Council seeks extension to fluoridation deadline

Tauranga City Council will seek an extension to the November 30 deadline to fluoridate its water supply. Photo: Supplied.

An extension is being sought to delay fluoridating Tauranga’s water supply because “people should have a choice”.

The decision was made at a tense Tauranga City Council meeting on Monday that was packed with more than 100 people against water fluoridation.

It was standing room only at the council chambers and the room was over capacity for health and safety reasons, so people were asked to watch the livestream from the foyer.

A crowd of more than 100 people against fluoridation packed Tauranga City council chambers on Monday. Photo: Alisha Evans/LDR.

Initially they refused but were told the meeting couldn’t begin until there was health and safety compliance.

In July 2022, the director-general of health directed the council to fluoridate Tauranga’s water supply by November 30, 2024.

Tauranga was one of 14 councils given the directive. The city’s water has been unfluoridated since 1992. Speaking in the public forum, Robert Coe asked the council to “put a stop to the madness” and not fluoridate the water.

He had concerns about the health and safety of council staff who would be adding fluoride to the water supply. He was also concerned there could be accidental overdosing of fluoride if there was an issue at the dosing plant.

Robert Coe asked Tauranga City Council to 'stop the madness' and not fluoridate the water. Photo: Alisha Evans/LDR.

Dr Alanna Ratna from NZ Doctors Speaking Out with Science said studies from the United Kingdom showed there was evidence that topical application of fluoride offered some protection to teeth but there was “no evidence that fluoridating water has any beneficial effect on teeth at all”.

There was a safer way of getting better dental outcomes which was dental hygiene and good dietary habits said Ratna.

Council Infrastructure general manager Nic Johansson said there were three options for the council - to continue with work to fluoridate the water to meet the deadline, ask for an extension or not fluoridate the water but risk being fined.

If the council doesn’t comply with the fluoridation order it faces a potential fine of up to $200,000 and, if the non-compliance continues, it could be fined up to $10,000 per day.

Dr Alanna Ratna said studies showed there was 'no evidence that fluoridating water has any beneficial effect on teeth'. Photo: Alisha Evans/LDR.

Deputy mayor Jen Scoular asked the council’s chief executive, Marty Grenfell, if staff would be safe when dosing the water.

Grenfell replied that they would be. Councillor Rick Curach said his position was to follow what was recommended by the Government.

Curach didn’t like that the council would be acting unlawfully if it chose not to fluoridate.

Members of the public interjected with booing and calls of “Shame on you” and “Just kill us all.”

Mayor Mahé Drysdale told them their behaviour was disrupting the meeting and asked them to listen.

As Curach spoke the disruption continued, and Drysdale said the meeting would need to be adjourned if councillors weren’t given the respect they needed to debate the issues.

Councillor Hautapu Baker said choice was being taken away from the community and the council hadn’t been able to hear from them. He supported applying for an extension.

The extension would allow time for a judicial review to be completed in 2025. This follows New Health New Zealand Inc’s legal challenge of the director-general of health’s fluoride directive, which led to the review.

In November 2023, a High Court judgment questioned whether the direction to fluoridate water considered the Bill of Rights. The director-general of health’s analysis of this is ongoing.

The director-general of health and the Attorney General have appealed the decision, which is scheduled to be heard in June 2025.

In February this year, Justice Radich issued a High Court judgment that confirmed the existing directions to fluoridate were legal and valid unless revoked by the director-general of health.

Tauranga City Councillor Rick Curach didn’t like that the council would be acting unlawfully if it chose not to fluoridate. Photo: Alisha Evans.

Councillor Steve Morris said it would be appropriate for the council to wait until the judicial process had run.

He said personally he didn’t have an issue with fluoride but that was “my body, my choice”.

Drysdale said he didn’t support water being fluoridated because people should have a choice.

There were other options for people to use fluoride if they wanted to, he said.

This received applause from the crowd. There was the issue of significant fines and funding for the work the council had done to fluoridate, said Drysdale.

The council would receive $3.4 million from the Ministry of Health for the works required to fluoridate, provided it achieved one month of continuous operation of fluoridation operations by November 30.

If the council didn’t get the funding for the work and fines it would cost around $7 million in the first year, he said.

Tauranga Mayor Mahé Drysdale said there were other options for people to use fluoride if they wanted to. Photo / Alisha Evans/LDR.

Drysdale proposed applying for an extension until the judicial process was completed and getting clarification on if the fines would be enforced.

He asked people against fluoridation to make their points heard to the director-general of health.

“The reasoning that they are putting these directives [in place] is they want to take the power out of our hands. This made sense in some ways because they should be better qualified to consider health advice,” said Drysdale.

”Whether that is actually the case or not, I’ll leave it to the people to decide.”

The council was in favour of Drysdale’s motion and it will apply for an extension to the deadline.

Staff would also continue to investigate options to provide a non-fluoridated water supply.

