Editorial: We need to talk about fluoride

Anti fluoride protesters in Hawke's Bay.

The long-running battle over fluoride in drinking water saw a major development yesterday with the High Court dealing a huge blow to anti-fluoride campaigners.

The group New Health New Zealand had taken the South Taranaki District Council to court saying it had no legal powers to put fluoride in water.

It also said that if the council was found to have jurisdiction then it was a breach of the Bill of Rights.

A decision from Judge Rodney Harrison released yesterday dismissed the claims. He said there was "implied power to fluoridate" in the Local Government Act, and putting fluoride in water was not a medical treatment, as argued by campaigners, so it was not in breach of the Bill of Rights.

He agreed with council evidence that showed the advantages of fluoridation significantly outweighed the mild fluorosis which was "an accepted outcome of fluoridation".

It's a crushing blow for the anti-fluoride movement, but a victory for common sense.
Many anti-fluoride arguments centre on the evils of mass medication, but the High Court says fluoridation is not medication and is akin to chlorination of water or adding iodine to salt.

Others say it should be personal choice whether to ingest fluoride, but that argument only goes so far.

Yes parents should be expected to get their kids brushing their teeth, but sadly not all mums and dads are Parents of the Year. You may not like Nanny State, but some kids whose parents are hopeless need a nanny.

Hopefully the High Court decision will be seen as a signal to official bodies nationwide to move ahead and do what's best for the people.

In Rotorua we don't have fluoride in the water - this is a good opportunity to start asking why, how and when.