Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I dtús báire, ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire Stáit Nash agus comhghairdeas a dhéanamh leis faoin ardú céime atá faighte aige agus gach rath a ghuí air. Beimid á mharcáil go tréan agus táim ag súil leis.

Sinn Féin has put forward an amendment to the motion which in no way negates the sentiment that is being put forward by the Independent Senators. However, we feel that in a situation like this we must call a spade a spade and it is our policy that fluoridation of public water should be discontinued immediately. I disagree with many of the sentiments put forward by my good friend and colleague Senator Barrett; we often agree but not on this. I have no doubt that when the Government of the day first introduced fluoridation in the 1960s it may have believed it was acting for the correct reasons. According to a 2002 report from the Forum on Fluoridation, the fluoridation process was introduced as it was considered to be a much cheaper way of improving the quality of children's teeth than employing more dentists. This led to the Health (Fluoridation of Water Supplies) Act 1960, which mandated compulsory fluoridation by local authorities. In 1965 the legacy of the mass medication of the population began.

Fluoridation was introduced at a time when tooth decay was a significant health issue, representing a cheap way to deal with a widespread problem, especially among poor and marginalised people. The Department of Health has never conducted any research on the health effects on the population of mass fluoridation in the intervening period, despite the fact that this was stipulated in the 1960 legislation. The argument today is that there is no longer a requirement within the scope of public health for continued water fluoridation. The need for fluoridation, if there ever was a need, has been entirely negated by modern use of fluoride toothpaste, which ensures a more than adequate supply of fluoride for the purpose of improving dental health and we also have improved dental services. A 2001 report in the United States detailing recommendations on using fluoride to prevent and control dental decay claimed that earlier studies from the 1950s indicated that water fluoridation had led to a reduction of 50 to 60% in childhood cavities. More recent studies, however, indicate a much lower rate of 18%.

There is no need to swallow fluoride in order to protect teeth and dentures. The purported benefits of fluoride are topical, they are on the surface, but the risks are systemic. Therefore, it makes more sense to deliver fluoride directly to the tooth in the form of a toothpaste. Fluoride toothpaste is the most widely used and rigorously evaluated fluoride treatment. A report entitled Oral Health in the United States: The Post-Fluoride Generation states that the introduction of fluoride in the early 1970s is considered to be the main reason for the decline in tooth decay in industrialised countries and toothpaste appears to be the single common factor in countries where tooth decay rates have declined.

Across Europe, countries have ceased the practice of the fluoridation of water such that 98% of Europe's population no longer drink fluoridated water. This is the only country with a statewide policy of mandatory fluoridation and local authorities cannot make the decision to stop the process. Many local authorities have approved motions to seek to stop the process, but they have been told it is not possible for them to do so. Most countries in Europe have experienced substantial declines in cavities without the use of water fluoridation. For example, in Finland and Germany tooth decay rates remained stable or continued to decline after water fluoridation stopped.

I therefore hope that the Government amendment to the motion will be defeated and that our amendment will be accepted because although we agree with the statement about the human right of citizens, we feel that the only way to end this policy of fluoridation is to call for the removal of fluoride from the public water system. This would allow people to choose whether or not to use toothpaste with fluoride in it.

There may also be a technical issue with the Government's amendment. I do not think that the first part of the amendment, "that water fluoridation is not medicinal but the adjustment of the natural concentration of fluoride in drinking water to the recommended level for the prevention of dental caries (tooth decay)", is a sentence, and it does not seem to make any sense. Even on that technical issue the Government should withdraw this nonsensical amendment. It is nonsensical both in its wording and in its sentiment.

There is a general sense, as was put forward in a Private Members' Bill brought by my colleague Deputy Brian Stanley in the Dáil recently, that there is no argument for the continued fluoridation of water. I commend the people who have lobbied on this issue, some of whom are in the Visitors Gallery, and we will support them until fluoridation is ended. If people then wanted to have that choice, they have the choice of what type of toothpaste to buy. I agree with Senator Gilroy, something that does not happen very often. As he said, it will be difficult if people are given a choice as to whether or not they want their water fluoridated because the water is fluoridated at a central source, so it will be impossible to give fluoridated water to one person and non-fluoridated water to the person next door. That is why we feel that the amendment that we are putting forward, calling for the removal of fluoride from the public water system, is the way to go. We hope that we do get to put the amendment and that we get full support from the House.