Republican News · Thursday 5 December 2002

Ard Comhairle brushes up on fluoride

BY SAM PORTER

The lively debates that have been taking place in cumann meetings, on the floor of the Sinn Féin Ard Fheis and in the pages of this paper concerning the rights and wrongs of water fluoridation may at last have come to a conclusion. Following the decision of last year's Ard Fheis to refer two opposing motions to the Ard Comhairle, the issue was addressed by last week's meeting. The reason for waiting until this point to decide on the matter was that it had been decided to wait for the publication of the Irish Fluoride Forum's final report. That happened recently, with the Forum coming out in favour of continuing fluoridation of the water supply, albeit at a reduced level.

Given the liveliness of the debate within the party thus far, it was hardly surprising that the Ard Comhairle discussion was robust. Two formal presentations were made. One was in support of Belfast's Balmoral Cumann's motion calling for fluoridation of the whole island and not just the 26 Counties. The other presentation supported Dublin's James Connolly Cumann's motion opposing fluoridation of the water supply.

The case for

Speaking in favour of the Balmoral motion, Sam Porter argued that tooth decay was a serious and widespread public health problem, which affected working class children to a far greater extent. He noted that it was universally accepted that fluoridation of the water supply was effective in improving the dental health of children. The issue about fluoridation lay around claims that it also did other things that were harmful to people's health, causing diseases such as cancer and osteoporosis (brittle bones). Addressing these claims, he quoted the evidence of systematic scientific reviews carried out by bodies such as the US Public Health Service and the British Department of Health, which all came to the conclusion that there was no evidence that fluoride caused these illnesses. The only demonstrable adverse effect was mild dental fluorosis, which involves the build up of fluoride in the teeth. While fluorosis may be cosmetically noticeable, it does not damage the functioning of teeth. Porter claimed that because of the clear benefits to the community as a whole and to the working class community in particular, the use of fluoride should be extended to protect the teeth of everyone living on the island.

The case against

Speaking in favour of the James Connolly Cumann's motion, Michéal MacDonncha argued that the scientific evidence was not cut and dried. Given that doubts remain about the potentially harmful effects of fluoride in the water supply, he questioned the morality of the state imposing a policy of compulsory fluoridation. He noted that the 26 Counties was the only state in the European Union where fluoridation was compulsory, and pointed out that the Dublin government had failed to sign up to the International Convention of Human Rights in Biomedicine. At the core of the debate was the issue of choice - people should have the right to look at the evidence and then to choose whether or not they gave their children fluoride. Putting fluoride in the water supply removed that choice and should therefore be opposed.

Debate

On behalf of Sinn Féin TDs, Arthur Morgan also spoke in support of the James Connolly Cumann motion, pointing out that fluoride was more toxic than lead and only slightly less toxic than arsenic. While all the water supply is fluoridated, only a very small proportion of that supply is drunk by the target adolescent population, who tend to prefer the sort of fizzy drinks that rot their teeth further. Efforts to improve dental health further should concentrate on changing that kind of behaviour. He was also worried about the measurement of fluoride dosage. The margin between a fluoride concentration that was ineffective in strengthening teeth and one that caused fluorosis was very narrow indeed, yet all measurement is done at the point of supply with no one looking at the concentrations coming out of taps.

In contrast, Bairbre de Brun pointed out that the water authorities closely monitored fluoride in the water and had never reported a problem. She also pointed out that it was young children, not adolescents, who were the main target of fluoridation. Noting that most babies in the 26 Counties had been bottle fed using fluoridated water over the last 40 years, she observed that there was simply no evidence of any harmful effects in the population as a result of their exposure to fluoride. Supporting the Balmoral motion, she argued that individual choice wasn't the issue - society didn't give people the choice to send their children to work at the age of four, or to refuse them an education, so why should denying them healthy teeth be any different?

The debate continued in a lively but good-humoured manner until it was called to a close and the motions were formally voted on. The results were that the Balmoral motion was defeated and the James Connolly motion, stating 'That this Ard Fheis, in light of increasing medical concern about the practice of fluoridating water supplies, reaffirms our opposition to that practice', was passed.

Sin sin, or so it would seem. An interesting intervention by Mitchel McLaughlin during the debate, in which he wondered if there might be a compromise solution involving a more selective use of fluoride, makes one suspect that we haven't seen the last of the this debate.

Roll on next year's Ard Fheis.