We received a petition asking:
“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to stop Fluoride being added to drinking water, both bottled and tap.”
Details of Petition:
“It is sad the day when without choice, our water supply is tampered with chemically. Without choice we are forced to drink water that contains a chemical known to be a toxin,however we must drink to survive. Much official research has been done into the adverse effects of sodium fluoride on the human body, please, research them. If you feel that as human beings, we are entitled to our birth right of natural, clean, healthy drinking water, a source of survival, please show your concern by signing this petition. If enough people sign maybe we will get the democratic rights we original should have to chose what is in our water. Exercise your rights.”
· Read the petition
· Petitions homepage
Read the Government’s response
Thank you for your e-petition.
There have been fluoridation schemes in the UK for over 30 years, and even longer in the USA, with currently over 160 million people in these countries drinking water with the fluoride content increased to one part per million – the optimum level for preventing tooth decay. No ill effects have been identified.
The University of York report A Systematic Review of Water Fluoridation, published in September 2000, concluded that water fluoridation increased the number of children without tooth decay by 15 per cent. All water supplies contain some fluoride and it was from observing different patterns of dental decay in areas of differing levels of naturally fluoridated water that the benefits of fluoride were first observed.
The York report found no evidence of any risk to overall health from fluoridation. Apart from the benefits to oral health, the only other effect observed has been dental fluorosis, a mottling of the teeth which is of aesthetic concern to very few people.
However, the York research team did call for more good quality research on fluoridation, and in September 2002, a working group appointed by the Medical Research Council (MRC) made recommendations about the research necessary to strengthen the evidence base on the effect of fluoridation on health. As a result, the Department of Health commissioned the University of Newcastle’s School of Dental Sciences to undertake a study into the bioavailability (absorption) of fluoride in naturally and artificially fluoridated drinking water. This study, which was published in July 2004, concluded that there was no statistically significant difference (in absorption of fluoride) between artificially and naturally fluoridated water, or between soft and hard water.
The Government is committed to a continuing programme of further research that takes account of the MRC’s findings.
In March 2005, Parliament approved, with large majorities in both Houses, the regulations on the public consultations that Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs) proposing to fluoridate their water would be required to undertake. Guidance on their implementation was issued to SHAs and Primary Care Trusts on 8 September 2005. It is the Government’s policy that no new fluoridation schemes should be introduced before there has been a public consultation in the area that would be affected.
On 5 February 2008, the Chief Dental Officer wrote to all SHAs. His letter encompassed guidance on a new legislative framework governing the consultations and assessment of public opinion that SHAs need to undertake when they propose to make arrangements with a water company to increase the fluoride content of a water supply. This guidance is available on the Department of Health website at www.dh.gov.uk (enter ‘guidance on fluoridation’ in the search bar).
In addition, the guidance announced that £14million would be made available in each of the next three years to meet the capital costs of setting up new fluoridation schemes.
It should be clarified that the Government does not have plans to extend fluoridation. The Government wishes there to be local consultations on proposals for new schemes in areas with high levels of dental disease, at which the evidence from research studies is made available for discussion, and both opponents and supporters of fluoridation are given a platform.
It has been suggested by some people that adding fluoridation to water supplies would be unethical, as it would represent the provision of medication to people who had not consented to it.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) determines whether a product is a medicine with reference to the definition of ‘medicine’ in Article 1 of European Directive 2001/83, relevant legal precedent and its own published guidance. The MHRA has ruled that neither the fluoride added to drinking water, nor the resulting fluoridated water, are medicinal products and marketing authorisations are not required, as for medicines. In our view this argues against claims that fluoridation is a form of ‘mass medication’.
Moreover, we consider that fluoridation is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights because new schemes could not be introduced before there has been a public consultation in the area that would be affected. In addition, the European Commission on Human Rights decided in 1992 that any interference with the right to respect for private and family life was justified by the benefits that fluoridation brings to oral health.
The attraction of fluoridation is that it provides for a public health approach that benefits all sections of the population, including people in areas of social deprivation who are most at risk of dental disease. Academic studies show that oral health is better in areas where tap water is already fluoridated and that the number of children with tooth decay decreases by 15 per cent. In practice the benefits are even greater. For example, children in fluoridated Birmingham have half the cases of tooth decay compared with children in non-fluoridated Manchester.
Fluoridation is an effective and relatively easy way to help address health inequalities, giving children from poorer backgrounds a dental health boost that can last a lifetime, reducing tooth decay and thereby cutting down on the amount of dental work they need in the future.
delicious
digg
facebook
