Fluoridation Referendum Results

[Spokes]

This one's going to come down to the wire.

[UrbanWaterloo]

58/58

No: 13363 (50.27%)
Yes: 13216 (49.72%)

[IEFBR14]

Water fluoridation meets its Waterloo

A group trying to remove fluoride from Canada’s water supply said an Ontario municipality’s decision on Tuesday to stop using the chemical additive was “ground zero” for its national movement.

But the incoming head of the Ontario Dental Association warned the decision sets a dangerous precedent by allowing a small minority of people, using questionable science downloaded off the Internet, to effect dramatic change on public-health policy.

“My greatest fear here is with the advent of the Internet, and with the advent of social media, that a small vocal minority of individuals who are perhaps misinformed are able to reach a great number of people,” said Dr. Harry Hoediono, the association’s incoming president and a dentist in Waterloo, Ont.

The municipality of 500,000 an hour west of Toronto voted on Tuesday to stop using fluoride, which has been in the local water supply since the 1960s.

Public-health officials and dentists have urged municipalities to keep fluoride in the water, saying it prevents tooth decay, saves millions in public-health costs and protects children, the elderly and the impoverished, who might not have access to regular dental care.

Opponents of fluoride, citing dozens of studies, have called the chemical an illegal and unnecessary drug that is responsible for cancer, thyroid disease and a rash of improper arthristis diagnoses.

“People are starting to realize that there’s no science supporting drinking fluoridated water and there’s no science supporting that it’s safe,” said Robert Fleming, of the group Canadians Opposed to Fluoridation that launched the anti-fluoride campaign in Waterloo and is trying to court other municipalities across the country. “And people are getting angry.”

The group launched a two-year battle to oust fluoride after two residents complained they had serious health complications from fluoride sensitivity, culminating in a public referendum last month that narrowly supported getting rid of the additive.

Although “virtually” every Waterloo councillor supports fluoridation, they voted unanimously to remove it because they wanted to respect the results of the referendum, said regional chairman Ken Seiling.

He blamed fluoride supporters, including the area’s dentists, for not mounting a more effective public awareness campaign.

“I think this is really most unfortunate and, quite frankly, I don’t accept a lot of the information put forward by the anti-fluoridation group,” Mr. Seiling said. “But I have to live with the results.”

The battle over fluoride, which was first introduced into the water supply in Canada in the 1940s, has given rise to a growing movement across North America. In the early 2000s several communities in British Columbia voted to get rid of fluoride, as did Whitehorse in 1998, while in 2007 a group of 200 dentists unsuccessfully lobbied U.S. Congress to remove the chemical additive from the water supply.

There has been a recent series of municipal votes or public referendums on fluoride across Ontario — where policies on fluoridation are left up to municipalities — including in Halton, Niagara and Thunder Bay. However, Waterloo appears to be the first in the province to actually remove fluoride.

But while Ontario’s chief medical officer of health called fluoridation “one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century,” the provincial government has no plans to change the legislation to wrest control over the issue from municipalities and force province-wide fluoridation.

“No, we are not considering making fluoride mandatory across the province,” said Ivan Langrish, a spokesman for the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.

Health Canada convened a panel of experts in 2007 that found that fluoride was safe in the drinking water at current recommended levels and was an effective tool in the fight against tooth decay.

BTW election turnout was 41.16% with 50.27% voting against fluoridation. That means that less than 21% of eligible voters actually cast a ballot against fluoridation.

[markster]

Water fluoridation meets its Waterloo

BTW election turnout was 41.16% with 50.27% voting against fluoridation. That means that less than 21% of eligible voters actually cast a ballot against fluoridation.

That also means that less than 21% of eligible voters actually cast a ballot for fluoridation.

Woo, policy decisions based on referenda that are indistingushable from statistical randomness!

[IEFBR14]

That also means that less than 21% of eligible voters actually cast a ballot for fluoridation.

Big difference. Those who didn't vote could generally be assumed to be either indifferent, apathetic or in favour of maintaining the status quo. That's a far larger number than those who explicitly voted against -- far more than enough to swing the referendum the other way if they'd actually got off their butts and voted. It's a shame that fear, ignorance and apathy, rather than evidence and science, "won" the referendum.

[WatDot]

What evidence are you looking for? Evidence such as Stats Canada data as reported here in the Globe & Mail? Please show me your "current evidence" of the opposite, and not simply endorsements. Your grouping of the no side is becoming as pathetic as the extremist statements on the no side. I have found there was a vast array of reasons voters chose "no". Some said no because of health issues, some said no based on fiscal reasons while others considered the moral issues along with environmental issues. I know one person who voted "yes" and after they actually thought about the vast number of issues they stated they would have voted "no".

Let's see in 10 years if the data provided by Stats Canada changes drastically. If it does, I'm sure you will see another referendum. However, my estimate is that data won't change drastically.

