Feargal Quinn (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I second the motion. I welcome the Minister of State, who is an old friend of this House. Senator Norris should be commended for introducing this topic. I have two celebrations this weekend. One is my granddaughter's seventh birthday and the other - also on Sunday - will mark my 20th anniversary in this House. I mention this because in my first few weeks, this topic arose and I remember becoming involved in the fluoridation debate. I supported the practice because of the existing evidence but I will now question whether the practice needs the same deserving attention it got in those days.

All policies should be reviewed regularly and the practice of adding fluoride to the national water supply is no different. I am delighted to have a discussion today, although I am disappointed there is a Government amendment, which I have not seen. I am glad the Seanad has taken the lead in the review process and is examining this issue, which is of national importance. I will consider the matter from both the philosophical and practical perspectives. We should also try to avoid exaggeration and scare stories, doing our best to consider the issue in a detached matter, weighing up why the Minister for Health should review the process of adding fluoride to the national water supply.

The basic argument for adding fluoride to water is that it helps to improve the dental condition of citizens, especially those who do not look after their own teeth very well. Various studies have pointed to a much reduced incidence of tooth decay in fluoridated areas compared with those which are not fluoridated. The World Health Organization supports the use of fluoridation, as does the United States Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, which calls it one of the top ten public health achievements of the 20th century.

Nevertheless, there are many arguments against adding fluoride to the water supply, and the Minister of State should consider these. Many studies consider the dental benefits of fluoride and that improving diets would have a greater impact on dental health. Many experts argue that the positives do not outweigh the negatives, and we should consider whether we need as much fluoride in our water. Since the 1960s, when fluoridation was introduced in Ireland, a range of products containing fluoride have come to the market and dental care has much improved. Health care has made massive strides since.

Many studies advocating fluoridation do not mention the improvement of dental health that correlates with increasing incomes. It seems that the argument for fluoridation could stand up in the 1960s because of socio-economic difficulties but it is hard for it to do so in 2013. Senator Norris has indicated that most countries in Europe have discontinued the practice of fluoridation so why do only Ireland and 10% of the UK and Spain continue the practice? Some of the countries to ban the use of fluoridation include Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Finland, Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands and Italy. Switzerland stopped fluoridation after 20 years, indicating it was ineffective, and Belgium went as far as to ban tablets and chewing gum containing fluoride because of fears it might increase the incidence of brittle bone disease. Is Ireland right on the issue and the rest of Europe wrong?

There is a range of side-effects linked to excessive fluoride use, with the most common being a condition called dental fluorosis. With this condition, there is a change in the appearance of teeth caused by a change in enamel formation. That occurs during teeth development. In addition, various studies have pointed to lowered intelligence quotient levels in children, increased incidence of bone cancer in teenage boys, as well as increased risk of bone fractures and thyroid dysfunction.

Can we ignore or put up with these many documented side effects? The Lancet, which is considered one of the world's leading medical journals, describes fluoride as "an emerging neuro-toxic substance" that may damage the developing brain. Should we act now or wait for more evidence? In addition, fluoride can potentially affect the nervous system, the kidneys, the bones and other tissues in young children during their critical stage of organ development. We were to discuss children's early development in the Seanad today and we have deferred that debate for the time being. Can we be serious about this commitment if we do not consider such effects on babies and children?

It is interesting to note that the European Commission Directorate General for Health and Consumers notes that European Union-wide trends show a reduction in tooth decay in children of 12 years of age, regardless of whether water is fluoridated. It states there is no obvious advantage in favour of water fluoridation compared with application via toothpaste, mouthwash or gel. It goes on to state that the effect of continued exposure to fluoride from whatever source is questionable once the permanent teeth have erupted. This information is all new. It certainly did not exist 20 years ago when I spoke about it. The Government is very quick to take on any EU legislation. I wonder why it is not as quick to consider findings such as these. Is it just being selective about what we should do about this?

We should also consider what our neighbours are doing. In 2004, following a public consultation, Scotland's Parliament rejected proposals to fluoridate public drinking water on ethical grounds. Other countries, including France, Greece and Denmark, have already put high taxes on sugary drinks. In other words, they have taken other action to aim at achieving the same benefits.

This issue is worthy of discussion. I hope we will have that discussion this afternoon. I congratulate Senator Norris for raising it and look forward to hearing the opposing views also.