Re: Letter in Daily Echo on 28.2.09 "Fluoridation 'outside guidelines' " Mrs. J Denton wrote: It would appear the SHA are not following Dept. of Health guidelines. Perhaps they would care to comment on the paragraph "I should like to emphasise that no new water fluoridation schemes will go ahead without a public consultation that showed the local population was in favour..."

I have been unable to find the exact quotation given by Mrs Denton but it is similar to the DRAFT Consultation Regulations 2004 in which Regulation 5 states: A Strategic Health Authority shall not proceed with any step regarding fluoridation arrangements that falls within section 89(2) of the Act unless the representations made by individuals affected and bodies with an interest are predominantly in support of it. (my italics) In the final version of the Statutory Instrument the wording was changed. Statutory Instrument 2005 No 291 The Water Fluoridation (Consultation) (England) Regulations, Regulation 5, reads: "A Strategic Health Authority shall not proceed with any step regarding fluoridation arrangements that falls within section 89(2) of the Act unless, having regard to the extent of support for the proposal and the cogency of the arguments advanced, the Authority is satisfied that the health arguments in favour of proceeding with the proposal outweigh all arguments against proceeding."

This wording has allowed South Central SHA to disregard the views of local people and take the unanimous decision to fluoridate in spite of majority local opposition.

Every member of the SCSHA Board is responsible for any adverse effects from fluoridation. They will not be able to shelter behind the defence that the public asked for fluoridation, nor behind the excuse that they were not informed of the harmful effects of fluoride, especially on vulnerable subsets of the population.

Elizabeth A McDonagh BSc(Hons), Cert. Ed. Chairman, National Pure Water Association