Old men should not eat toffee

Old men should not eat toffee. I came to that conclusion yesterday, painfully, when eating a toffee resulted in a broken tooth. I am now up for unforeseen and expensive remedial work. Clearly, a lifetime of fluoridation is no match for age and the inevitable deterioration and ultimate destruction of the human body.

That is of course not Fluoride’s fault.  It could be said that my teeth would have been in a lot worse state without it. In fact, if Hamilton is anything to go by—and that is something most of us prefer to do, go by rather than to it—support for fluoridation is a majority view.

In a recent referendum held in conjunction with the local body election, 70% of those participating favoured fluoridation. Oddly, that is at odds with the 89% of direct submissions to the council that wanted fluoridation scrapped. Not so oddly perhaps, if you accept the view that this is a prime case of a strident minority holding sway with their submissions while the majority has its latent say when offered a referendum. It will be interesting to see the result of the national referendum on asset sales.

Anyway, a clear majority of Hamiltonians want fluoridation, and have said so.  The Waikato District Health Board also wants fluoridation. Yet, the newly elected Hamilton City Council—elected at the same time as the referendum was held—has deferred a decision on the issue. Mayor Julie Hardaker says it should be a central government issue. Really? Is Mayor Hardaker saying that as well as having to put up with having Hamilton in the first place we now have to make its decisions for it?

Yes, the referendum was non-binding, but the result was pretty convincing and claims by the council that it needs to wait on a High Court judicial review do not hold water (fluoridated or not) and have been refuted by the council’s own legal advice.

It is a decision, or a non-decision, by a council that clearly lacks teeth.

Something that could soon be the fate of the rest of Hamilton.

Hide the toffees.