Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 26 May 2004
33 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Health and Children the reason a person (details supplied), who was invited by the fluoridation forum to make a submission, has not yet received a response to his 50 reasons against fluoridation despite repeated assurances that this will be done; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15889/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe use of fluoride technology is known to manifest a positive oral health outcome. Local and national surveys and studies conducted since the introduction of fluoridation in this country attest to the reduced dental decay levels of children and teenagers in fluoridated areas compared to those residing in non-fluoridated areas.
The safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation has been endorsed by a number of reputable international bodies such as the World Health Organisation, the European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, the United States Public Health Service and the United States Surgeon General.
As the Deputy is aware, I established the Forum on Fluoridation to review the fluoridation of public piped water supplies in Ireland. The forum's report was launched on 10 September 2002 and its main conclusion was that the fluoridation of public piped water supplies should continue as a public health measure.
The forum also concluded that water fluoridation has been most effective in improving the oral health of the Irish population, especially of children, but also of adults and the elderly. The best available and most reliable scientific evidence indicates that, at the maximum permitted level of fluoride in drinking water, one part per million, human health is not adversely affected.
Dental fluorosis is a well-recognised condition and an indicator of overall fluoride absorption, whether from natural sources, fluoridated water, or from the inappropriate use of fluoride toothpaste at a young age. There is evidence that the prevalence of dental fluorosis is increasing 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. This 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 Deputy should be aware that, in its comprehensive report, the forum has already largely addressed the 50 reasons to oppose fluoridation, raised by the person concerned. The forum comprehensively examined the benefits and risks of fluoridation, including its alleged adverse general health effects. The forum concluded that human health is not adversely affected when fluoride is present in drinking water at one part fluoride per million parts of water. This is based on measured scientific results and the most reliable scientific evidence.
In spite of this, the oral health services research centre at University College Cork is preparing a direct response to these 50 reasons to oppose fluoridation. The institute, which is a World Health Organisation collaborating centre for oral health research, advised that work on a response is well advanced, and plan to make it available at the end of June. However, progress with completing this formal response has not been helped by the regular changes made by the person concerned to the text of these 50 reasons.
I welcome the fact that some response will be made. Even though it will be denied, the body referred to by the Minister is a well known pro-fluoridation body and he is trotting out the usual pro-fluoridation propaganda. The person referred to is Professor Paul Connett, who came before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children. The reason we have not had a response to date is that the forum could not make one. It has been unable to come up with a response to the 50 reasons in three and a half years. Professor Connett asked those who are pro-fluoridation to come and debate the issues with him, but they all refused. Does the Minister agree this would appear to suggest they have no case and they are afraid to come out in the open and debate the issues properly and fully?
Does the Minister now accept that fluoride acts topically rather than systemically? It was previously thought it acted systemically which is why it had to be ingested. We now know that it acts on teeth in a topical way and, therefore, it does not need to be ingested.
I also wish to ask the Minister about the submission made by Dr. Hardy Limeback, who also came before the joint Oireachtas committee. He gave a most convincing presentation in regard to the use of fluoridated water for bottle-fed babies. Is the Minister happy about the manner in which this was discussed in the forum? Initially, the Food Safety Authority made a recommendation that fluoridated water should not be used for the bottle-feeding of babies, yet this recommendation was overturned after a few phone calls made by people who were not on that sub-committee. Is the Minister happy this is the proper way to conduct business? We know this took place because of a freedom of information request.
The Minister for Health and Children should be interested in the health of the general public. Why were no health studies conducted under the original legislation? Is it not about time we had a comprehensive study about the levels of fluoride in the bone, blood and urine of Irish people to see if there is too much fluoride, which is a toxic substance, in their bodies?
Regarding the Deputy's opening comments, I am not interested in propaganda. I have no vested interest in the issue of fluoridation, other than as a citizen like the Deputy and as Minister for Health and Children. I would need to hear a convincing argument to remove mandatory fluoridation of public water, given the indisputable fact of the positive impact it has had on the oral health of the nation.
It has not.
If one looks at the oral health of 12 year olds in Dublin, the average incidence of decayed, missing or filled teeth in 1961 was5.2%, in 1970 it was 4.5%, in 1984 it was2.2%, in 1993——
They were better 40 years ago.
——it was 1.2%. That has been shown in a range of studies. It is ridiculous to suggest it has not had an impact on oral health. Let us park that issue for a moment.
It is not ridiculous.
Improved dental health cannot be attributed to fluoride.
Order, please.
The studies comparing fluoridated areas with non-fluoridated areas show a marked contrast in the status of oral health.
They do not stand up.
They do. I have seen them.
They do not. I can show the Minister the studies.
I can show them to the Deputy also.
Order, please.
The forum was a public one. Professor Connett's position was widely reported at the time of his presentation to the forum. The forum argued it dealt with many of the issues contained in the 50 reasons relating to toxicity and osteoporosis, for example, which was strongly rebutted by it, or the lowering of IQ.
Regarding infant feed formula, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland was asked to conduct a risk assessment on potential adverse effects on infants. The final report of the FSAI concluded there was no significant evidence of any adverse effect, other than dental fluorosis when assessing the intake of fluoride intake on young infants. The Deputy's description of what happened is very much at odds with the information I received.
They came before the committee and we know exactly what went on.
The final conclusions of the FSAI were not changed in any way by the fluoridation forum. We must be careful we do not raise fears among the general public without using an evidence-based approach.
Forum members were not all from the dental world, many others were from other specialist areas who had no axe to grind one way or the other in regard to fluoridation. They have their own personal reputations as scientists and experts in certain fields to protect. They did not go out with the view that they must ensure fluoridation continued and that the report must reflect that.
What about health studies? That is an important point.
The only regret I have is that those who were against fluoridation and who I invited to become forum members, declined to do so. That is not acceptable. There comes a stage when one needs to engage. The only people who refused to engage were those who were against fluoridation.
On a point of order. The most important question I asked the Minister was about the health studies.
That is not a point of order.
Why has the Minister not conducted health studies? Will he please answer that one?
I do not conduct research. The Health Research Board funds research when it is required.
I beg the Minister's pardon, but under the legislation he is required to carry out a health study and that has not been done to date.
I know that.
The reason it has not been done is that, quite simply, people have too much fluoride in their bodies. That is what would be discovered.
We must move on. We are way over the time limit for this question.
We are not fluoride deficient.
We are not deficient in a lot of things.
Some of us are deficient in health services.
We are deficient in the health service.
