UK - Questions in the Lords
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 16 January (WA 127) about the merits of policies to improve children's dental health, how, in weighing the balance of advantage in water fluoridation, they assess the opposition of many of those who receive it. [HL5614]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): We have addressed this issue in the regulations we have laid on the public consultations that local authorities will have to undertake on fluoridation proposals. In response to representations we received to our consultation on the content of the regulations, we have decided that the overarching consideration should no longer be that, "the health arguments in favour of proceeding with the proposal outweigh all arguments against proceeding". We consider a wider range of factors should be taken into account including the extent of the support for the proposals, the strength of any scientific evidence or ethical arguments advanced and any evidence of benefit to the health and wellbeing of individuals who would be affected by the proposal.
That could mean their preselected peer reviewed evidence again outweighs the democratic vote and the ethical arguments that the under privileged kiddies dental health is paramount. The ethical argument that it is wrong to force people to drink it could be ignored.