadly, I discovered in my research that Dental Associations around the world refuse to engage in the fluoride debate so I found very little to rebut these two crucial points. If elected, I will be a first term councillor and will have a heavy workload getting up to speed on a wide range of issues so I cannot promise to stop the WCC and WRC fluoridating our water supply but I will ensure my fellow councillors know my concerns and I will work to ensure they are all informed on the issue. Absolutely I support a referendum on the issue and believe it must be preceded with an education campaign where both sides have the opportunity to put their points of view across. This is something I will push for. |
| Seann Paurini |
Against |
I do not support fluoridation. My view is we shouldn't put fluoride into water; people should be encouraged to take care of their dental health. Re: the argument about poor people – if its true then I’d prefer subsidised or free toothpaste and fresh green apples in schools & publicly funded or decently subsidised dental care. I would work alongside people [including dental professional and other experts] who are against & for fluoridation, bring it to the attention of the public in an open way, have public dialogue and proper critical engagement on the issue and work hard to convinve people I think it is wrong that councillors put a government ministry before the people, no matter what their opinion is on an issue. Our communities must be respected. |
| Kerry Prendergast |
For |
1. Do you support fluoridation? Yes 2. If not, what definite steps would you take, if you are elected, to stop fluoridation in this area? N/a 3. If you do support fluoridation, do you believe that it is acceptable for councillors to rely on the advice by the Ministry of Health and disregard the opinion of the people who pay for and drink the water? Yes 4. If you are not sure, would you support a referendum or some sort of consultative process? N/a |
| Kris Price |
Not sure |
To be honest I'm not very well informed on this subject and I don't
currently have an opinion either way. Clearly the science needs to be discussed and understood. If outcome is that fluoridation has no benefit, as you claim, then it simply makes no sense to continue puting it in the water. If the outcome is that there are pros and cons with its use, then those need to be carefully weighed before I could make a decision. If the opinion of the people is against fluoridation, but there would be serious consequences to its removal, I would need to be comfortable that those consequences were widely understood and acceptable before I could support its removal. I think the science should be discussed and understood and this would probably be better done through a consultation process rather than a referendum. Unfortunately I don't imagine this is black and white, which is what makes these issues difficult. As mentioned above, if the outcome is that fluoridation has no measurable benefit, then it's a no brainer: I'd support its removal. If there are benefits, but also consequences for its use, then those would need to be weighed. It might be that there are alternative means for achieving those benefits other than fluoridating water. |
| Allan Probert |
Supports Consultation |
While supportive from a dental process; I am opposed to any form of mass treatment programme-if people want fluoride, they can take it themselves individually. I would support a referendum or consultative process. |
| Jack Yan |
Supports consultation |
I had heard of the flouridation issue many years ago and it remained in
the back of my mind until Will Moore, the Southern Ward candidate, made
it one of his policies to end flouridation if he is elected. Since Mr Moore discussed it I have looked further into some links abroad on the matter. I have to say the evidence from European countries is convincing and at present I am consulting with a friend of mine who had formerly worked with the UNEP on water issues. I note that Stockholm's municipal drinking water, which I regard as the best in any capital, including our own, is not flouridated, and the country has not suffered from any dental issues. In general, municipal water in Sweden is excellent. If elected, I will certainly consider Mr Moore's policy and consult with Wellingtonians about the flouridation of our water. |
