The following is from a speech I made in the House of Commons in 1999 on the topic of water fluoridisation:
The existing state of the law governing the addition of fluoride to the water supply is most unsatisfactory. The water industry resents the discretion—and, therefore, the responsibility—that is placed upon it. Those who oppose the addition of fluoride to water resent very much the power and influence that is placed in the hands of health authorities and water companies. For my part, I share the natural suspicion of any free man with respect to the presumption of health professionals to decide what is good for me and whether or not I should consume it. Are we horses to be led to water and forced to drink?
I am happy to take advice, from any informed source, about what may be good for me with respect to medicine or diet, but I reject utterly the notion that the decision about whether to consume should rest in any other mind than my own. However, it is not that philosophical question upon which I wish to dwell this evening.
My initiation of the debate results from the persistent lobbying of my constituent, Dr. Anthony Dunstan Fox, who practises in Barton-on-Sea. He has drawn my attention to the fact that fluoride compounds are a poison, so much so that I am persuaded that we should be taking considerable steps to remove fluoride compounds from our environment, not providing yet another source of them.
The state of the debate in this country is rather quaint. The Government pride themselves on their modernisations, so it is odd that we still appear to be addressing in this debate the preoccupations, fads and fashions of the 1960s and the 1970s. In the United States, for example, localities and cities are discontinuing their former policy of adding fluoride to the water. In Europe, that trend is equally apparent. Indeed, Germany—which is so much the model for the Government’s modernisations—has abandoned the policy of adding fluoride to the water.
That trend is a consequence of a growing consensus—a growing body of evidence—that fluoride compounds are a poison. In the United States, the Food and Drugs Administration has required since June 1997 the makers of any toothpaste product containing fluoride compounds to publish a health warning on the packaging. Consumers who ingest the product are advised to seek the advice of a poison control centre. The National Treasury Employees Union, which represents the Government’s most prominent scientists, toxicologists and lawyers, has voted unanimously to oppose any fluoridation of the water.
There is a growing volume of evidence of the poisonous consequences of fluoride compounds. In this brief debate, I cannot possibly do any justice to that evidence, nor am I qualified to do so, but I draw the attention of the House to the work of Dr. Phyllis Mollenix, the toxicologist at the Boston children’s hospital in Massachusetts. Her work attempts to define a causal relationship between the presence of fluoride products and changes in brain activity that may give rise to hyperactivity and learning difficulties. Hon. Members may be aware of the work of Professor Shusheela, who has tried to find a causal relationship between the presence of fluoride compounds in very small quantities and irritable bowel syndrome, anaemia, bone weaknesses, dental and skeletal fluorosis, genetic damage, still-birth and miscarriage.
However, the medical establishment in this country is still wedded to the notion that fluoride compounds are good for us and should be put into the water supply. It is either unwilling or incapable of addressing the growing volume of evidence. That may be due to intellectual laziness, but if it is, it is strange that it is wedded to a campaigning zeal. Its unwillingness to consider the evidence goes back a long way. As far back as 1970, the British Dental Journal contained an article which stated:
“Perhaps the greatest deterrent to meaningful political engagement of dentists in the promotion of water fluoridation is the mistaken but widespread assumption that to do so they must have full and complete knowledge of the detailed and voluminous scientific literature on the relationship of water fluoridation to dental and general health. They do not … as soon as dentists recognise their responsibility in the politics of fluoridation, their performance will be outstanding…the emphasis is on propagandising rather than education.”
I doubt that any of the Government’s spin doctors could have put the point better. Indeed, it is an opinion of which Dr. Goebbels would have been proud.
All I can say about my party’s position on fluoridation is that it was inherited from the previous Administration. My party believes that there are benefits from fluoridation—a view I regard as curious—but the decision to add fluoride compounds to the water should be taken locally. I believe that it should be taken at a very local level—by the consumer. Whether any meaningful locality could be defined for the purposes of a water supply is problematical.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) for opening up the debate on this subject. He has asked the medical establishment—the British Medical Association in particular—to produce new evidence to prove that fluoride compounds are good for our dental and general health, and that they are not bad for us. I welcome his initiative but, when surfing the internet, I noted that the website of the pro-fluoridation lobby names him as one of its supporters. As I understand it, that is not his position, and I urge him to correct that.
The medical establishment clings to the tenuous belief that fluoride compounds are good for our dental and general health, despite the fact that the evidence is pretty thin. If fluoride compounds attack the bacteria that would otherwise decay our teeth, it is probably because they attack all living organisms, including us. I cannot imagine why any mammal would ingest fluoride compounds. They are pollutants and are increasingly evident in our environment largely as a result of industrial and agro-chemical processes, such as fertilisers. We should make strenuous efforts to remove those compounds from our environment rather than add another source. If we add fluoride to our water, it will be in our milk; it will be in our cereals; it will be in our vegetables; it will be in our soup; it will be in our tea; it will be in our beer.
It would be legitimate for the advocates of fluoride compounds to ask, “Where are the casualties? Where are the sick children, and the sick elderly people, who must be consequences of the fact that fluoride compounds are added to 10 per cent. of our water supply?” I would answer that question with another question: “What resources has the Minister’s Department—have we—put into identifying the victims? What new studies have we initiated to update ourselves about evidence of the damage that is being done by fluoride compounds?”
In that context, let me draw attention to the findings of Dr. Schatz. Dr. Schatz is no ordinary physician: he discovered streptomycin. In 1993, Dr. Schatz said that artificial fluoridation
“may well dwarf the thalidomide tragedy, which was dramatic because it produced crippled children who are living testimonials to what that drug has done. Many victims of artificial fluoridation, on the other hand, die quietly during the first year of their lives, or at a later age under conditions where their deaths are attributed to some other cause.”
I urge any water authority and any water company seeking to acquiesce to a health authority’s suggestion that fluoride should be added to water to bear those words in mind. I urge the Minister to consider them before introducing any measure that would ensure that my constituents and their children had to drink water to which fluoride compounds had been added.
DS.