Michael Mullins (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I, too, welcome the Minister of State to the House. I compliment Senator Norris on tabling this motion. It is only right and proper that such a significant public policy relating to the treatment of water is kept under constant review. The Government amendment does not differ much from the motion tabled by Senator Norris in this regard.

I raised this issue some weeks ago on the Order of Business following receipt of extensive documentation on the matter from a chartered environmental scientist, Dr. Declan Waugh. My attention was drawn to Dr. Waugh's reference in that correspondence to his ten year journey of discovery in relation to water fluoridation, from which he had drawn the conclusion that the science behind water fluoridation is deeply flawed and that the evidence of risk greatly outweighs the minor benefits associated with this policy. Dr. Waugh pointed out that it is commonly known that while the World Health Organization endorses water fluoridation, it does so only where health authorities have demonstrated that the dietary intake of fluoride for all sectors of society, including the most sensitive subgroups of the population, are known and quantified.

Dr. Waugh subsequently forwarded further documentation to me which drew a link between water fluoridation and many of the significant health problems being experienced by people in this country, including cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Dr. Waugh states that in the North of Ireland, where fluoridation does not take place, only 4% of the population suffers from diabetes, whereas 8.9% of the population in the Republic suffer from diabetes. Other health problems identified were obesity, respiratory conditions, thyroid and cancer. I am concerned about the availability of this information in the public domain and our not being able to prove one way or the other whether there is any link between water fluoridation and those particular health problems. They are the negatives of this issue.

I will now address some of the positives. In this regard, I refer to the Department of Health and the expert group on fluoridation and health which state that water fluoridation is the adjustment of the natural concentration of fluoride in drinking water to the optimal recommended level for the prevention of dental problems.

According to them, water fluoridation is the "adjustment of the natural concentration of fluoride in drinking water to the optimal recommended level for the prevention of dental caries". The levels are controlled and are set at between 0.6 parts per million, ppm, and 0.8 ppm. We have a strict monitoring regime of levels. This monitoring is carried out within each local authority area by the HSE, which is charged with ensuring that all issues pertaining to public health are at the safest levels possible.

Like other Senators, I have a difficulty in reconciling the considerable divergence of opinion between those who oppose fluoridation and those who see it as a significant contributor to public health. Senator Norris has done the House a great service by tabling this motion, as we need to keep this matter under constant discussion and review. As has been stated, technology is improving and other countries throughout Europe are moving away from this system. Perhaps we should consider the issue further.

I have confidence in the HSE and believe that we are receiving good advice, yet I recognise the fact that experts in this field hold other opinions. It is important that this issue be given a full airing at the Oireachtas health committee. I would welcome further debate on this matter of significant public interest.

I would not like the House to divide on this motion. Senators are as one. Although views differ, everyone has the same objective, in that we want to ensure the best possible outcomes for our people. I hope we will keep the matter under review and discussion.