In a landmark decision, the High Court has ruled against anti-fluoride campaigners who believe the South Taranaki District Council has no legal powers to put fluoride in water.
A decision from Judge Rodney Hansen, released today, rejected all grounds on which New Health New Zealand argued against the council's decision to add fluoride to water in Waverley and Patea.
- READ MORE: The High Court decision
The Christchurch-based group took the council to court wanting a judicial review of the process.
New Health took exception to the council's decision, saying it had no power to do so; however if it was found to have the jurisdiction, then it was a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights which includes the right to refuse medicine.
It also claimed in making the decision, the council failed to take into account relevant considerations.
Judge Hansen has dismissed all the claims, ruling there is "implied power" to fluoridate in the Local Government Act 2002.
He does not believe fluoridating the water is considered a medical treatment and is therefore not in breach of the Bill of Rights.
"While I accept that fluoridation has a therapeutic purpose, I conclude that the means by which the purpose is effected does not constitute medical treatment."
Medical treatment is confined to "direct interference" with the body or mind and does not extend to public health intervention of large populations.
He sees no difference between including iodine in salt or putting chlorine in water.
"The Health Act confirms that fluoride may be added to drinking water in accordance with drinking water standards issued under that Act. The power to fluoridate drinking water is not a regulatory function; it does not require express authority," the decision reads.
"Nor does a decision to fluoridate require the consent of the Minister of Health under the Medicines Act as water is not a food for the purpose of that Act."
Judge Hansen says the council was not required to take into account the evidence which New Health relied on in their case.
The council "carefully considered" detailed submissions and reached its decision after "anxious consideration" of the evidence, he says.
A number of other councils, including the Hamilton City Council, were waiting for the outcome of this decision before making their own decisions about fluoridation.
New Health and its lawyer Lisa Hansen are considering the judgement and its options. It has 20 days to appeal.
3 News
source: newshub archive
