Jim Tucker
26 Nov 2013
In legal terms, there is no practical difference between putting chlorine or fluoride into public water supplies, the High Court in New Plymouth heard today.
In each case, the purpose is the improvement or maintenance of public health, senior Crown counsel Austin Powell told a judicial review into the rights of local councils to fluoridate water supplies.
It involved introducing a chemical to water that inevitably found its way into the body of someone who drank it, and in the minutest degree altered the composition of that body.
Related articles
- Fluoride court case continues (nzherald.co.nz)
- Fluoride in water ‘illegal’ (stuff.co.nz)
- Council argues it has statutory right to fluoridate (radionz.co.nz)
- Patea & Waverley: Test court case tackles fluoridation issues (fluoridealert.org)
- High Court considers test case on fluoridation (radionz.co.nz)
- Councils have a ‘right’ to fluoridate, court told (nzherald.co.nz)
- Judicial review on fluoride decision (stuff.co.nz)
- Test court case tackles fluoridation issues (nzherald.co.nz)
- Fluoride not a human rights issue, hearing told (radionz.co.nz)