[IEFBR14]

Please show me your "current evidence" of the opposite, and not simply endorsements.

Well the G&M article you cited is hardly conclusive.

The results showed that if fluoridation is the only major difference between the two provinces, the chemical is preventing fewer than half a cavity per child in Ontario.

Health Canada down played the significance of the findings.

“While accurate,” the data on the children are “an incomplete picture of the tooth decay situation.... [and] cannot be used to form conclusions regarding the efficacy of fluoride use in water,” Health Canada said.

The federal department said firm conclusions can't be drawn from the Statscan survey because it didn't collect assessments on individual intakes of the chemical. To make a proper assessment, Health Canada said it would need detailed information on whether people in the two provinces differ in their intake fluoride supplements, drink tap water or bottled water, and use fluoridated toothpaste.

Half a cavity is still half a cavity. Moreover, children who don't get regular dental checkups are more likely to benefit from fluoridation than those who do. So the average "half a cavity per child" reduction may actually be greater for the former even as it's lower for the latter.

Your grouping of the no side is becoming as pathetic as the extremist statements on the no side.

As I recall several posters asked the anti-fluoridation folks to provide legitimate peer-reviewed studies to make their case (not peer-reviewed by the same small clique of fanatics who both write for and publish the "journal" whose content they "review.") AFAIK we're still waiting for them.

I'm not going to bother to rehash my other arguments, e.g. that while Europe may not fluoridate water they do still fluoridate salt, milk and other common foods, etc., etc., etc.

[IEFBR14]

End of the line

Water fluoridation in the city will end on Nov. 29 despite last-minute concerns raised by local dentists.
Regional councillors voted unanimously Tuesday to accept the results of October’s fluoride referendum.

In the plebiscite 50.3 per cent of voters in Waterloo, as well as portions of Kitchener and Woolwich Tonwship said no to fluoridation, while 49.7 voted in favour of continuing the practice.

“We made a commitment as a council to citizens that we would uphold the results of the referendum,” Coun. Sean Strickland said. “Our word and our honour have to be upheld.”

The fluoride will stop flowing at noon on Nov. 29. It will cost an estimated $50,000 to stop the process.

Members of the Waterloo-Wellington Dental Association had a different take on the referendum results than regional councillors.

“The no side won by only 196 votes,” said Dr. Sanjay Uppal, president of the local dental association.

“The outcome doesn’t come near to reflecting the demographics of the community.”

Under provincial law, the results of the fluoride referendum would only have been binding if 50 per cent of eligible voters had participated. In Waterloo, voter turnout was approximately 42 per cent.

In May 2008, regional council passed a resolution that the municipality would accept a simple majority as binding. That decision wasn’t made clear, Uppal said.

“I’m not sure there was really any clarity about whether the vote was binding or not,” he said, adding that more people would have come out and voted if they had known the process.

Uppal argued that since less than half of those eligible voted and the vote came down to the wire, it was really a minority of residents who wanted fluoridation discontinued.

The referendum also didn’t give voice to those who fluoridation helps the most, said Dr. Harry Hoediono, a Waterloo resident who practices in Kitchener and president-elect of the Ontario Dental Association.

“I’m here to speak on behalf of four-and five-year-olds, for seniors, for veterans,” he told regional councillors. “We’ve let a minority group of misinformed people make a public health decision.

“If we pass this bylaw, we set dental and medical care back 100 years. We go back to the dark ages.”

Regional chair Ken Seiling said he was concerned that fluoridation was ending in Waterloo, but wondered why dentists weren’t more vocal in their support of the practice during the campaign.

The region was legally obligated to stay out of the debate, Seiling added.

It’s not the place of dentists to campaign for fluoridation, Hoediono said.

“It would be ethically incorrect for me to do that.”

But the region should listen to dental expertise when making decisions, he added.

Anti-fluoridationists stayed out of Tuesday’s debate, except to encourage the region to develop dental health programs using the money saved from stopping fluoride.

Robert Fleming, executive director of WaterlooWatch, urged council to use the money to provide toothbrushes, toothpaste and education about dental hygiene.

“It’s time our community set aside our differences . . . and collectively address dental caries,” he said. The region’s public health unit will undertake a number of measures in the new year, including a review of region-wide dental education, said Dr. Liana Nolan, chief medical officer of health for Waterloo Region.

Public health will also undertake a study to see the health effects the removal of fluoride has on the community.

“We do need to follow this up,” said Waterloo Mayor Brenda Halloran, who stated during her re-election campaign that she supports fluoridation.

“We need to collect verifiable proof either way over the next four years.”

While many in the community will not be pleased with the result of the referendum and council’s subsequent decision, it does have some historical precedent, said Coun. Jane Mitchell.

“When (fluoridation) was voted on two times before, the yes side won in a squeaker,” Mitchell said.

“The people of Waterloo have spoken.”

