The Health and Care Act 2022 contains two clauses which transfer responsibiity for WF from local authorities to the DHSC.  The 1st Public Consultation has now been announced for the North East of England and although this will take place in 2023, the date is not yet known (25th January 2023). 

Current rules on WF PCs imply that the final decision will not be based on a  simple head count. The result of the PC will be decided on qualitative criteria:  how well did the respondent argue the case for or against WF, did the respondent cite references justifying a viewpoint, were alternatives to WF explored and if so, was proof provided that they would be superior to WF?

With the greatest of respect, it would be unrealistic to expect the layman to fulfil the above criteria.  On the other hand, those who are in favour of WF would most likely be medical and dental professionals who are used to penning well-founded arguments.   And to be brutally honest, the DHSC/OHID could circulate aide memoires to pro-fluoridation staff which would give them the required reasons and citations to support WF when submitting to the PC.

We've been here before just the once: Southampton in 2008-9.  The total number of people taking part in the PC was 10,000.   7,200 were against WF and 2,800 were in favour.  South Central Strategic Health Authority decided that those in favour had presented more cogent reasons for adding Hexafluorosilicic acid to drinking water.  FULL STOP.  No argument: the WF Regulations were on the side of those promoting the intervention.  (The Southampton saga did not end then and there.  Suffice it to say that Southampton is not fluoridated to this day but not because of what did or did not happen immediately following the PC.)

So, now we have a battle royal on our hands.  Those residents and national organisations opposed to WF need to be brought up to speed and to be given information for them to be able to make informed cogent arguments during a PC against WF.   The information exists and in the Public Domain and visitors are now advised to visit www.newfc.org.uk if they are concerned about the North-East Public Consultation.. 

As well as taking part in a PC, constituents ought to engage with their MPs.  However, there are too many MPs who are refusing to engage with their constituents on the topic of WF.  The topic is complicated and any MP who does not have a scientific background can be partially excused for failing to grasp the nettle.  However, all MPs have researchers who ought to be able to plumb the depths of this most vexatious topic.  Unfortunately, the researchers source their information on most things from the House of Commons Library so if the Library holds only information which supports the status quo, then the researchers are unlikely to read up on the counter arguments.  There is also the issue of 3-line whips and policy. 

We have come to realise that not all policy appears in a political party's manifesto.  WF is one such policy which has NEVER been mentioned in the Conservative Party's manifesto and yet, it is very apparent that the Conservative Party leaders are 100% behind adding fluoride to drinking water.

Despite this intransigence, constituents need to persevere.  MPs have to realise that WF is not a universally favoured Public Health intervention and that to support WF is to deny constituents their human rights and autonomy.  At the very least, the MP ought to write to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to ask him to list the research which proves that it is safe to add hexafluorosilicic acid to drinking water.  (According to 3 Freedom of Information requests, there is no research, and this lack should make the SoS and support staff question that "the science is not settled".)