But some members of the community say they should have been consulted on the issue, despite being told the council could face heavy fines if they did not follow that directive.
Fluoride Free Tararua spokesman Matt Shelton told the council fluoridation represented “in our view” the imposition of state power for its own sake.
Shelton spoke of the principles of medical ethics such as informed consent and the right to refuse medical treatment.
“With medical treatments for human beings, if there are two apparently contradictory streams of evidence playing out, we should always take the precautionary approach and defer to the importance of avoiding harm.
“You do take an oath to the legal system; we understand that. But you make an unspoken but clearly superior obligation, in our view, to represent the interests and do the bidding of your electors.
“And that requires you to at least look at this issue. Please.”
Councillor Scott Gilmore asked Shelton what the motive would be for the Ministry of Health, the New Zealand Medical Association and the NZ Dental Association for wanting to add fluoride.
He asked that if doctors had been told it was not as good as that research suggested, why would they be endorsing it still?
Shelton said the obvious answer would be “You’d have to ask them”.
He said until nutrition and environmental medicine was a foundational core of medical training, “then the current paradigm of disease treatment ... will not be challenged”.
The Ministry of Health has said a number of unsubstantiated claims have been made that fluoridation causes or contributes to various health conditions or interferes with natural bodily functions. “These claims have not been substantiated by robust studies or epidemiological analyses.”
In a 2014 report, the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor and the Royal Society Te Apārangi considered the evidence around health concerns that are commonly raised, and concluded: “the scientific issues raised by those opposed to fluoridation are not supported by the evidence”.
John Jukes, a now-retired dentist from Waipukurau, said at the council meeting that he had been studying fluoridation for 40 years.
He said the conclusions he had come to were that fluoridation of a water supply to prevent tooth decay “doesn’t work”.
It was better to treat the cause, and not the symptoms, Jukes said.
“The children showing the higher occurrence of tooth decay were those showing poor diet and poor oral hygiene.
“Nothing to do with whether they were drinking fluoridated water or not.”
Dannevirke resident Debbie Webster spoke on the petition at the council meeting.
She said 494 Tararua District residents had signed a paper copy with a further 146 signing an online petition.
Another 66 had signed during a public meeting held in Dannevirke, giving a total of 706 signatures.
Webster noted the High Court decision which found the directive to fluoridate unlawful as it failed to consider a section of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 around the right to refuse medical treatment.
“The High Court has required a reconsideration of the directives, however, a resolution is not expected before September 2024.
“While the judge also ruled that the directive still stood, the legal uncertainties around the judicial review and the unlawful directive could now open councils to legal ramifications if they proceed with starting fluoridation.”
Webster said Nelson City Council had been granted an extension until the end of the year, due to the concern the council could face litigation from opponents of fluoridation.
“Be aware that this council may also find themselves facing the same significant litigation risk from opponents of fluoridation in this community should they proceed with the directive that is later found to be in breach of the NZ Bill of Rights.”
At a public meeting, mayor Tracey Collis said the council would still follow the directive by continuing with implementing infrastructure for the plant but fluoridation would not be turned on until the outcome of the judicial review was available.
Webster pointed out there were still issues with Dannevirke’s impounded water supply, with repairs expected to be costly.
She said the cost of that should take precedence over any costs associated with adding fluoride to the water supply.
Collis said she had written a letter to the director-general of health asking for clarification on the directive and for assurances of Crown support in case of legal challenge.
