THE fluoridation of water will be put on trial after a ruling by the Land and Environment Court on the legality of Rous Water dosing the region’s water supply with the controversial chemical.
[ See ruling: Oshlack v Rous Water ]
The ruling, which has been described by lawyers and anti-fluoride activists as “landmark” and “precedent-setting”, found that the water authority should have complied with provisions in the Environmental Planning Assessment and examined the impact on human health and the environment before voting in April last year to fluoridate the region’s water.
THE fluoridation of water will be put on trial after a ruling by the Land and Environment Court on the legality of Rous Water dosing the region’s water supply with the controversial chemical.
The ruling, which has been described by lawyers and anti-fluoride activists as “landmark” and “precedent-setting”, found that the water authority should have complied with provisions in the Environmental Planning Assessment and examined the impact on human health and the environment before voting in April last year to fluoridate the region’s water.
Rous had argued that the Fluoridation Act removed obligations under the environmental act.
Al Oshlack, who brought the case against Rous, yesterday said the next stage of the court battle set down for June may turn into a “mini royal commission” with both sides now given the chance for the first time in NSW history of presenting their experts’ arguments regarding fluoridation.
“I said this would be bigger then Ben Hur,” a relieved Mr Oshlack said yesterday. “Up to now there has been no planning approval for any fluoridation anywhere in NSW.”
“Rous lawyers had argued that if the judge ruled in our favour that the case would turn into a mini royal commission on fluoridation.”
While Rous general manager Kyme Lavelle said the case could take more than three months to be resolved, Rous chairman Richard Staples yesterday said he was not surprised by the ruling.
“It’s a landmark case,” Mr Lavelle said. “It always seemed odd to me that an act as comprehensive as the EP&A Act could be ignored by any applicant, even the Crown, without some specific exclusion written into it.”
Rous councillors, comprising councillors from Ballina, Byron, Lismore and Richmond Valley, decided to proceed with fluoridation after receiving legal advice that they could be held personally financially liable by the NSW Health Department if they delayed the vote to complete environmental impact studies.
Cr Staples, who has always been opposed to fluoridation, yesterday questioned the quality of the legal advice Rous received.
“I must say I was singularly unimpressed by the glib avoidance of key questions we were asking our counsel,” he said. “To put it in the words of a fellow Rous councillor ‘they treated us like a bunch of country hicks’.
“Unfortunately, there is always, and was particularly so in this case, tremendous pressure put on elected members to follow so-called ‘expert’ legal advice. This led the elected body to throw good money away defending the indefensible.”
Rous will discuss the implications of the ruling and decide whether to proceed fighting the case when it next meets later this month.
The NSW Department of Health yesterday refused to answer whether it should foot the bill should the full hearing go against Rous.
“If they want us to fight their battles for them, they should wear the costs,” Cr Staples said.
THE CASE FOR
Adding nutrients or drugs to the water supply is a quick way to supply the masses.
It is thought that adding fluoride helps strengthen the enamel of teeth, preventing decay, cavities and tooth loss.
CASE AGAINST
Fluoride may play a role in low thyroid function such as fatigue, weight gain, cold hands and feet, dry skin, irregular bowel function and brain fog.
Fluoride treatments in male rats are associated with bone cancer.
Print 
PDF