Water fluoridation: Bedford councillors accept the Precautionary Principle

16 May

In April, Bedford’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee unanimously recommended that fluoride should NOT be added to Bedford’s water.

This followed a protracted two-year debate. Bedford Council will now have to consult Bedfordshire County Council and the Secretary of State will eventually be involved in their decision. The issue could then go out to consultation and the public will be asked to respond within 3 months.

bedford cllrs fluoridationA video made by Fluoride Free Bedford includes footage of the council reflecting on this important decision.

Councillor Anthony Forth (below) issued the following statement:

bedford cllr quoted“I would like to propose that following the review process, this committee recommends a termination of the existing water fluoridation scheme, subject to the necessary consultations that are outlined on pages 26 to 28.

“I think that the evidence in favour of water fluoridation does seem extremely dated… On the other hand, a number of the pieces of evidence of dis-benefits are not as scientifically rigorous as we might like.

I think that as a group we’re happy to accept the Precautionary Principle that there isn’t strong evidence for re-introducing fluoride, so therefore we should not go ahead.”

Professor K.K. Cheng (professor of epidemiology, University of Birmingham) and his colleagues Iain Chalmers, editor, and Trevor A Sheldon,  professor and pro-vice chancellor. co-authored Adding fluoride to water supplies: US National Library of Medicine: National Institutes of Health

They reflected, in similar vein, that public and professional bodies need to balance benefits and risks, individual rights, and social values in an even handed manner. Those opposing fluoridation often claim that it does not reduce caries and sometimes overstate the evidence on harm. On the other hand, the Department of Health’s objectivity is questionable—it funded the British Fluoridation Society and, along with many other supporters of fluoridation, it used the York review’s findings selectively to give an overoptimistic assessment of the evidence in favour of fluoridation: Wilson PM, Sheldon TA. Muddy waters: evidence-based policy making, uncertainty and the “York review” on water fluoridation. Evidence Policy 2006: 2:321-31.

In response to the Medical Research Council recommendations, the department commissioned research on the bioavailability of fluoride from naturally and artificially fluoridated drinking water. The study had only 20 participants and was too small to give reliable results. Despite this it formed the basis of a series of claims by government for the safety of fluoridation.

The Cheng study ends: “Against this backdrop of one sided handling of the evidence, the public distrust in the information it receives is understandable. We hope this article helps provide professionals and the public with a framework for engaging constructively in public consultations”.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Water fluoridation: Bedford councillors accept the Precautionary Principle”

  1. chris May 17, 2016 at 2:40 am #

    The mathematical part if this – if we consider risk prevention, we must decide how much risk is acceptable. As risk increases, tolerance should decrease. As risk approaches infinity, tolerance should approach zero.
    In order to use this principle, we must quantify risk, so any risk of permanent harm or total harm should be considered infinite.
    some systems are defined as as fragile, meaning they have a non-linear response to harm. For example, if you fell from 1 foot 100 times you would probably be fine, but if you fell once from 100 feet you might be killed. As height from which one falls increases, harm dramatically increases until it is complete (death). However, below a certain threshold there is no harm, and and so small falls do no accumulate damage.
    So putting this in the fluoride model as the concentration increases, so does the risk of damage to the human body. But at the level used by most of the world in CFW being .7-1PPM there is little or no risk ,So the Precautions do not apply, And as such there is no precautionary principle

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Mass medication in the West Midlands – 90% of Brits excused | Our Birmingham - May 17, 2016

    […] correspondent commented on a recent article about this decision that there was no need to take a precautionary approach: “as the concentration in the human body […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: