Councillor Fluoridation Postition statement
Harry Duynhoven
Maurice Betts For Based upon current Health Dept information we have. Some other counter information is unable to be verified. There will be a review of this matter next year. I look forward to any new quantified information.
Shaun Biesiek Against I do not support fluoridation. During this years Annual Plan process I moved (successfully) a resolution that NPDC will consult and debate the fluoridation of our water supplies. And if re-elected ensure that this is actioned.
Lynn Ross Bublitz For You know my views on this subject. Like you my mind has not changed and like you I have continued to investigate the topic.
Heather Dodunski Not sure Our Council in New Plymouth have already agreed to a full review of the fluoridation question in 2011. If re-elected I will listen to all the evidence that is presented, do my own research and make a decision at that time.
Lance Girling-Butcher
Andrew Mark Judd
Pauline Lockett
John Horse McLeod Against 1. Do you support fluoridation? No and I never have.Water should be pure. 2. If not, what definite steps would you take, if you are elected, to stop fluoridation in this area? Put it to the council for consideration ,so it will then go out for public consultation.
Phil Quinney
Howie Tamati Supports consultation I will consult with members of the community before I make a decision on the matter of Fluoridation. I am comfortable with the resolution and will support a review of our current position on the subject.
Sherrill George
Craig McFarlane
Alex Matheson
Marie Pearce


Candidate Fluoridation Position statement
Chris Beath Not sure I have to admit that at this stage I am totally confused with the conflicting advice from some health professionals, and the Ministry of health, versus the opposite advice that comes from those against fluoride.

So I do support the Council’s resolution to “a second special consultation in the next term of Council on the use of fluoride in New Plymouth District’s water supplies”. This seems to be a sound way forward which will allow everybody in the community to have their say. I think it is important that the Council listens to the community and that the Council decisions reflect the wishes of the community.

Dr Noel Bridgeman Against I would have no problems with supporting the discontinuance of flouridation of the New Plymouth water supply.
Simon Chadwick For As a New Plymouth district councillor, if I was asked to make a decision for or against water fluoridation based on the information provided by  I would be in favour of retaining our existing water treatment process. My reply addressing the seven objections made by fannz below:

1. “New science proves there is no benefit from swallowing fluoride”.
This is a big statement to make, all it takes is for a small amount of benefit to be shown to disprove this statement. I believe the effects of swallowing fluoride (Systemic application) are still being researched and are non conclusive, if anything, recent research seems to indicate that the benefit may be less that it was thought to be decades ago, but to say there is no benefit is a claim that I do not think can be sustained.
2. “Fluoridation creates more health problems than it is alledged to fix”.
It looks like a large amount of the health problems identified are more to do with lead contamination than with fluoride. This lead poisoning seems to be a secondary effect related to fluoride reacting with the lead in lead pipes- what are the New Plymouth water system’s pipes made of, I don’t know. Other negative health effects have not been conclusively been proven, as it is hard to isolate the effect of fluoride in water from fluoride in the rest of our diet.
3. “Fluoridated water is particularly harmful to infants”.
There does appear to be some evidence towards this. All the more reason to feed babies the way God intended, via breast-feeding.
4. “Most countries in the world do not fluoridate their water”.
Argumentum ad populum. Such fallacious arguments not belong in science. If everyone else was jumping off a cliff…
5. “Fluoride impacts negatively on the environment”.
New Plymouth has the second (equal) lowest concentration (0.7 mg/L) of H2SiF6 in New Zealand.
I do not think that the concentrations present in our water supply are causing a measurable effect on the environment. If such evidence was presented, would it not be wiser to look at other responses like increasing the efficiency of fluoride removal at the waste water treatment plant?
6. “Fluoride used in fluoridation is contaminated with heavy metals including lead”.
I would like to see an analysis of the additive containing H2SiF6 that is added to New Plymouths water that is supplied by Orica, before commenting. What happens in other parts of the world may not be the case here.
7. “Fluoridation is enforced medication without your consent”
Taxes are enforced without your consent, so is the law. The idea of forced medication sounds scary, but it is just one perspective that evokes  an emotive response. You have the choice of setting up a rainwater collection system, distilling your water, purchasing non-fluoridated water. It just so happens that the most convenient supply of water has an additive to enhance the enamel of your teeth, and reduce your dental bill. A better example of enforced medication without consent would be the abortions given to so many unborn babies in New Zealand, who certainly do not get a choice.

This response was written solely by Simon Chadwick. I am open to specific evidence and concise arguments, and to a referendum. If the majority of people call to eliminate fluoridation, then as a representative of the people I will also.

