Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I am grateful that Senators Norris and Quinn have tabled this motion because, as has been said on both sides of the House, all policy should be reviewed. However, this policy has been reviewed. It used to be a test case example of public policy that we did the research before introducing fluoridation of water. We found that where fluoride was naturally present, such as in Patrickswell, County Limerick, and Gyles' Quay, County Louth, dental health was far better in those locations. Therefore, this is not a poison, as some of the extreme critics would say. It is present naturally and is seen to have positive benefits for dental health.

In response to Senator Keane's point, there are many studies to support superior dental health in terms of the DMFT - decayed, missing or filled teeth - oral health index in the Republic of Ireland compared with Northern Ireland. It has been a success therefore. Senator Cullinane mentioned the sum of ¤5 million out of a ¤17 billion health budget. If one can get the level of benefits we have had from fluoride for such a small amount it is well worth continuing with it. The research also shows that the doubts cast about water fluoridation have been rebutted fairly recently.

The first finding of the expert group was that water fluoridation has been very effective in improving the oral health of the Irish population, especially of children but also of adults, including the elderly. Professor O'Moore of TCD led the group that did the original research and even at that stage she was saying that the amount of fluoride one would have to consume to damage soft tissue was beyond the capacity of any individual.

Legitimate concerns have been raised, however, and they are worth dealing with. It is a credit to this House that my two colleagues tabled the motion before us. In 2010, the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks report stated that fluoride in drinking water does not appear to hamper children's neural development. Neither does fluoride cause gastro-intestinal complaints or bone ailments. The report's authors also said that it does not damage children's IQ test scores. They have gone through all those points.

While I appreciate that my learned friend has adduced information on how Scotland feels, the rest of the UK is strongly of the view that fluoridation has been a benefit.

In 1985, Professor Knox reported:

We have found nothing in any of the major classes of epidemiological evidence which could lead us to conclude that either fluoride occurring naturally in water, or fluoride added to water supplies, is capable of inducing cancer, or of increasing the mortality from cancer. This statement applies both to cancer as a whole, and to cancer at a large number of specific sites. In this, we concur with the great majority of scientific investigators and commentators in this field.

There is overwhelming evidence that this has been a success. It has worked and has improved the dental health of the nation.

Another finding is that there were benefits to bone structure. A US study in the British Medical Journal from 2000 found that exposure to fluoridation was associated with an increase in bone mass at the lumbar spine and proximal femur and a slight decrease in the risk of hip and vertebral fractures. The dental school in Trinity College Dublin strongly favours fluoridation, which, it could probably be argued, is against its own interests because if we did not do it and did not have the large improvement in the DMFT ratio, dentists would be busier. Dentists support this policy even though it might be said it reduces the income of dentists.

It is important these issues are debated. The weight of evidence is so overwhelmingly in favour of the Government's amendment to the motion, I will be supporting it.