I posed a question to Nigel Farage yesterday about UKIP’s position on fluoride.
His assistant replied as follows –
Yes, can confirm nigel is against opposed fluoridation as it’s a question of ethics and not something the state should decide on behalf of people.
Whether people go to the gym and don’t do anything to excess, or faint at the sight of a rowing machine and smoke 20 a day is up to them.
(UKIP = United Kingdom Independence Party)
This statement represents a slight advance on UKIP’s earlier stated position, or at least is a stronger statement of it, than previously given. This was the policy as explained previously –
“The only conclusion one can really draw from studies is that there is insufficient evidence on the effects of adding fluoride to the water supply to make a fully informed, medical decision.
“The ethical question then becomes even more relevant.
“Patients should be able to weigh up the potential risks and benefits of medication before agreeing: as with regular medical treatments.
In the case of fluoride, people should be aware of the limits of evidence of potential harms in particular.
“Also the mass availability of dental products now containing fluoride, available to all sectors of society, is relevant when considering the initial justification for the programme in the 1950s. These products allow people to choose on an individual basis whether or not they wish to use fluoride rather than have the decision taken on their behalf.“
We now have the words – ‘not something the State should decide on behalf of people‘, which is stronger language, entirely relevant to the current situation.
These words directly oppose the current proposals before Parliament in the Health & Social Care Bill, which will, if passed, empower the Secretary Of State For Health to fluoridate in the face of democratic and legal opposition, at his own choice.
I intend to use this split in policy between UKIP and the Conservatives in my next batch of anti-fluoridation leaflets, to dramatise the issue, and attack Conservative support at street level.
The Green Party tried to oppose Southampton’s Health Trust fluoridating the water supply, by using legal argument, but failed to stop fluoridation. They might have had more success by fighting a political campaign, if they had succeeded in making fluoride an issue over which voters will change parties. That is exactly my intention. UKIP are opposing forced fluoridation, and should be in a position to take votes away from the Conservatives on the strength of it, once people are informed about the issues.
The Green Party has it right facts-wise, but they lacked the political punch to stop fluoridation in Southampton. UKIP on the other hand does not lack political punch with its support getting closer to Lib Dem levels by the day.
Here is the Green Party’s website on fluoridation from 2005…all good stuff, and exactly what voters need to know….
Fluoridation of our water is “dangerous unscientific nonsense”
14 NOVEMBER 2005
The Green Party have slated controversial plans to fluoridate water supplies, claiming that there are many significant questions over fluoride’s safety and effectiveness.
Following government bidding, health chiefs around the country are currently deciding whether to adopt fluoridation as their preferred route to reducing tooth decay in children – a move described as “dangerously unscientific nonsense” by fluoride’s opponents.
Leading Green Party commentator on fluoridation, John Spottiswoode (1) said:
“The case for fluoride has been far from made. Claims about the effectiveness of fluoride simply do not stand up to close scrutiny and there is growing evidence pointing towards fluoride causing bone problems, arthritic-like symptoms, brain diseases such as Alzheimer’s, hypothyroidism, as well as identified links to cancer and other diseases. (2)
“Fluoride is a class 2 poison, it is extremely biochemically reactive in the body and only marginally less poisonous than arsenic. It also makes bones more brittle and has led to a marked increase in dental fluorosis (fluoride poisoning), affecting up to 48% of people in fluoridated areas. You should look in the mirror. If you have white flecks in your teeth then you could well have fluoride poisoning, and that is a potential health risk. If fluoride poisoning is showing in your teeth, then it is like the tip of a toxic fluoride iceberg in many of your body’s bones and organs.
“Those who deny that there are fluoride dangers either are ignoring the huge volume of research, or trying to dismiss it. However even the basic laws of chemistry tell us that fluorides will be highly reactive and damaging in our bodies. Either the pro-fluoridation people must accept the logic of chemistry’s laws, or they must re-write the chemistry books.
“Besides the reality of negative health effects, there is also the issue of medical ethics. Fluoridating water is essentially medicating people without their permission. It also violates a number of bills and legislation designed to protect health and human rights, and may be illegal. (3)
“Britain is all but alone in that most of Western Europe has now abandoned fluoridation of water due to a lack of evidence as to its effectiveness and concerns about major side-effects. 98% of Europe is now free of fluoridated water.
“Poor dental health is a complex public health issue. The root causes are poor diet and inadequate dental hygiene. Typically the government seems more concerned with dangerous knee-jerk action, to be seen to be doing ‘something’, rather than confronting the real causes of the problem.”
Notes to editors:
(1) John Spottiswoode is due to present the arguments against fluoridation to Southampton City Council’s Health Scrutiny Panel in the coming weeks. He is a long term Green Party member, was on the Green Party National Executive Committee and fought for the Southampton Test seat in the recent general election. His article can be seen at www.foodcures.net and this can be fully used for quotes as it was written by John. There are also further details on the research and science of fluoridation in a presentation that can be downloaded from this web page.
(2) See the Green Party’s report into the negative effects of water fluoridation. Available online: www.greenparty.org.uk full references are available within.
(3) A Green Party press briefing on the legality of fluoridation is available online: www.greenparty.org.uk
Maybe one day the major political parties will take on board these truths. Meanwhile it’s down to street level campaigners to turn the situation around. UKIP should fill the gap left open for attack and gain ground.