The Reminder is making its archives back to 2003 available on our website. Please note that, due to technical limitations, archive articles are presented without the usual formatting.
By Jonathon Naylor Mayor George Fontaine bristled at the recent suggestion that "back-door politics" played a role in city council's controversial move to end water fluoridation next year. "People came up and made a motion publicly...so there was nothing hidden," he said calmly but seriously. "[Council] may have done it sooner than going to the public and asking them [for input], but they weren't looking for a big study on it. They were saying the opinion was, 'Stop doing it [adding fluoride].'" But the fact that council made the motion "sooner than going to the public" and without the benefit of "a big study" is precisely why the vote was so contentious. This council vowed to be transparent. They have certainly given the public advance notice on less serious plans, such as the pending crackdown on residents who illegally use vacant city-owned lots for personal storage. But on fluoridation Ð a public health measure supported by international, national and provincial health agencies Ð they completely missed the boat. Not only was the public never asked for input, the motion to end fluoridation was placed on the agenda the night of the meeting where it passed. Not even all the councillors had advance warning. In terms of studying the issue, council has chosen to believe what appears to be a minority of experts who oppose fluoridation while disregarding what appears to be the majority who support the measure. Mantra Is the lion's share of experts always right? Of course not. But council must be cautious in how far they take their "experts can be wrong" mantra, lest unhealthy paranoia set in. To be fair and clear, nothing city council has done breached municipal guidelines. A motion was made at a public meeting, and it carried. But at least two councillors, Skip Martin and Colleen McKee, agree that the matter was not handled properly. So where do we go from here? Coun. Bill Hanson has pledged to bring forth a motion, at a yet-to-be-determined date, to end fluoridation immediately, not next year. A more tactful and responsible approach would be for council to resolve the question of fluoridation the same way it was initially settled in 1989 Ð with a binding referendum. The referendum would allow citizens to reverse council's existing vote to pull fluoride next year Ð or not. It would also withdraw the need for Coun. Hanson's planned vote to end fluoridation immediately. Would a referendum cost money? Yes. Would some see it as wasteful in an era of rising municipal debt and soaring property taxes? Perhaps. But at least then council would have a definitive answer on this divisive matter. They would at last obtain the clear public direction they evidently did not see as crucial when this whole saga began. Councillors themselves have admitted that when it comes to fluoridation, they are not experts. Neither are most residents. So as long as we are going to have non-experts with no medical backgrounds deciding this issue, it might as well be all of us together. Local Angle runs Fridays.6/20/2011
