City's Decision To End Fluoridation Looking Like a Mistake

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the issue of water fluoridation and whether city council needs to revisit its 2011 decision:

Word last week about a worsening situation in Calgary with regard to  children’s oral health is certainly disconcerting, but sadly, not at all  surprising.
Trying to predict the implications of a particular government policy can be  an imprecise science. However, when it came to the 2011 decision by Calgary city  council to halt water fluoridation, the implications were actually fairly easy  to predict.
It remains unclear what benefits council expected we’d realize. Frankly, the  decision was about as puzzling as any we’ve seen in recent memory. Water  fluoridation had been approved by voters in 1999, and the practice was in  keeping with the best medical and scientific advice.
The evidence is pretty clear on water fluoridation, which the U.S. Centers  for Disease Control and Prevention has listed as one of its 10 greatest public  health achievements of the 20th century. As Alberta Health Services notes on its  website, three major systematic reviews of the available evidence have been  conducted over the past decade in three countries. All of them demonstrate quite  convincingly that water fluoridation is effective in reducing cavities and that  the practice is safe.
So not only was the 2011 city council decision a solution in search of a  problem, it was a “solution” directly at odds with the best evidence. There’s no  harm in examining or reconsidering certain policies, but it’s not unreasonable  to expect that the conclusions that follow be evidence-based.
That’s not to say that fluoridation is a panacea. For example, University of  Iowa dental professor Stephen Levy, who has been involved in a long-running  study of water fluoridation, has suggested that the benefits of fluoridation are  not as great today as they were, say, 30 years ago. While there may be other  sources of fluoride available, and other means of addressing oral health, water  fluoridation remains a cost-effective means of reaching the populace.
There is also concern around fluorosis, the slight discolouring of teeth that  can occur from the overconsumption of fluoride. However, many experts believe  swallowing toothpaste is a bigger factor in fluorosis than fluoridated water,  and in any event, it’s not at all clear whether Calgary’s decision to end water  fluoridation has had any impact on rates of fluorosis.
It is becoming apparent, however, that the decision to end water fluoridation  has had precisely the sort of impact that many health professionals feared it  would: namely, children in Calgary suffering from more and bigger cavities.
The alarm bell was sounded last week by the Alberta Academy of Pediatric  Dentistry, which has noted the disturbing trend over the past two years. They’re  hoping that these alarming statistics might prompt city council to take another  look at the matter.
To make matters worse, not only were these experts ignored in the decision to  end fluoridation, these same experts are being ignored in the development of  alternative dental programs. The $750,000 the city spent annually on  fluoridation was earmarked for new oral health programs aimed at low-income  children and families. It’s certainly fair to study the most effective means of  spending that money, but two years later, it seems quite clear that we’re  getting far less bang for our buck.

For her part, Ald. Druh Farrell — who spearheaded the anti-fluoridation push  on council — claims that this is not a Calgary problem, and that cavity rates  are rising across North America. Of course, this ignores the very specific trend  in Calgary being identified by dentists, and it ignores the fact that Edmonton —  which started fluoridation long before Calgary did, and continues to do so — has  lower cavity rates.
Farrell has also decided that the issue “is over,” which is rather  disingenuous on her part.
Just as the 1999 plebiscite was not the final word on the matter, nor should  the 2011 council vote be. As with any other government program or policy, we  should look to see what impact it is having.
The evidence that council made a mistake in 2011 is strong and compelling. If  this current council is too stubborn and intransigent to at least acknowledge  that possibility, then hopefully the fall election will give us a slate of more  open-minded and evidence-friendly aldermen.

MADD Canada Shows Its Neo-Prohibitionist Stripes

I once wrote a column suggesting that Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) was a neo-prohibitionist organization - that they often seem to be as opposed to drinking itself as they are to drunk driving. In fact, the founder of MADD has described the organization thusly.
Officials with MADD Canada took exception to my assertion, and pointed out that some of the examples I provided were specific to MADD in the US, not MADD Canada.
Well, if MADD Canada is determined on proving that they are not neo-prohibitionist, they have a funny way of showing it.
Just for point of reference, as I note in this column, we have driven down tobacco consumption rates and reduced the harm associated with tobacco consumption without addressing the retail model of tobacco. There is no government monopoly of tobacco retail in Canada and no anti-tobacco organization that I'm aware of supports such a move.
MADD Canada, however, is very much concerned with the model of alcohol retail in Canada. Their latest report (news release here, full study (PDF) here) takes a strong stand in support of the government monopoly model:

Privatizing alcohol sales will result in increased alcohol-related problems in society, according to a new report from Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) Canada.
MADD Canada said government-controlled systems of liquor sales are the best option for controlling alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harm in society

