——who are not capable of discussing this or taking a decision if they consider it at local authority or health authority level? We have Deputy Phil Brady, Deputy Brennan from Wicklow, Deputy P.J. Burke, Deputy Gogan, Deputy Healy and Deputy Davern, all members of local authorities. Are these men not capable of coming to a decision at their own local authorities? Are they not capable of hearing the arguments for and against fluoridation of water in their local authorities and making up their minds about it? Are they not capable, as members of local authorities presumably in touch with those they represent, of ascertaining the views and feelings of the people they represent; and with those views and feelings are they not capable of coming to a decision on what the Minister describes as a highly complicated question?
These men are not ignoramuses. I would hate to witness the scene at a Fianna Fáil meeting if the Minister for Health came along and made the kind of speech he has made here about members of local authorities. We have had another coming in to listen since the Minister sat down, so he should not make that kind of speech again. Deputy Loughman's particular local authority was one of the local authorities that considered this question and decided to recommend to the Minister that he should not proceed with this Bill. The local authorities are well able to consider this matter, under stand the pros and cons of the argument and give their recommendations to the Minister.
I do not want to deny the Minister any debating point he thinks he may have arising out of the Report of the Consultative Council. We disagree as to the meaning of the recemmendations in paragraph 41 of the Report. I do not mind whether the Minister is right or I am right. I say that the Council asked the Minister to bring in enabling legislation; the Minister says they did not, that they asked him to bring in mandatory legislation. I do not mind who is right. I think, quite apart from the particular wording or phrasing of any recommendation in the Consultative Council's Report, there are very weighty arguments which were put to the Minister across the floor of this House as to why he should not bring in a mandatory measure.
The Minister says that every competent authority who considered this matter decided in favour of fluoridation. I do not believe that is so. I think the Minister is making altogether too sweeping a statement when he says that. Surely it is known to the Minister—at least it should be known to him since the discussion on the Second Reading here—that there is a very definite controversy in practically every country in the world in which this question was considered. There are those who argue for it and those who argue against it. There is a difference of opinion among the medical authorities. The experts differ as to the value of a scheme of fluoridation of water, on the one hand, and the harmful effects which such a scheme might have, on the other. There is no doubt at all, despite a reference the Minister made on the Second Reading, that this whole thing is still at an experimental stage. Some of the communities which accepted the idea some years ago have since rejected it. They have had second thoughts on it. There are valid arguments against it.
In that situation where there are at least valid arguments—and the Minister cannot deny the validity and force of the arguments against the fluoridation of water—in that situation surely it is not right that the Minister should come here and say to those who disagree with his views regarding the value of fluoridation: "It does not matter whether you are right or wrong or how strongly you feel. I am going to have my way. I am going to get the Fianna Fáil Party to come into the division lobbies behind me and force this Bill on you whether you want it or not." That is what the Minister is doing, in face of the certain knowledge—because he has that now—that there are a great number of people in this country who honestly fear the effect of the measure the Minister is proposing, who fear it from the point of view of their own health and the health of their children and those under their charge, who want to honour their obligations in the matter of the dental care of their children without interference or dictation from the Minister or any other Deputy in the Fianna Fáil benches. That is what is at issue here. It does not matter what the precise wording of the Council's report is. Those arguments exist and they are genuine arguments. Those fears exist and they are genuine fears. The Minister is overriding that simply by bringing in a measure to compel local authorities to do this.
I do not want to delay discussion of this amendment but when the Minister says that every competent authority who has looked at that proposal favours it I think I am entitled to draw his attention to the fact that a body of people in America drawn from the medical and dental professions set up an independent board to evaluate the idea of adding fluorine to water in America and they published their findings. At the time this document was published there were about 1,500 people connected with the medical and dental professions in America who subscribed to the statement and to the findings which were published by that Committee.
I think it is worth while for the House to know briefly what these people thought of the scheme for adding fluorine to the water. I am quoting from the statement by the ad hoc medical-dental committee which was set up on the evaluation of fluoridation and which was published, I think, in February, 1957. They said:
We, the undersigned, are opposed to the fluoridation of public water supplies. As members of the medical, dental and related public health professions, we are as concerned as anyone over the prevalence of teeth decay, and as anxious that it be prevented; but each of us, for some or all of the reasons set forth here and discussed more fully in the appended memorandum believes that fluoridation of public water supplies is not a proper means of attempting such prevention.
1. Positive proofs of the safety of fluoridation are required. None has been offered.
2. The so-called therapeutic concentration of fluoride, arbitrarily established at 1 ppm, in drinking water, is in the toxic range.
3. Dental fluorosis, the first obvious symptom of chronic fluoride toxicity in children is an inevitable result of fluoridation. The evidence reveals that large numbers of the population may be afflicted, and with varying degrees of damage.
4. The determination of whether damage resulting from dental fluorosis is "objectionable" is a matter for the person whose teeth are affected, and not for the arbitrary assertion of public officials.
5. The conceivable rôle of fluoride as an insidious factor in chronic disease has been evaded by the proponents. A substantial amount of evidence indicates such a possibility. Properly planned long term studies are required to determine the possible comprehensive association of fluoride with chronic disease.
6. Fluoridation imposes an extraordinary risk on certain individuals who by reasons of occupation, environmental circumstances, state of health, dietary habits, etc., are already exposed to a relatively high intake of fluoride.
7. Fluoridation is compulsory mass medication without precedent. Mass therapy cannot ignore the possibility of "mass" side reactions.
8. The function of a public water supply is to provide pure, safe water for everybody, not to serve as a vehicle for drugs.
9. The rôle and efficiency of fluoride in dental caries reduction is a matter of active controversy; whatever the outcome, there are less hazardous and more efficient ways of obtaining such benefits as fluoride may offer than by putting it into the public water supply.
I think every one of those points raised in that statement published in 1957 or 1958 is as valid today as it was then.