|
- The rates of dental decay and the lack of dentists justified the introduction of a
prophylactic measure such as water fluoridation.
- Those who advocated water fluoridation were motivated by concern about the
serious decline in dental health standards.
- We believe that basic health and hygiene habits in Irish society have changed
dramatically in the intervening period.
- We note that dental health has improved to the same degree in countries where
there is no water fluoridation.
- The Department of Health's assessment of the overwhelming benefits of water
fluoridation is not justified.
- While positive aspects of fluoridation have been over-stated, the growing
negative impact has not been properly recognised. The Committee views the officially reported sevenfold increase in fluorosis since 1984, as completely unacceptable, requiring immediate action.
- The Committee is disappointed and alarmed that no general health studies, as
provided for in S.6 of the 1960 Fluoridation Act have ever been carried out, particularly considering that four in ten 15 year olds are now affected by fluorosis. By disregarding this provision of the Act, the Department of Health has left itself liable for the harmful effects of fluoridation of Irish drinking water.
- It is the view of the committee that the Department of Health has failed to offer
a coherent scientific justification for continuing the policy of water fluoridation and has notably failed to deal with Dr Connett's 50 Reasons to oppose fluoridation either in the Fluoridation Forum or since.
- Despite emphasizing the expertise of its membership, the Fluoridation Forum
failed to apply key principles of toxicology, for example the toxic dosage for Irish children. Another failure was to overlook the synergistic effects of fluoride chemicals with other substances (e.g. aluminium) that are ever-present in many Irish drinking water supplies.
- The Committee notes that the recommendation of FSAI advising against the use of fluoridated water for the bottle feeding of babies was changed subsequently following representations form a minority of members in 2001.
- The Committee believes that the manner this was done was both irregular and suspect and represented a "process mess". The replies given to the former Chair by Dr Wayne Anderson in this regard were unsatisfactory. The Committee notes a similar change in advice on using un-fluoridated water in infant formula by Prof John Clarkson.
- 5 - |
|
- The committee notes that the vast of majority of those on the Forum for fluoridation had records of being strongly in favour of water fluoridation.
- It is clear and, indeed, accepted by both the pro-and anti- fluoridation sides that the action of fluoride is topical and not systemic.
- We note that of the 33 recommendations of the Fluoride forum, not one has been implemented to date.
- We believe on the basis of the international studies there would be no long-term increase in dental decay if fluoride were not added to Irish drinking water.
- There is no evidence to suggest that Irish people are fluoride deficient, in fact, the evidence at hand suggests that we have too much fluoride in our systems.
- On the basis of the available archive material the Committee believes that the original Fluorine consultative council did not approach its task with an open mind. It would appear to have had a very strong pro water fluoridation bias.
- We are disappointed that only the minutes of one of the meetings of the Fluorine consultative Council survive, the others having been destroyed in a flood.
- It is now accepted by all sides that the sources of fluoride in our diet have increased dramatically since the introduction of water fluoridation.
- The Committee believes that fluoride toothpastes have contributed to a decline in dental caries in this country and other states.
- Fluoride toothpastes should carry a warning about the dangers of children swallowing fluoride toothpastes, and children properly supervised when brushing their teeth using fluoride toothpaste.
- The increase in membership of Irish Dentists Opposing Fluoridation from single figures when the Forum reported, to over 120 dental practitioners today reflects the growing professional opposition to the policy.
- There is sufficient scientific evidence in relation to health effects — albeit contradictory — to justify the application of the precautionary principle. We also note the latest advice from the American Dental Association which advises parents to choose non-fluoridated water for the bottle feeding babies.
- We note that the fluoridating agent hydrofluorosilic acid has not been sanctioned by the Irish Medicines Board.
- 6 - |