Until the 1960s, local councils owned the water supplies in their respective areas and were administered by a committee. During its monthly meeting in October 1955, Andover Borough Council was told by the chairman of its public health committee that an offer from the government to add sodium fluoride to the water supply had been accepted. And as the Government was to pay all costs, nobody on the council minded at all and the proposal passed without comment. Even the Andover Advertiser disregarded it as unimportant, despite publishing monthly council reports. The supposed benefits of sodium fluoride had been lauded by the medical officer for Andover, Dr F H Dummer, in his annual report, The Health of Andover. He was in favour of a government proposal to add fluoride to the water in some ‘demonstration’ areas to test whether it had a beneficial effect on children’s teeth. The issue of ‘dental caries’ had become a problem, especially since the ending of the sweet ration following the long years of war-time and austerity restrictions. In Andover, of 502 children examined, only 17 had healthy teeth.
The next month, long-standing member of the council Alderman Wilfred Armstead said that he was surprised there had been no discussion of the proposal in the local press as it was an important matter and would affect everybody in the town. This did get reported and suddenly the topic was big news.
Mrs Doris Simmons of the British Housewives League, who lived in Marlborough Street wrote to the paper to say that fluorine was a poison, could make the teeth of older people brittle and that there was a danger to other parts of the body. The Andover Advertiser interviewed Mrs Simmons and Dr Dummer who both refused to budge over their opposing views. Other people joined in the debate; both Norwich and Cardiff had refused to countenance fluoridation, as had towns in America where much of the anti-fluoride rhetoric originated. Besides, the chemical was present in many foods already and a good balanced diet was enough to ensure the health of children’s teeth without putting it in the water supply.
READ MORE: David Borrett: Winchester College's impact on Andover
Putting medical benefits aside, the principle of mass medication also became an emotive part of the argument, it being claimed that people were being used as guinea pigs in a government experiment against their will. Letters to the paper flooded in and eventually the Andover Advertiser put an end to the publishing of fluoride-related correspondence, thinking that the issue had been well and truly aired. This was premature and much else was to develop. Even the vicar of St Mary’s, Dr Ivor Machin, waded in, saying that the council was putting its electors at risk by relying on the views of ‘anonymous and irresponsible experts’. He thought freedom of choice should be paramount and there should be consultation before experimenting on the people the council was supposed to serve.
Early in 1956, an Anti-Fluoridation Committee was formed, which amassed nearly 3,000 signatures on a Voters’ Veto but the council was determined to press on. In March, it heard a report of how areas that had naturally-fluoridated water supplies showed a marked difference in the health of children’s teeth. There seemed no doubt that fluoride was good for children’s teeth but that ignored everything else. Even an ex-dentist, Thomas McClelland of Bishops Way, came out against it, saying it was not the business of the local council to interfere with the condition of its ratepayers’ teeth. The period of study had been far too short and any long-term effects had yet to manifest themselves.
Nevertheless, the council refused to change its mind and the fluoride plant was constructed at the municipal waterworks, though the actual starting date was kept secret. Meanwhile, a local election was due. At that time, the council comprised 12 councillors and four aldermen. Each councillor served a term of three years and the town was divided into four wards. Elections were staggered so that one councillor in each ward faced an election every May. The aldermen were elected by the councillors and served a six-year period, again staggered so that two retired every three years. Aldermanic elections took place after the local elections when the new council was in place, usually a genial business that re-elected anyone who wished to carry on. Two aldermen in 1956 were enthusiastic proponents of fluoride - Rowland Charlton MBE and (Winston) John Ponting, the former being the headmaster of the Secondary School for Boys in London Road, and the latter the owner of Ponting’s the Chemist in the High Street. Both were ex-mayors and long-time members of the council. It was these two who were to become the most vociferous in the defence of the council’s policy and were to suffer the most bitter criticism in the period to come.
SEE MORE: Back Through the Pages: Hygiene in sweet shops and Faccombe Estate up for sale
At this time, there were six Labour councillors, four Conservative and two Independent. At the 1956 election, more new candidates stood for election than usual (all of whom were anti-fluoride) but the most notable was the vicar’s wife, Mrs Brenda Machin, a new Independent who stood in St Mary’s ward which was normally a Labour stronghold. She easily won the seat there, while new Independent Laurie Porter almost won in Alamein, another Labour ward. Millway and Winton wards both elected Conservatives: Frank May in Winton, who was to be mayor in the coming year and Harry Johnson in Millway. The results were mixed but all of the Independent candidates received a strong vote, but markedly more so in Labour wards than in Conservative. Broadly it seemed, the working vote was more concerned with fluoride than the middle vote.
Perhaps seeing the turn of the tide, two already sitting councillors began to have doubts about fluoride: Jack Haines, a Millway Conservative and Winton Independent Percy Batchelor. When they were elected, fluoride was not an issue but both were to become stern critics of the council’s policy. With Mrs Machin, there were now three councillors against it.
Although intended to be secret, it became obvious that fluoride was added to the water supply on 17 July 1956 - it immediately de-furred all the local kettles! Another Andover personality was now about to make her way onto the stage. Mrs Olive Harvey had been the first woman mayor of Andover in 1949; a popular character, she and her husband owned three sweet shops around the town. She was made an alderman in 1954 but retired soon afterwards because of ill-health. Local water supplies had long been chlorinated and she realised that whenever she went on holiday to the West Country, her health improved, only to deteriorate again on coming home. The new fluoridated water made matters worse and she now attributed all her problems to drinking local water.
In order to avoid the council water, the Harveys sunk a well in their garden at 80 Junction Road and water was struck at a depth of 21 feet. It was sufficiently pure because the chalk sub-soil acted as an excellent cleanser - no chlorine, no fluoride and the water accessed through an old-fashioned cast-iron pump. Publicity given by the Andover Advertiser reached the BBC and on the radio programme Window on the West, Medical Officer of Health, Dr Dummer, was invited to discuss the decision to fluoridate the Andover supplies. Letters from local residents were read out the following week, including one from Mrs Harvey who was becoming more and more involved. Soon, in conjunction with the Anti-Fluoridation Committee, it was decided to call an open meeting in the Guildhall, to take place on Tuesday, 20 November 1956. It was a pivotal moment. The opposition was mobilising and a storm was about to break.
The story continues next week.
If you are interested in local history, why not join Andover History and Archaeology Society? Details can be found at andoverlocalhistoryarchaeology.uk.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here