pumpkinstrokemarrow

I see from yesterday's DT, that there is a problem somewhere in the south of England. That is to say that the health people want to add flouride to the water to stop their customers' teeth rotting. Or at least stopping them rotting to the extent of 31.4%, as I recall. The catch is that the customers themselves are alleged to have declared themselves by a margin of 7 to 3 to be against adding flouride to their water.

Now, I have been convinced that adding flouride to the water does indeed stop teeth rotting. And it is always possible that the same flouride causes cancer of the big toe - but that is true of practically any intervention of this sort. Hard to prove a negative. I have also been convinced that our system of indirect democracy is the best way to organise things. We give power to our representatives to run things for us. Sometimes this involves them deciding to do things that we do not like, the death penalty being a good example. Legislatures over most of the world think that the death penalty is a bad thing, the public over most of the world think that it is a good thing. In such cases, I think legislatures should tread carefully. It is true that they are usually empowered for a period of years and there is no obligation to submit this or that decision to referendums or opinion polls conducted by the Sun or the Daily Mail. On the other hand, their making a habit of doing things which the public clearly does not want, will, over time, erode their standing. But it is not a good thing for legislatures to be held in disrepute by the public. So they should not do something that people do not want unless they have good cause.

Therefore, without knowing the details of this case, if there has been some clear and credible vote against by the public, I do not think the health people should push ahead and invoke the 2002 Water Act (or whatever obscure bit of legislation has given them these powers) for the good of our teeth. We know that flouride is good for our teeth but we don't want it. I think that should be up to us. Those that are keen on flouride should use one of the many toothpastes which contain the stuff. But it is odd that the people who get into a lather about flouride in the water never seem to get into a lather about flouride in the toothpaste.

Clear and credible vote a bit of a tricky one. Not sensible for the people who run the country to have to ask us every time they want to do something. But they should be sensitive to public opinion and they should consult when they know they want to do something a bit tricky. This has to include dealing with situations when public opinion is little more than agitation whipped up by red-tops to sell newspapers. All very tricky indeed. But to force through flouride in the teeth of clear opposition seems wrong. It is not worth it. And anyway, with peoples' teeth being so much better these days, all those dentists that joined up for the excellent dosh (hard to see why else one would be a dentist. Peering into possibly smelly mouths all day not my idea of fun), now need the dosh.

Nearer the ground, another fine example of mushroom soup this lunchtime. Taken the onion initiative on the last occasion a little further. Started by gently frying a lot of onions in an ounce or so of butter toether with some finely ground black pepper. After a bit add the chopped mushroom (around £1.30 for a box containing maybe a pound of the things, from Mr Tesco on this occasion) stalks. In the meantime take maybe a pound of crinkly cabbage and sliver it. Including root and stalk finely sliced. All good fibre. Boil for a few minutes in a couple of pints of water. Add onions, simmer for a bit, add the mushroom caps entire, simmer for a bit and serve with white bread and butter. People who live of fast food don't know what they are missing - not least the fact that soup like this can be knocked up quicker than the pizza delivery man is going to get to you.