So under provincial legislation the referendum wasn't binding and fewer than 21% explicitly voted against fluoridation yet our politicians feel honour bound by the results. Sheesh.

[scarfinv]

End of the line
So under provincial legislation the referendum wasn't binding and fewer than 21% explicitly voted against fluoridation yet our politicians feel honour bound by the results. Sheesh.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.... in ADVANCE of the election, council said they'd honour the results of the referendum. Citizens who cared then exercised their right to vote, and slightly more of those said NO to flouride. Changing the rules of the game after the fact would be a pretty silly thing to do, and would have ticked off a lot of voters.

[IEFBR14]

Changing the rules of the game after the fact would be a pretty silly thing to do

I'm not advocating that.

I simply pointed out that, while I accept the prima facie results of the referendum,
1. The anti-fluoridation referendum "won" based on less than 21% of eligible voters who actually cast a ballot against fluoridation. That's hardly a strong indication of opposition to fluoridation.
2. Notwithstanding what local politicians said before the vote about honouring the results, they're not bound by legislation to do so.

Given the provincial legislation on referendums, it's idiotic that our "leaders" would have made such a commitment without at least qualifying how strong the anti-fluoridation vote should be, i.e. I'm questioning their judgement in creating the tight box in which they found themselves. That's what the "Sheesh" was directed at.

[IEFBR14]

Fluoride fighters should be saving us from so many other things

I wish to congratulate the anti-fluoride group on their campaign to end the 50-year practice of fluoridating Waterloo’s drinking water. There vigorous efforts resulted in a clear answer from the citizens of Waterloo, with 50.3 per cent voting to discontinue the addition of this micronutrient to the water supply. This decision will have little or no impact if one assumes that every child in Waterloo grows up with excellent oral hygiene and a good dental plan. For those fortunate to live in areas supplied by wells rich in natural fluoride, this will also be a non-issue.

After this victory, the anti-fluoride faction can now dedicate their time to saving us from other toxins and unwanted “medications” being slipped into our food chain. As they are no doubt aware, it is law in Canada that all milk be supplemented with Vitamin D. As we were told in the anti-fluoride campaign, people should be able to choose the nutrients they consume rather than having them forced upon them. In this case, they should be particularly concerned about children, who often consume large amounts of milk products.

In launching the anti-vitamin D campaign, they would be advised to ignore the fact that rickets due to vitamin D deficiency has all but disappeared in this country.

Similarly, as a result of mandatory addition of iodine to table salt, the iodine deficiencies that earned this region the nickname the “goitre belt” have become historical lore. Worldwide, iodine deficiency affects about two billion people and is the leading preventable cause of mental retardation, but surely this does not justify sneaking iodine into our salt shakers.

And by law, all margarines are supplemented with Vitamins A and D. It is well established that excess Vitamin A can cause cancer. Clearly, this is a dangerous practice that must be stopped.

Also by Canadian law, infant formula must be supplemented with numerous macro- and micronutrients, including copper, chromium, iron, molybdenum, selenium and zinc. Given the narrow safety margin between effective and toxic quantities of these essential trace minerals, Waterloo mothers who, by necessity or choice, are feeding formula, would no doubt relish the opportunity to make their own decisions on what levels their babies should be consuming.

Finally, the issue of mandatory supplementation of flour should not go unchallenged. Canadian law dictates that all flour be supplemented with folic acid (a synthetic precursor of vitamin B9 or folacin). Supplementary folic acid is highly recommended for women before and during pregnancy. But does this justify exposing every man, woman and child to this chemical? In preparing the anti-folate campaign, be sure to find alternative explanations for the declines in neural tube defects (spina bifida, anencephaly), congenital heart defects and neuroblastoma (a childhood cancer) since mandatory folic acid supplementation began in Canada in 1997.

The 41 per cent of eligible voters that voiced their opinion have spoken: Waterloo does not want scientists and health care professionals advising government on preventive health policy.

Speaking personally, I am glad that my children are past their “cavity-prone” years.

Heidi Engelhardt is a faculty member in the department of biology at the University of Waterloo. Her research involves the effects of maternal nutrition on the developing fetus, particularly how dietary protein and amino acids affect maternal and fetal folate metabolism. The views expressed are her own, and are not meant to represent those of the University of Waterloo.

[IEFBR14]

What’s Calgary drinking?
17Feb11 | Tom Flanagan | G&M | Link

Calgary’s city council voted earlier this month to discontinue the fluoridation of city water. Fluoride has been added to our water supply since 1989, when the practice was approved by referendum (and confirmed by another referendum in 1998).

Although fluoridation was not an issue in last fall’s civic election, some councillors said they would move to end the practice. A committee held one day of hearings, dominated by anti-fluoridation zealots, and recommended discontinuance. Council rejected the offer of three professors from the University of Calgary’s medical school to help interpret the scientific research, and refused to recommend the issue for a referendum. The whole process seemed rushed to give defenders of the status quo no time to organize.