Marc MacSharry (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Mary Ann O'Brien and Senator Feargal Quinn for giving Members an opportunity to speak on this issue. For me, the jury is out on this question and I have read a considerable amount on the subject in recent weeks. I do not like the thought of being forcibly medicated, any more than anyone else would, and I do not like the thought of anything being applied forcibly. While I cannot support the motion in its current form, nor can I support either of the amendments, including the Government amendment. The latter is the set-piece Government amendment and when Fianna Fáil was in government, such amendments were no different. It commends the Government, maintains the current position, will not change and all the rest of it.

This issue last was reviewed in 2002 and it is time to review it again. I desire that a review be undertaken on the effects of fluoridation, given the additional research that is available, of which there is quite a lot from the United States. In this context, Senator Mary Ann O'Brien may have mentioned many countries in Europe, including Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden and Switzerland, to mention a few. I have known people from these countries and did not note they had any particular tooth decay issues. They were fine, healthy people and these countries clearly have taken a decision not to have fluoride applied to the public water system for a reason. There are clear concerns about it, as fluoride is poisonous, as has been outlined in respect of toothpaste and processed foods. Even before one comes to treated drinking water or toothpaste, children could be taking in much more fluoride than is safe in a general sense. A huge number of studies link it to quite a number of different diseases and there is a body of scientific research that supports this view.

From what I have read in recent days, we are not talking about a bunch of crazies who have a vested interest in getting this. Equally, I do not think the State believes it is doing harm by keeping it in there, but it warrants a review. It is something that comes up frequently. Some friends of mine will only have bottled water and will try to ensure their children do not have access to fluoride.
The reasons for Senator Mary Ann O'Brien tabling the motion are absolutely sound. I read her very good article in today's Irish Independent. I also read the comments that people added online. An interesting broad church of people gave their responses to it. We certainly could do worse than have a review at this time given that it is 12 years since the last one when we decided to continue with the policy. It would be timely to review it again and the Minister of State would be doing us all a favour by answering that this evening - there might be no need for a vote.
Some of the information highlighted to me on the effects of fluoridation of water is indeed frightening. It was clearly a 1950s solution and approach to a particular issue which is outdated. We have all taken on board our responsibilities in the context of dental health. I do not believe it is impossible for us to continue to be dentally healthy as a nation if we opted to change the policy. I accept we do not want to scaremonger and say we are all going to die. Senator Mary Ann O'Brien made the point about it being the cumulative impact of this over a long period. There may be links to some of these illnesses and perhaps if we took it out and monitored it over a ten-year period, we might see some results.
Our starting point should not be that fluoridation is the bees' knees and we will continue with it. The approach ought to be that policies need to be reviewed on an ongoing basis. It has been 12 years since the last review, other research is available and there are fears out there. At an absolute minimum, even if we were to continue with the policy, we should reassure people why we are doing that and we should outline the levels of fluoride in water, why it is there and how it is possible to avoid intake of it by avoiding fluoridated drinking water. People are entitled to know that and the nation should inform people about the level of fluoridation in the water so that if they feel they do not want themselves or their children exposed to it, they must get other forms of water for drinking, brushing teeth and so on.
We should have tabled an amendment but were not quick enough. If we had tabled an amendment, it would have called for a review and that ought to be done. I do not want to delay the House. I thank Senator Mary Ann O'Brien for her very informative article in today's newspaper. It certainly gave me new information that I did not have in addition to other information that was given to me. According to my documentation 97% - Senator Mary Ann O'Brien mentioned 98% - of people in Europe clearly have concerns and they are not crazies so let us have a look at the most up-to-date research on the issue with an open mind and be flexible on what we might do following a review. I know where Senator Mary Ann O'Brien is coming from, but I do not think it is possible that we could all have an individual choice because of water supply - John next door cannot have it if I do not want it. Maybe we could look at that.
I am not convinced that I want it completely removed from the water system. I have major concerns as an individual with young children. The Minister of State would be best advised to conduct a review at an absolute minimum among the staff at her Department. I am sure there is no additional cost for that - people are being paid in the usual way as members of staff. Perhaps she could report back to us in a month or two with the results of that review and we could consider the issue again.