Fluoridation is considered safe by the Ministry of Health and the World Health Organisation and it is seen as an effective and affordable public health measure to improve oral health.

 

LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.

10 comments

Covid vaccine & fluoride

Posted on 27-08-2024 11:14 | By Saul

I've always stood for "my body, my choice" freedom of choice!
I lost my job because of the mandates, not one human being should be forced to take something they didn't want.
I DO NOT want fluoride in my water!!!
I will sue the council if they push this toxic waste into my kids/home.


Hmmm

Posted on 27-08-2024 12:41 | By Let's get real

There are always going to be people that are against council activities (I'm very vocal in my opposition on many occasions) but when there is very strong research and many clinical studies available, rather than hearsay and innuendo, I am intelligent enough to believe and support the activities.
The council has been directed to add fluoride to the water because it doesn't occur naturally in our region. Maybe the doomsayers should be putting their efforts into reducing the inclusion of other genuinely harmful substances that we ingest and move on.
We have far too many people who have a strong desire to return to living in caves and holding up the Caveman/Green manifesto as the goal for everyone around them.
Unfortunately, they get reported far too often and New Zealand residents are too lazy to examine the real world.


A win for democracy

Posted on 27-08-2024 12:45 | By Otumoetai Resident

For the first time in a long time the council has listened to the people of Tauranga it represents. How refreshing ! TCC staff tried to propose a non fluoridated water supply might be available to those who did not want to drink the dosed water. However they did not say how this might work or the cost. It seems impossible that you can run non fluoridated water down the same pipes so it would have to be something like a tanker delivery of water. Seemed like a convenient way of getting rid of those against fluoridation without a plan. TCC infrastructure GM Nic Johansson seems more concerned about potential fines for non compliance than the basic human rights of the residents he is employed to serve.


The real issue here...

Posted on 27-08-2024 13:04 | By morepork

... is not whether the water should be flouridated or not; it is about the fact that an Authority can impose its will without any form of public referendum and can charge outrageous fines to an elected body who resists their directive. It's "Nanny knows best" in its worst form. Obviously, the Director General needs to be held to account. Even if the scientific evidence supports fluoridation, there is no excuse for authoritarian imposition of that solution. The community, represented by the council, should be given access to the evidence that the Director General has, and there should be a public referendum before ANYTHING, for ANY purpose, is added to the water supply. The Law should not allow the Director General to be able to impose a unilateral decision.


The Master

Posted on 27-08-2024 13:41 | By Ian Stevenson

The fluoride is an issue, there is little that one can take from WHO, the MOH is merely doing what it is told by WHO. The WHO track record is in tatters and some...

The evidence shows that they are run by commercial interests hence the recommendations are for profits not health based/people well-being based.

If it provides no "benefit" then it is pointless doing it.

Why are only 14 Councils being "ordered" by MOH to pollute the drinking water?


Sad

Posted on 27-08-2024 16:45 | By AJSommerville

To see a bunch of tin foil hat wearers who have the time to attend a meeting in the middle of a work day pressure the council to make a decision to stop something that would have helped so many of our children.


@AJSommerville

Posted on 28-08-2024 07:39 | By Saul

Why do you call people tin foil hat wearers that simply ask questions what the government does? If no one spoke out we would all be living in a communist country! We all have rights to ask questions


Great

Posted on 28-08-2024 08:51 | By an_alias

No need to use fertilizer bi-product in our water thats for sure.
All those who want to can get there fluoride pills from the chemist if you desire.


Council's Mistake.

Posted on 28-08-2024 09:46 | By A.J.

The purpose of the legislation is to take the issue of fluoridisation of water supplies out of the hands of councils and give it to the health department. The council should not have let itself get involved as it does not have jurisdiction in this matter. Now it has allowed itself get involved and has decided to apply for an extension, when the fate of Western Bay's application shows it has no chance of success, incurring legal costs and foregoing the $3.5 million establishment grant on offer if they fluoridate the water before 30 November this year. The debate on the efficacy of fluoride in stopping tooth decay is over and the settled science is that it does and without any side effects, so the council should not be getting into any debate on that issue. The council must comply with the health department directive or face fines.


@AJ - Council's mistake

Posted on 28-08-2024 16:37 | By morepork

"The council must comply with the health department directive or face fines." And you are OK with that? (Given that the fines are paid from OPM?) We elect a Government to govern; certainly, but when that administration decides for us what we must do with our own health and the rights of our body, that is a separate issue from the administration of the Land. The Law currently needs revising (and it is just ONE of a plethora of Laws that were passed by successive administrations to align with their own agendas...) The Democratic way is to present the arguments and let people decide for themselves. But there are still extremist elements who will serve themselves and not the people of the Nation. We need to be alert and make sure (as in this case), that overuse of vested power is quickly curtailed, reviewed, and fixed.


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.