Interestingly, if one refers back to MADD's news release, one will notice only a brief, scant reference to drinking and driving - which is ostensibly MADD's primary concern. If, in fact, one were to argue that the two issues are connected - specfically that privatization leads to more drunk driving - then one would expect to see this report focus primarily on that connection. It does not.
If fact, the report glosses over a rather significant statistic. As MADD has noted elsewhere, Saskatchewan has - by far - the highest rate of impaired driving among the provinces. Saskatchewan, of course, features the very sort of alcohol retail model that MADD Canada is advocating. Again, if impaired driving is MADD's primary concern, one would think that this discrepancy would be addressed. Or that rather than obsessing with how alcohol is sold, MADD would focus on ways of reducing drunk driving. Alberta's rates are also high, but Quebec's are among the lowest, so it would suggest that maybe there's not a direct connection between retail models and impaired driving rates.
Further to that point is the fact that MADD's latest report, while citing other examples from around the world, makes no mention of Germany. I note that becase in a separate report from MADD, we learn something very interesting about Germany (which has some rather lax alcohol laws):

...Canada’s per capita rate of alcohol-related crash deaths in 2008 was five times that of Germany even though Germany's consumption rate was 20% higher than Canada’s.

Again, that fact is drawn from a MADD Canada report. So in some instances the German experience is very relevant to MADD and in other instances it is irrelevant. But if MADD's concern is impaired driving, and Germany's rate is very low, then the German experience ought to be extremely relevant. Except in that case, it severely undercuts the case MADD is making against privatized liquor retail.
MADD's report makes some other questionable claims. With respect to Alberta, MADD claims that:

Alcohol consumption increased in Alberta the year privatization was introduced while rates in other parts of the country declined.

The latter part of that sentence is true, but the part about Alberta is simply false. As noted on page 13 of this report (PDF), Alberta's consumption rate declined in Alberta before privatization and after privatization. The rate did go up in 1997, but that was four years after privatization. Interestingly, Alberta's rate of consumption was already well above the national average under the old government monopoly.
MADD Canada also claims that:

The number of liquor stores in Calgary increased more than tenfold from 1995 to 2003, from 23 stores to nearly 300. Police reports in Calgary document a rise in impaired driving charges and family violence cases in areas of the city with the highest density of liquor stores.

MADD's source for that claim is a book, so it's difficult to verify. But is seems to clash with other available evidence. For example, as this report (PDF) from Frontier Centre for Public Policy notes:

• A 1995 Calgary Police Service report on liquor-store crime (crimes per liquor store) claims to dispel “the myth that privatization of liquor businesses has increased the rate of crime.”

• A 2003 Calgary Police Service report also found that the rate of liquor-store crime actually went down in Calgary following privatization. Moreover, there is no evidence that underage drinking is higher in Alberta or lower in Saskatchewan than in the other provinces.

MADD's report also relies heavily on a study from the University of Victoria which claims:

...those areas with more private stores than government-run stores had significantly higher rates of alcohol-related deaths involving local residents. There was a 27.5% increase in alcohol-related deaths for every extra private liquor store per 1,000 British Columbians.

But this analysis found several problems with that study:

...Unfortunately, the study was filled with multiple testing and weak explanations for the whole data set, rather than small subsets. The study failed to provide the data and information necessary to validate its conclusions, leading us at best to say that the results might be true or they might be spurious. Rather than swallowing whole a tale by which market forces can greatly influence deaths from drinking, the media ought to have looked more closely: they would have found more questions than answers about alcohol deaths and its relationship to alcohol prices.

In fact, as noted here, the argument that increased availability of alcohol leads to increased harm is based on some rather weak evidence. Given that, and given what MADD itself has observed about the experiences in Saskatchewan and Germany, this focus on alcohol retail models is a major distraction from what is supposed to be their primary focus: fighting impaired driving.

As MADD has tried to argue elsewhere, they are not opposed to drinking per se, but rather it is impaired driving that they oppose. This campaign in support of government monopolies, however, suggests otherwise. As MADD has noted with respect to Germany, higher rates of consumption are not necessarily correlated with higher rates of consumption. Therefore the argument that MADD is being proactive simply doesn't wash. If a responsible consenting adult realizes that impaired drving is wrong, then it matters not where he buys his booze or how much he pays for it. If he's not getting behind the wheel, it shouldn't really be of concern to MADD - unless they really are neoprohibitionist.

The Problems With Alberta's Election Donation Laws

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the controversy surrounding the donation from Daryl Katz to the Alberta Tories:

