Dear Ms Genter and Green MPs,

 

The Green Party can win a huge amount of support by being the party that provides a universally popular solution to the fluoridation issue. You can do this by promoting a New Zealand style CHILDSMILE programme instead of supporting the current Health Amendment Bill.

 

A cost-benefit analysis report from the TDB Advisory Board, commissioned by New Health NZ, estimates that a NZ version of the successful Scottish CHILDSMILE programme would cost ~$12 million and would deliver benefits of between $51 and $61 million annually (attached). Non-fluoridated Scottish children now have better teeth than New Zealand children.

 

A policy based on CHILDSMILE will be a win for everyone.

 

We hope all Green Party MPs will view the video of one of the most important presentations from the HSC hearings – for which Julie Ann Genter was not present. It is NZ fluoridation legal expert, Lisa Hansen. She covers:

 

• The costly NZ fluoridation legal battles
• Legal issue of putting a medical substance in public water supplies
• There have never been any safety studies conducted anywhere in the world
• Gluckman Report, acknowledged Harvard meta-analysis found a 7 point IQ drop but called it “of no functional significance”
• CHILDSMILE is the only solution for NZ, TDB report findings

 

The Green Party should oppose the current fluoridation Bill because:

 

1. The Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill is very unpopular among Green voters and puts the Greens at risk of losing valuable support to NZ First, who oppose the Bill.

 

2. The National Party is trying to introduce mandatory fluoridation, without having to take any of the political heat that would result.

 

3. The fluoridation chemical compound used in NZ is an environmental pollutant, an industrial waste by-product from the fertilizer industry. Fluoridation chemicals contain lead, aluminium, arsenic and sometimes even uranium. Green support of the Bill exposes you to criticisms of hypocrisy.

 

4. There is no consensus within the Green party to support a Bill designed to extend fluoridation from the national level.

 

5. Opposing this Bill is likely to result in additional support for the Greens from the tens of thousands of people in NZ that strongly oppose fluoridation.

Most New Zealanders will agree the Bill should be opposed because:

1. The Bill is undemocratic. It is designed to remove public consultation on the issue. Four of the eleven DHB members are appointed by the Government. DHBs are contractually obligated to implement Ministry of Health policies.

 

2. Local councils have expressed concern that their community’s wishes will no longer be considered. Councils have also objected saying they do not believe they should have to pay thousands of dollars for set-up and running costs for a decision they do not make.

 

3. It is not feasible to move the cost to cash-strapped DHBs.

 

4. Nearly 70% of 5-Year-olds in non-fluoridated New Zealand are free of dental decay, whereas only 40% of Maori children and 32% of Pacific Island children in fluoridated areas are free of dental decay (see graph). Supporting fluoridation ignores the fact that fluoridation isn’t helping these children, often from New Zealand’s poorest families.