David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I very much regret that because if one cannot use this House to seek a review of an issue that requires review, it shows an unnaturally defensive stance. It is not my intention in any sense to impugn the reputation or motives of any of those on either side, including those who consider it to be extremely important to have fluoridation in the water. However, never in 25 years of raising these issues have I received such a volume of correspondence from people from all walks of life and all parts of the country. I have to hand some of the e-mails I have received in this regard, including one that I found very charming, from Mercy Secondary School, Mounthawk, Tralee, County Kerry, which is organising a puppet show to examine the issue. It is very interesting to have the engagement of young people. I am really sorry that the Government parties, the senior Government party in particular, have decided, presumably, to call a vote on this motion. This appears to be stifling debate, particularly in light of the fact that in 2001, Fine Gael gave a clear and absolute promise that immediately on entering government, it would end fluoridation of water in Ireland. There has been a complete turnaround in this regard and that is very regrettable.

I am old enough, as I hit 70, to remember the dental situation that obtained here when the state of teeth was extremely bad. I looked, for example, at the evidence given by Dr. O'Mullane, who was one of the principal proponents of fluoridation, who stated:

I worked in the School Dental Service in West Cork for a number of years in the mid 1960's. Children constantly had gum boils and toothaches and I spent all of my time travelling from town to town extracting teeth. That was all I could do. ... [extracting] ... the teeth of frightened children.

That is not good and the motivation of those who introduced fluoride was to rectify this situation. However, we now have fluoride toothpaste, which was not then available, and this may have influenced the judgment in the Ryan case. Dental hygiene certainly has improved and I note dental caries are not created by the absence of fluoride in the water but instead are created by acids produced by sugar on the teeth. Therefore, it is much more likely that diet is a significant factor. Furthermore, the highest authorities in America have decided the delivery of fluoride actually is topical or, in other words, it depends on getting it directly to the targeted area, rather than systemic. Consequently, delivering it through a water supply is unnecessary, uneconomic and questionable in that I have to hand a quotation from a doctor in this regard who stated he could not imagine any other doctor prescribing for a patient he had not seen, whose medical condition he did not know and whose dosage he could not control. However, that is what happening with fluoride and a question certainly exists in this regard.

Another point is that section 6 of the Health (Fluoridation of Water Supplies) Act 1960 has never been implemented. It mandated that there should be continuous general health reviews. This has not happened and I wonder what is the reason. My first call would be for the need for baseline data on fluoride impacts. In this context, consideration must be given to bone effects, immuno-compromised people in respect of cancer, endocrine effects, thyroid effects, pineal gland effects, insulin secretion effects, neurological effects and renal effects. I do not wish to do this simply to cause a scare of any kind but these are the areas that may be affected.

I am not in a position to make a scientific determination on these matters but I will simply point to some of the evidence, including from Dr. Hans Moolenburgh, a scientist who persuaded the Dutch authorities not to introduce fluoridation under any circumstances. In fact, they have introduced a constitutional prohibition on it. I also refer to the work from the National Research Council,Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards, published by the National Academies Press in America.

It has a very serious track record in dealing not just with this issue but with traces of arsenic in water, with environmental pollution through the atmosphere and so on. It is a reputable body. There are also Dr. Waugh's interventions in his publications. I wrote to the Minister for Health about a year ago and we had a desultory correspondence about it which I did not find satisfactory, ultimately, so I decided to investigate further. I came across the Fluoride (Repeal of Enactments) Bill 2002, produced by the former Deputy John Gormley, subsequently the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. He is a senior person and a man of considerable intellect. In the explanatory memorandum, he states:

There is now a scientific consensus that fluoride works topically and does not need to be ingested to protect teeth. All the evidence shows that too much fluoride in the body gives rise to fluorosis, which is on the increase, and to other health effects. When water fluoridation has been stopped in other countries, there has been no increase of dental caries as a result. This Bill means that no fluoride will be added by local authorities to Irish drinking water supplies.

That is all that is contained in the explanatory memorandum and for somebody as senior as former Deputy Gormley, who has a scientific background, to say that is of considerable interest.

This matter is topical because last night we passed the Water Services Bill, which established Uisce Éireann, with Bord Gais given the task of putting in meters. We are now going to pay for water and when one is paying for a substance it is at least reasonable to expect that one gets it in a pure state or is at the very least consulted as to what kinds of chemicals or medicines are put in it.

I ask that the Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children revisits the report which was provided to that committee. I also wish to put on the record the comments of Professor John Doull, chairman of the 2006 National Research Council review, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of the EPA's Standards, who said:

What the committee found is that we?ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years - for too long really - and now we need to take a fresh look? In the scientific community people tend to think this is settled. I mean, when the US surgeon general comes out and says this is one of the top ten greatest achievements of the 20th century, that?s a hard hurdle to get over. But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on.

This echoes, very interestingly, the comments of Professor Trevor Sheldon in a letter to the press after the publication of the York report. He said:

The review team was surprised that in spite of the large number of studies carried out over several decades there is a dearth of reliable evidence with which to inform policy. Until high quality studies are undertaken providing more definite evidence, there will continue to be legitimate scientific controversy over the likely effects and costs of water fluoridation.

Controversy and questions remain.

I read the report of the forum on fluoridation which accepts that 95% of the public is opposed to fluoridation, which raises questions about a democratic deficit. The public responses included anger or displeasure over perceived involuntary mass medication of the public, concerns over the origins and chemical contaminants in fluoride additive, fear of involuntary intake of excess fluoride from multiple sources, great concern over a lack of choice for consumers to use or avoid fluoride, a perception that Ireland is virtually unique in fluoridating drinking water and a widespread perception that many medical ailments are due to fluoride. Perhaps these are only perceptions but the questions need to be answered and this is a forum in which they can be.

We are alone, of all of the countries in Europe, in having mandatory inclusion of fluoride in drinking water. Furthermore, the whole process is one of bullying. In the 1960s, the then Minister for Health, Sean McEntee threatened to dissolve the city councils of Cork and Dublin because they were opposed to fluoridation. The councillors were bullied. The Fine Gael Party led the attack with superb speeches from James Dillon and Richie Ryan, indicating that there was a democratic deficit and that this was a kind of tyranny. A lot more could be said but I will now make my final point. It is important that we have a clear understanding of dental caries, which is defined by the Dental Health Foundation, Ireland thus:

Caries begins with a small patch of demineralised (softened) enamel at the tooth surface, often hidden from sight in the fissures (grooves) or in between the teeth. The destruction spreads into the dentine (the softer, sensitive part of the tooth beneath the enamel). The weakened enamel then collapses to form a cavity and the tooth is progressively destroyed.

The cause of caries is acid created by sugar and not the absence of fluoride.

The other question is what is fluoride? This is not to necessarily impugn fluoride as a chemical.