Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Tá athas orm go bhfuil an t-ábhar seo á phlé againn agus gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta Stanley. This has been a controversial topic. In the couple of years I have been here I have received some lengthy correspondence on it which has led me to ask a number of parliamentary questions. In one I asked the Minister to ask the Irish Medicines Board to carry out a test to determine if fluoride was safe. The reply was that it was not necessary to do this because it was neither a medicine nor a drug. I asked another question about the Irish expert body on fluorides and health and if its work could be considered fair, transparent and impartial. The reply was that it was impartial and evidence-based, but we know evidence can be very selective. Another question was on the expert body and the reply was that it had a strong consumer input from members of the public. That is difficult to accept because we know the extent of public criticism; therefore, I wondered about this.

A number of local authorities have passed all-party motions calling for an end to fluoridation. Are we putting resources into fluoridation which are not needed? Millions of euro are spent every year on fluoride, but we must also consider the local authority resources which could be put into the building of very badly needed houses to reduce housing waiting lists, for example.

What exactly is in fluoride? It is not a single substance but a gas combined with other elements which have consequences for our health. Like Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan, I was intrigued to see what was in the 2001 Fine Gael manifesto about the effects of fluoride. With the Green Party, Fine Gael listed the adverse health effects. People have examined the product specification and there seems to be a cocktail of various toxic elements, including mercury, nickel and lead, but there is a major difference between the current product and the one used originally in 1962.

I have asked further questions about these products. One answer was that the fluoridation of drinking water should be seen as a measure consistent with general public health management. There may have been reasons in the past for introducing fluoridation. Perhaps dental care was poorer then, but times have changed owing to exercise, improved diet and oral hygiene. There is fluoride in toothpaste; children are encouraged to brush their teeth; there is easier access to dentists; and there is not the same fear of dentists. There is evidence on one side of the debate, but there is also evidence on the other. If all of the evidence suggests fluoridation is positive, why have countries such as the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Japan and, most recently, Israel banned fluoridation? Countries that have banned fluoridation have not seen an increase in dental decay.

Are we continuing with fluoridation because it is a habit that is too difficult to break? If this Bill does not pass Second Stage, I ask that all of the evidence, not just selective evidence, be examined by an impartial independent group.

See this speech in context