Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Editorials
Monday, February 28, 2000Water fluoridation
is the best solutionThe issue: Sen. Suzanne Chun Oakland proposes that schools give students 10 minutes every day during lunch to brush and floss their teeth.
FIRST Sen. Rod Tam proposed giving state employees time off to take naps. Now Sen. Suzanne Chun Oakland has proposed that schools give students 10 minutes during lunch period to brush and floss their teeth.
Yes, getting enough sleep is important. Brushing and flossing are important. Neither should be done on government time.
Government employees can go to bed a little earlier. Students can brush and floss at home -- or if they do it at school, not by shortening the time available for instruction.
Chun Oakland proposed the 10-minute tooth break in an attempt to deal with the problem of the high rate of tooth decay among Hawaii's children while avoiding the obvious solution: fluoridation of the water supply.
Because she heads the Health and Human Services Committee, she was able to block action on a fluoridation proposal.
Chun Oakland's proposal would require students to bring dental supplies to school to enable them to participate in the brushing and flossing. County water systems would be required to provide bottled fluoridated water for household use and for water coolers in schools and other locations.
All that to avoid fluoridating the water supply and offending misinformed fear mongers. Never mind that all the relevant professional organizations and government health departments endorse fluoridation as safe, cheap and the most effective way to prevent tooth decay.
Fortunately, the tooth break proposal was quickly shot down by health officials and Chun Oakland withdrew her proposal.
State Dental Health Division director Mark Greer said there are practical problems with students brushing their teeth at school such as communicable diseases and unsanitary storage of toothbrushes. He said making bottled water available wouldn't be effective because many students might not use it.
For those interested in the facts, we refer you to the article published on the opposite page last Friday. It was written by a public health professional, Charles J. Hardy, a lecturer on maternal and child health at the University of Hawaii's School of Public Health.
Hardy pointed out that 145 million Americans have been drinking fluoridated water for as long as 55 years with no ill effects. He said drinking fluoride in water is more effective than using it in toothpaste because it hardens teeth from within.
Hardy said it doesn't matter if kids don't drink water because they would get the fluoride in sodas and canned juice, which would be produced with fluoridated water. He said the cost has been calculated as one-fifth of a cent per person per month.
As for the objection that fluoridating water would deny freedom of choice, he asked: "Choice for whom? The kids, who stand to benefit, should be the ones who make the choice. Do you think they would vote for rotten, unsightly teeth that would imperil their health and undercut their appearance?"
Fluoridated water makes a lot more sense than a school tooth-brushing break -- or any other solution in sight.
Adverse trade ruling
AN appeals panel of the World Trade Organization has ruled that the United States must scrap a law that allowed companies to avoid paying taxes on some overseas sales by channeling them through offshore subsidiaries.
The New York Times described the decision as the biggest defeat the United States has ever suffered in a trade dispute. The decision could force American companies to pay billions of dollars more in taxes each year. Last year hundreds of companies avoided paying about $4 billion federal taxes under the provision.
The ruling could put U.S. companies at a disadvantage in competing with European companies that enjoy what Washington contends are equivalent export subsidies.
The issue could strain economic relations with the European Union, which brought the case to the World Trade Organization. Washington might file a countersuit against European subsidies.
The decision could have wider repercussions, even affecting U.S. membership in the WTO. Congress will vote this year on whether to renew that membership, and the ruling could be used by WTO opponents to strengthen their case. Critics have argued that WTO judges sometimes encroach on the sovereignty of member nations.
Despite all the criticism of the WTO that erupted at its recent meeting in Seattle, the organization serves an important purpose and deserves continued U.S. support. Congress should not overreact to the adverse ruling on taxes by ending U.S. membership.
A more sensible option is to attempt to smooth relations with the European Union through a negotiated settlement. This could involve other disputes such as opening European markets for imported bananas and hormone-treated beef.
Washington and the European Union have an agreement not to challenge each other's tax policies. There is a suspicion among some officials in Washington that the EU brought the tax case to the WTO to retaliate for U.S. victories in the banana and beef disputes.
THE tax decision is of course about money but more basically about trade. Heavier taxes could inhibit some U.S. companies from engaging in foreign trade, which could hurt American workers. This is a legitimate concern for U.S. trade officials and for Congress.
The Clinton administration has pledged to seek a solution in cooperation with Congress and the business community. Although some friction in international trade is probably unavoidable, this problem is particularly troublesome. It must be resolved without setting off a trade war.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