Vic Curtis For I have brought up three children and have six grand children. When my children were supplied with fluoridated water their tooth decay was minimal. My daughter lives in Cobram – Victoria where the water is un-fluoridated. The tooth decay in the schools is appalling. The dentist has recommended that my daughter give my grand children fluoride tablets. The children have immaculate teeth and both are in the top four in their classes academically. I would not be happy with un-fluoridated water. I 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 would not support a referendum or consultative process.
Flora Gilkison (Taranaki District Health Board) For Your first question is do you support fluoridation? This is a larger question than a simple yes or no. I do support fluoridation in the water supply as a means to prevent tooth decay. There is no doubt that this is a medical intervention and the question then arise how much fluoride is required, ie what is the lowest parts per million required to give an effective assistance to tooth decay. This must be lined up against the other effects of fluoride being introduced. The research is still ongoing in the field with new research coming forward almost annually. Councils should follow this up. You ask if I would support a referendum on the fluoridation of water and I would as it should be the population of the area being able to give a strong direction to the Council who is making the decision.
Teresa Goodin Against I absolutely object to the fluoridation of drinking water. My opinion is based an overwhelming body of scientific evidence that exposes fluoridation as an outdated and harmful practice. That a toxic waste product from the nuclear and aluminium industries is still added to our drinking water in the 21st century is immoral and deeply disturbing.
Mike Harnden Not sure I’ve heard impassioned arguments both for and against fluoridation but have not had a dispassionate look at the facts myself. I find no reason to disregard or accept evidence based purely on its source, so I would not disregard evidence either from the MoH or the users/payers per se. I would look at the evidence, assess the credibility of it and make a decision from there. I hold two degrees so I think I would be able to make an objective decision based on the evidence alone. If the evidence supported sufficient alternatives, acceptable risks etc I would not be against a referendum. In fact I am campaigning on a pro-referenda basis.
Dympna Hart Against I do not support fluoridation. I definitely support a referendum and a consultative process to see what the people of the district want as a majority. I intend to vote against any move to fluoridate our water supply without said referendum or consultative process.
Chantel Hewitt Supports consultation I support engaging in a consultation process to hear Rate-payers views, to review the information, to find the facts and decide which option is the safest for the public.
Rusty Kane(Taranaki DHB) Against No to fluoridation of drinking water. No to any man-made or man-added poisons into our environment. Blog:

Unfortunately, politics plays a heavy hand in fluoridation which never was rooted in valid science. I will be supporting valid science policies and measures that overwhelmingly say take this poison out of our water supply.

Daniel Keighley Against I would lobby my fellow councillors with regard to the unethical aspect of imposing fluoridation upon a populace without any form of plebiscite to ascertain even a majority view. A reasonable power block would be necessary to affect a review of this process, and this can only come out of individual discussion and agreement within councillor ranks. I would support a referendum under any circumstances.
Peter Lind Against I do not support fluoridation. I don’t support it as the Ministry of Health often forces compliance on a monetary perspective and disregards the opinions of the end users. I would campaign to stop fluoridation within the council and vote for its cessation immediately. I believe the council should stop fluoridation making a referendum unnecessary, however if a referendum was called for I would support it.
Ricky Malcolm Not sure I would really like to assess this from both sides of the argument – as I am 21, and have grown up with what people have told us at school and in the home – I have accepted fluoridation as the norm, and thought nothing of it.
Kevin Moore Against I am standing on a platform of truth. There is much dispute concerning the truth about fluoridation. We know that fluorine is extremely poisonous, and that fluoride compounds are poisonous at moderate and high concentrations. Whether that is true for very low concentrations is still disputed. Fluoride is said to bind to tooth enamel and increase its resistance to decay. Calcium fluoride is relatively insoluble, which supports that argument.

However, there is some evidence that the original study promoting the use of fluoride (going back to the 1940s) was rigged, and that the real agenda was the disposal of waste material (H2SiF6) from the production of phosphate fertiliser, fluoride compounds being a contaminant in phosphate rock. There is also evidence that people living hunter-gatherer lifestyles in regions low on fluoride have excellent teeth, and that the whole problem of tooth decay is a product of industrialised food. I cannot offer a definitive answer until I have all the facts.

[I would] get the most up to date findings on the matter into the public forum for community debate.

There is much evidence that the Ministry of Health frequently gets things badly wrong because it unquestioningly accepts overseas studies. We do know that there are vested interests in fluoridation, just as pharmacuetical industry has a vested interest in ill health. Fluoridation of water to be used for flushing toilets or watering gardens is clearly a waste of money.

There definitely needs to be much more consultation that is occurring presently. Referenda are useless unless people are provided with correct information.

John Rae(mayoral candidate) Not sure, trusts Ministry of Health Fluoridation is an interesting topic. I have looked at various information since receiving your email. Some say there is no issue and others say it’s potentially harmful. Perhaps during the 60’s when that generation were hell bent on destroying their teeth by the amount of sugar we consumed and given that many didn’t take care of their teeth, then yes fluoridation was more than likely a good thing. Today’s youth, although still big consumers of products full of sugar, seem to take better care of their teeth. Does fluoridation pay a part in this? I don’t know. Personally, I believe we should let the Ministry of Health make the recommendation for all New Zealanders. This department can use their money to do additional research. I would prefer it wasn’t something NPDC did with rates money. Perhaps then may I suggest that as many groups as possible lobby the government.
Lila Smith Against I do not agree with fluoridation of the water, never will.
Scott Taylor Against No, I do not support fluoridation. People in the country don’t have it and they’re fine, it’s a poison and should not be in our water. I would ask for referendum and then ask that council vote to have it removed from our water supply.
Colleen Tuuta Not sure I would like to learn more about it and so I guess my response at this time is that I would support a referendum or some sort of consultative process.  I am going to check out the website link that you sent through.
Mike Webber Against No, in the 2000 council forum I spoke against it, as it is mass medication, the ends do not justify the means, ever. I would keep pushing to have it stopped.
Virginia Winder For research and consultation This is a subject right up my alley! Do you remember I wrote a science column for a couple of years called The Wow! Factor? My favourite thing in the world is investigating things like this, so if I get on to council I’ll do my homework incredibly thoroughly by contacting scientists and consulting with the community.