John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 98: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the reason questions put to the forum on fluoridation by a person (details supplied) have yet to be answered; her views on whether it is unacceptable that the forum reported while all the matters had not been addressed by the sub-committee established to address them; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [16025/05]

Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The forum on fluoridation was established to review the fluoridation of public piped water supplies in Ireland. The forum consisted of people with expert knowledge spanning the areas of public health, biochemistry, dental health, bone health, food safety, environmental protection, ethics, water quality, health promotion and representatives from the consumer and environmental areas. The diversity of professional backgrounds and representation was reflected in the comprehensive way the forum conducted its work and research. Ultimately, the forum took an evidence-based approach to its examination of water fluoridation.

The forum's report emerged from 14 plenary meetings, several meetings of subgroups and oral presentations of material from both proponents and opponents of fluoridation. The forum invited the public to forward their views and examined more than 1,000 submissions. In adopting a participatory and evidence-based approach, the forum strove to ensure balance between participants from both sides of the debate on water fluoridation.

The person referred to by the Deputy was one of many individuals who were invited to present to the forum. This person's presentation was based on what were termed 50 reasons to oppose fluoridation. As with all the other contributions to the forum, consideration of this person's submission was dealt with under established procedures. Procedures required contributors to provide references in internationally recognised scientific journals to substantiate their claims. In establishing and following this procedure, the forum accepted the fundamental scientific tenet that any single piece of scientific evidence by itself remains a hypotheses unless it could be repeated or confirmed by other scientists, usually by publication in recognised scientific journals after submission has been approved by independent referees.

The Deputy should be aware that the forum addressed in the body of its report the 50 reasons to oppose fluoridation raised by the person concerned. The forum examined comprehensively the benefits and risks of fluoridation, including alleged adverse general health effects of fluoridation. The forum concluded that human health was not adversely affected when fluoride was present in drinking water at one part fluoride per million parts of water. The finding was based on measured scientific results and the most reliable scientific evidence. A comprehensive response to the questions referred to by the Deputy was published on my Department's website on 4 May 2005.

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 99: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the reason, despite attempts, the Irish Doctors Environmental Association is unable to access minutes of the body set up to oversee the implementation of the recommendations of the forum on fluoridation and despite the fact that a letter to it in April 2005 to request a copy of all minutes, under the Freedom of Information Act 1997 remains unanswered. [16026/05]

Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My Department has no record of receiving a request from the Irish Doctors Environmental Association under the Freedom of Information Act 1997 for minutes of the Irish expert body on fluorides and health. My office received a written request from the association for the minutes of the meetings of the Irish expert body on fluorides and health under EU Regulations 90/313/EC and 2004/4/EC and SI No. 125/98 the European Communities Act 1972 (Access to Information on the Environment) Regulations 1998. Under the regulations, a reply to the request should have issued within one month its receipt. Due to an unavoidable delay in my office this timeframe for a reply was not met.

The request has been acknowledged and passed to the secretariat to the expert body for direct reply. In the circumstances, I offer my apologies to the Irish Doctors' Environmental Association for the delay in dealing with its request.