Feargal Quinn (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Thank you, a Chathaoirligh, and I thank the Minister of State for coming in for this debate which I think will be very interesting and one that I have not heard debated here. It was debated before in this House but it was quite some time ago. I, like Senator O'Brien, do not remember a big debate about this in 1963. It must have been a very emotional time when it was being done. It is taking away the rights of every citizen to feed themselves with fresh water by ensuring there is something in that water. Having studied this issue for the last week or two, I am concerned when I order a glass of water. I am not sure whether I am drinking fluoridated water or not. As Senator O'Brien says, if it is tap water it will contain fluoride. I am not sure if the water in front of me is tap water. Neither can I always be sure if the water we buy in bottles comes from a well or a tap. I have 16 grandchildren and I know that my sons and daughters, who are concerned about the well-being of those children, are going to give much more thought to this in the future when it is brought to their attention.
The Sinn Féin amendment is interesting. Usually when an amendment is put before the House, it disagrees with the provision. Senator O'Brien's motion is that Seanad Éireann notes the fundamental human right of every citizen to choose whether or not to have their water medicated with fluoride given that they are from 1 October paying for it. The Sinn Féin amendment seeks to delete all the words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following: "calls for the removal of fluoride from the public water system". One is capable of being accepted as much as the other.
Senator O'Brien has spoken vividly about the figures around the world. I have done some work on that also. The motion is very important. It is a huge change for citizens that we now have to pay for our water. From a business perspective it is right that the citizen is given the opportunity to choose the type of product that they purchase. We do not have that choice. We purchase water but we do not have the option of non-fluoridated water. I do not want to go through the figures Senator O'Brien has given at length but it must be emphasised that most EU countries do not add fluoride to water. Some major and influential countries are not even allowing local authorities to make their own decision on fluoridation. Senator O'Brien mentioned the situation in Germany, Japan, the Netherlands and Sweden. They are among the countries who have banned fluoridation altogether. We only need to look north of the Border where there is no fluoridation. It is interesting to see Mr. Walter Graham here tonight. He was instrumental in playing a very large part in drawing the attention of various towns in the North to the issue to the extent that they no longer have fluoridation there.
Belgium went so far as to ban tablets and chewing gum that contain fluoride over fears that they might increase the risk of brittle bone disease. There does not appear to be any worldwide movement for countries to start to add fluoride to water supplies, the opposite is the case. Last August, Israel officially stopped adding fluoride to its water supply on the basis that it is medical treatment and people have the right to choose whether they want to be medicated. It is interesting to consider the country with the world's largest population, China, does not add fluoride to its water supply. These are strong examples and it is very clear that what we are doing is completely out of the norm. Is Ireland right on the issue and the rest of Europe wrong? There is no fluoridation in Scotland, Wales and most of England. These other countries are not fluoridating their water on the basis of medical evidence.
There is also an ethical issue when it comes to medicating a water supply. There is a range of well documented side-effects linked to excessive fluoride use in the medical evidence. Senator O'Brien has dealt with some of those. I will not get involved in them but the most common is dental fluorosis which changes the appearance of teeth. In addition, various studies have pointed to lower intelligence levels in children, an increased incidence of bone cancer in teenage boys and increased risk of bone fractures and thyroid dysfunction. Senator O'Brien drew our attention to the tubes of toothpaste and the cartons of toothpaste for sale in America. The example provided says: "Warning: Keep out of reach of children under six years of age. If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing get medical help or contact a poison control centre immediately". That is very interesting. What is particularly interesting is that it does not apply to toothpastes that do not contain fluoride. They do not have that warning. In America, it is necessary to have that health warning on every tube of toothpaste that contains fluoride. A new study published in one of the best known peer reviewed medical journals, The Lancet, now labels fluoride as a development neurotoxin which could cause damage to the brain. This is due to a link between high levels of fluoride exposure and reduced IQ in children, mostly in China. The study puts fluoride in the same category as substances such as arsenic, lead and mercury. There are a number of interesting articles on that.
I will deal briefly with two other points. Some 98% of the countries of Europe have rejected fluoridation. Why are we doing it? There is an international movement away from fluoridation. It is becoming redundant.

It has been rejected in countries and communities around the world and fluoride is a highly poisonous substance. Most people are unaware of how toxic it is. There is enough fluoride in a tube of toothpaste to kill a 12-year-old child. While Members have a great deal to do this regard and have a great deal to learn, this is the start of a debate and I hope the Minister of State will enlighten them in the time ahead, in order that they can make a decision on the subject.