In what was otherwise a challenging week for them, the Alberta Tories were relishing their “vindication” courtesy of Elections Alberta and its investigation of a rather large and controversial donation to the party.
The report from now-retired Chief Electoral Officer Brian Fjeldheim found that the $430,000 bulk donation from billionaire Edmonton Oilers owner Daryl Katz and associates was not in violation of Alberta’s election law. That law limits individual and corporate donations in an election year to $30,000 but the $430,000 was divided among 17 entities and therefore deemed to be legal.
It should hardly surprise us that the party responsible for the law is adept at navigating it. Nor should it surprise us that the party which benefits most from the status quo would wish to retain it.
Premier Alison Redford declared last week that there was no need for any further changes to the Election Finances and Disclosure Act. What the Premier did not address, however, is why the Tories were not forthcoming about this donation in the first place. If they did nothing wrong in accepting this donation – which, strictly speaking, would now seem to be the case – why were they acting as though they had something to hide?
The Tories received a bank draft for $430,000 on April 16, 2012 — one week before Election Day. However, Albertans didn’t become aware of it until more than six months later when it was revealed in documents released by Elections Alberta.
Interestingly, two days after the $430,000 was received, the Edmonton Journal ran a story about how the Tories were breaking their promise of releasing updated lists of campaign donors. The party president was even quoted but of course nothing was said about the bulk donation from Katz and friends.
Is it really possible that top Tories were unaware of a massive cash infusion a week before the election? Clearly those who were in the know kept their mouths shut before Election Day and continued doing so even after the vote.
For their part, Elections Alberta is satisfied that Katz (specifically Katz Group Properties, Inc. — which ironically was not a donor) was indeed reimbursed by the other donors. But did the Tories know or care if that was the case? Was there any obligation on their part to see to it that the people listed as Tory donors actually coughed up their own money?
A former Tory strategist was quoted in the Herald last week offering this defence of the status quo: “If I feel very strongly about something and I want to put money behind it, I should be able to put money behind it”.
I agree. But what makes $30,000 the magical number? It also, though, underscores the absurdity of allowing corporate and union donations.
Take, for example, the one finding of guilt in the Elections Alberta investigation. Katz associate Paul Marcaccio was deemed to not be an “ordinary resident” of Alberta, and therefore his $25,000 donation was returned. Yet, the $25,000 donation from the “Paul Marcaccio Professional Corporation” was deemed acceptable, as though the two have nothing to do with each other.
Frankly, if Alberta’s donation limits can be so easily circumvented, it’s worth asking why we even have them. Would much have really changed here if the $430,000 had all come from Katz himself?
What’s really needed is transparency and mandatory disclosure. Would the $430,000 have been donated and accepted if all parties involved knew that it would be made public prior to Election Day?
Surely such a massive donation so late in the campaign might have been the defining issue of that final week. Instead, of course, it was the controversial comments by two Wildrose candidates. For all the dire warnings about the influence of money in politics, the Wildrose gaffes did far more for the Tories than the $430,000.
Our system allows donors to find ways of making large donations and allows parties to find ways of accepting them. It’s not until months later that the rest of us get to piece it all together.
We need to end the farce. If you want to write a big cheque or pocket a big cheque, fine — but stand up and own it.
 

Don Cherry Still Doesn't Want Female Reporters in Male Locker Rooms

As detailed here, CBC commentator Don Cherry sparked quite the controversy Saturday night when he used his Coach's Corner segment to argue that female reporters shouldn't be allowed in male locker rooms. Last night, he reiterated those views:

If Don Cherry - and those who profess to agree with him - want to change the reporter-athlete dynamic so that the exchanges occur outside the locker room in a news conference-type environment then we can have that conversation. However, by proposing to simply keep female reporters out of the locker room, you merely create a situation where male reporters have privileges that female reporters do not - in fact, female reporters simply couldn't do their job. So not only would you be keeping females out of the profession, you'd be doing so ostensibly for their own good.
If players were making racist jokes in the dressing room, no one would be arguing to keep visible minority reporters out so as to protect them from seeing or hearing that. We'd demand the players stop their unprofessional behavior. If the sort of behaviour Don Cherry is describing is still going on, then that is also unprofessional behaviour that should be stopped. The answer is not to punish female reporters because of the boorish actions of some players.   

Alberta's Political Donation Problem

The Alberta Tories certainly seem to believe that they've been vindicated in the matter of the rather large Daryl Katz donation.

 

And frankly, maybe they have been.

 

Last year, in the dying days of the election campaign, the Tories receiving a cheque from the billionaire Edmonton Oilers owner for a whopping $430-thousand. But because Alberta has an election year donation limit of $30-thousand, the donation was split up between Katz's business, family members, and business associates.

Elections Alberta investigated, and today released their findings. In a nutshell, both the donor and the recipient have been cleared of any wrongdoing, An Elections Alberta spokesman said that the other individuals paid the money back to Katz, and that splitting up of bulk donations is not uncommon in Alberta.

There was one donation found to be illegal - $25-thousand from Katz associate Paul Marcaccio has been returned because it turns out he didn't have legal residency status in Alberta. Curiosly, though, there was no problem with the donation from Paul Marcaccio Professional Corporation.

That just highlights some of the absurdity of this all. If it's so easy to circumvent Alberta's donation limits, why bother having limits? Therefore, it should really not surprise us that the donor and the recipients of the donation have been cleared. It really isn't too hard to make the rules fit your donation.

The real issue here is that it took so long for us to find out about this donation. The Tories did not disclose any of this before the election, and even after the election, they disclosed some donations, but not this one.

Transparency would go a lot further than these useless rules. If parties were forced to disclose all donations during a campaign on a weekly basis, that might have changed this situation dramatically. Would Katz have donated such a large sum of money under those conditions? Would the Tories have accepted? Maybe. But at least voters would know and be able to judge them accordingly.

The Tories may be proud to have been vindicated, but they were ashamed enough of this donation that they kept it hidden at the time.

That is far more telling than anything we learned today.

You can hear the Premier's comments on the matter here (at the 30:45 mark). She doesn't really address the matter of why they were silent about the donation for so long, nor does she seem to find anything wrong with the rules: