Both sides in the battle over fluoridation of domestic water supplies were claiming partial victory last week after the first test case on the matter in the United Kingdom.

Lord Jauncey ruled in the Edinburgh Court of Session that it was beyond the powers of Strathclyde Regional Council to fluoridate water supplies, as it had planned to do, but accepted that one part per million of fluoride in water reduced dental decay and had no significant adverse effect on health. Mr P. Clavell Blount of the National Anti-Fluoridation Campaign said he was delighted that Lord Jauncey had ruled against fluoridation; the council, on the other hand, was “pleased” that fluoridation had been vindicated as harmless.

The petition to prevent the council from fluoridating water supplies was brought by Mrs Catherine McColl, a 69-year-old pensioner from Glasgow, who describes fluoride as “a horrible poison”. The hearing, which started in September 1980, was the longest in Scottish legal history and lasted for 204 court days. The council brought an impressive range of expert witnesses to argue for the virtues of fluoridation and to refute the alleged link with cancer. Mrs McColl, who was conspicuous by her absence after the first day of the hearing, relied on US anti-fluoridationists Dr Dean Burk and Dr John Yiamouyannis.

The 120,000-word judgement hinged on the interpretation of the Scottish Water Acts of 1946 and 1980, which enjoined the water authorities to prove “wholesome water”. Lord Jauncey accepted that it was unlikely that parliament had intended in 1946 that water supplies should serve as convenient means of achieving a beneficial effect on health of consumers. Some consumers would not be of an age to benefit from fluoride (or – like Mrs McColl – have no teeth) and their freedom of choice would necessarily be restricted.

Lord Jauncey went out of his way to describe Dr Burke as “rambling and evasive”, while Dr Yiamouyannis “allowed his hostility to obscure his scientific judgement”. The evidence for excess cancer deaths linked to water fluoridation was, said the judge, “vague and unimpressive”.

A spokesman for Strathclyde Regional Council said it was only a matter of time before fluoridation was introduced: “we may have lost the battle but we will win the war”. The council is asking for talks with Mr George Younger, Secretary of State at the Scottish Office, seeking new legislation.

The more important implications of the case will first arise south of the Scottish border, where more than 10 per cent of the population already drinks artificially fluoridated water. English and Scottish law in this area are substantially similar, and there will now be pressure on local authorities in England and Wales to cease adding fluoride to water supplies. The Law Society says that a second test case for England and Wales is now on the cards, but the most serious question is whether the British government and parliament will have the stomach for new legislation if it should be needed.

Article available at http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/beardsley-1983.pdf

Print PDF