|
29th May 1999: The Guardian
'Once and for all' review of
effects of fluoride in water
David Brindle,
Social Services Correspondent, The Guardian, May
29th, 1999.
The Government is
to order an independent review of the case for
adding fluoride to water supplies to break the
long-standing deadlock over the controversial issue.
Frank Dobson, the
health secretary, said yesterday that a panel of
experts would be appointed to produce a "once and
for all" verdict on how effective fluoride was in
stopping tooth decay as against its alleged health
risks.
Admitting he was a
supporter of fluoridation, Mr Dobson said: "The best
way of carrying the public with us is by getting an
authoritative view that really cannot be challenged
by anybody who is interested in evidence."
The announcement
was welcomed by pro-fluoride campaigners. But
opponents demanded reassurances on the impartiality
of the group and the extent of its remit.
Peter Mansfield, a
GP and president of the National Pure Water
Association, said: "I'm very suspicious of this
independent review business. We have just had one on
breast implants and if I have ever seen a better
whitewash job, I can't think what it was."
Fluoride supporters
say adding it to water supplies would be the single
most effective way of improving the nation's dental
health. They point to evidence that children in
Manchester, where water is unfluoridated, are three
times more likely to have decayed, filled or missing
teeth than those in fluoridated Birmingham.
Only about 10 per
cent of the population has fluoride added to water,
above natural levels, and most water companies have
declined to extend the treatment since legislation
in 1985 gave them what amounts to a veto.
The companies have
recently said they will stop blocking health
authority requests for fluoride if the government
indemnifies them for any resulting claims for
damages. But opposition to fluoride remains fierce
and the ranks of sceptics are believed to include
Jack Straw, the home secretary, and David Blunkett,
the education and employment secretary.
Opponents claim
fluoride causes bone disease, cancer, hyperactive
behaviour and impaired intellect, and they argue
that adding it to water amounts to enforced
medication.
Mr Dobson, told the
annual conference of the NHS Confederation, which
represents health authorities, that the government's
intentions would be made clear soon in the public
health white paper.
"Broadly speaking,
it will end up saying we have got to get together a
group of experts who once and for all will come up
with authoritative conclusions and then we move on
from there."
John Beal,
vice-chairman of the British Fluoridation Society,
was confident that the review would endorse water
treatment. "You could argue that we don't need
another inquiry, given all the evidence
internationally, but the fact is that it will be
carried out by British experts and will have a stamp
of authority."
But Dr Mansfield
was equally confident that a thorough and fully
independent review would find against fluoridation
on health grounds. Sample urine checks in
fluoridated areas would prove conclusively that
people were ingesting dangerous quantities of
fluoride. The claimed dental benefits were trivial
by comparison with the "appalling" adverse
consequences for children and adults.
Earlier, Mr Dobson
told the conference in Harrogate that he understood
NHS managers' worries about the pressure on the
service and the limited amount of cash for the wide
range of government health policies.
He had never denied
that this year's Budget was "tight". But there would
be no extra priorities for the service and he would
be "looking to see whether there is scope for
greater flexibility in future years" in relation to
how funds were spent.
|
