From the front page of The Probe, December 2003 edition:

HUMAN WRONG?

MPs and campaigners prepare to challenge fluoride law in Human Rights court...

OPPONENTS of water fluoridation are intending to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, following the rejection of an appeal to ban fluoridation schemes from the Water Bill.

The Water Bill, having passed its second reading in the House of Commons, brings nationwide water fluoridation one step closer. In a free vote, MPs rejected a ban of fluoride schemes by 284 to 181. Under Clause 58 of the bill, strategic health authorities will have the power to force water companies to fluoridate supplies after consultation of local communities.

However, Labour MP of Glasgow-Baillieston, Jimmy Wray, now intends to take the government to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that the clause constitutes a breach of human rights. Speaking to The Probe, Mr Wray said: "This is the biggest breach we have ever had in this country and I've exhausted every other recourse. The Government cannot use water as a panacea."

According to the MP, the push to fluoridate water is mainly coming from the chemical industries: "They are pressing people that know nothing about fluoride."

Chris Holdcroft from Fluoride.org.uk also believes that it is a dereliction of human rights: "II has already been defined in a Scottish high court, and admitted in an English county court, that fluoridation is a medication. Although water fluoridation is not strictly enforced medication, because nobody is forced to drink fluoridated tap-water, it is still a breach of human rights protocols, because there is an intent to medicate whole communities. The principal of water fluoridation is that everybody should be medicated, regardless of the willingness of some people to resist it."

Meanwhile, the British Dental Association, a strong backer of the bill, welcomed the vote, lan Wylie, BDA chief executive, said: "This is great news for the dental health of communities across England and Wales. Having fluoride added to their water could make a real difference to the levels of tooth decay and disease and now MPs have given them a chance to make that a reality. Dentists up and down the country will be delighted to see this on the statute books."

He added: "Targeted water fluoridation is the one public health measure that would cause the largest improvement in the oral health of those in need. Now communities across England and Wales will be able to have a real say on whether or not to have fluoride added to their water supplies."

Public Health minister Melanie Johnson said: "The government believes that fluoridation will considerably improve dental health. For example, five year olds in the West Midlands, where drinking water is fluoridated, had on average nearly three times less decayed, missed or filled primary teeth than those in the North West, where it's not fluoridated. The reduction in decay from fluoridated water alone is estimated at 50 per cent with an additional reduction of 10 per cent available from regular brushing. The average reduction from brushing alone is 30 per cent. Around six million people in England receive water, which has either had its fluoride level adjusted or is naturally fluoridated and no ill-effects have been identified."

Water companies have actually been allowed to add fluoride to supplies since 1985, but few have done so for fear of legal action. With clause 58, legislation will now allow health agencies to compel water suppliers to fluoridate water after consulting the community.

For Mr Holdcroft, plans to consult the local population is not a democratic answer: "There are those who say fluoridation will only proceed after a community has shown it's willingness, after 'consultation', to accept fluoridation. But this a fallacy. There will still be those who do not wish to be medicated. And who will 'educate' communities on the pros and cons of fluoridation?

He added: "In fact, I was personally alarmed (but not surprised) when I heard that a 'consultation' was preferred to a local referenda."

So far, only 11 per cent of Britons have fluoridated water. However, the latest survey, which is part of the Greater London Assembly's draft Health Committee report on fluoridation, has shown that more than half of Londoners believe fluoride is good for teeth but do not want or are unsure about adding it to the water supplies. Moreover, surveys held by local newspapers throughout the week following the vote showed that communities such as Norfolk are against adding fluoride to water supply. In Manchester, whose has been used as an example in the BDA's "Spot the difference?" campaign as having a high tooth decay rate (see October's Probe for details), more than 70 per cent of the population believes that fluoride should not be added to their drinking water.

The change in legislation has strong support from many prominent politicians, including former Health secretaries Alan Milburn, Frank Dobson, Ken Clarke and Lord Fowler.

However, Foreign secretary Jack Straw, International Development secretary Hilary Benn, and the new Conservative leader Michael Howard, voted in favour of throwing out the fluoridation clause.

Anti-fluoride campaigners claim that fluoride can cause a range of problems, from tooth mottling and fluorosis to cancer, and have threatened to mount a legal challenge on human rights grounds.

In the debate in the Commons on the water bill, Mr Wray suggested there was enough fluoride in a tube of toothpaste to kill a child. But Ms Johnson highlighted one study from the University of York, suggesting 15 per cent more children would have no tooth decay if water supplies were fluoridated.

Now that the Water Bill has passed its second reading by the House of Commons it now has to go to the House of Lords and come back one more time to the Commons. After this last stage, the Water Bill and its clause 58 will become law.