Colm Burke (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:
"notes that water fluoridation is a major plank of public health policy in Ireland in the prevention of tooth decay;
notes that water fluoridation is recognised by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th Century;
notes that water fluoridation, at the optimal level, does not cause any ill effects to human health; but
notes also that fluoridation, and its effects on health and related matters, is kept under constant review.".

I welcome the Minister to the House. I welcome this debate and the contributions of Senators Norris and Quinn. I would agree with them that just because something is written as policy it is not written in stone for ever more. I agree also that it must be reviewed on an ongoing basis. Even the amendment states that this matter needs to be kept under review.

Senator Quinn stated earlier that fluoridation of water was one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century. That is what is contained in information made available to us.

A Forum on Fluoridation was set up in 2002 and a comprehensive review was undertaken at that stage. I have not read all of the report but I read the main part of it and it appears that a comprehensive review was undertaken in 2002. I am aware that some experts will disagree with that but to give a brief summary of the structure of the report, it dealt with issues of public concern, dental decay and the methods employed in its prevention and control, and the delivery of oral health care services to the Irish population along with international comparisons. It gave an account of the history of water fluoridation from both an Irish and an international perspective and a description of fluoridation status on a worldwide basis. It examined the public water supply system which includes an account of the various standards with which treatment processes must comply. It also examined the current legislation. It examined the benefits and risks of water fluoridation with particular reference to dental fluorosis.

The report is comprehensive about what was done in 2002, which was only ten years ago. I imagine research has not changed substantially in the meantime. An expert body on fluoridation was set up in 2004 and the issue continues to be under review but there has been no major policy change because all the available information indicates there are advantages to maintaining the current policy.

The 60th assembly of the World Health Organization explicitly recommended "for those countries without access to optimal levels of fluoride and which have not yet established systematic fluoridation programmes to consider the development and implementation of fluoridation programmes giving priority to equitable strategies such as the automatic administration of fluoride, for example, in drinking water and to the provision of affordable fluoride toothpaste". The WHO, therefore, recommended this in countries where such programmes were not operational. I agree with Senator Norris that some countries have decided to opt out of this policy and have voted on it. In one Canadian state assembly, the vote was 50.3% against water fluoridation. There is a divided view on the issue but the facts that have been established in Ireland, particularly in the 2002 report, suggest the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and there is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to suggest that the current policy is having a detrimental effect on people's health. We have had this policy for more than five decades and it would benefit the population if it were continued. The issue should be kept under review and if further research becomes available, we can review it at that stage. To date, I have not read of new research.