Irleand - 0.7 mg underestimate the fluoride risks
IMB responds to water
Julie-Anne Barnes
juliea@imn.ie
Regulations which will reduce the level of fluoridation in Irish water to 0.7 mg underestimate the fluoride risks from fluoridated drinking water and are medically indefensible according to Voice of Irish Concern for the Environment (VOICE). According to its spokesperson Mr Robert Pocock, the fluoride chemical hydrofluosilicic acid permitted under the regulations has no marketing authorisation from the Irish Medicines Board and therefore under the EU Medicines Directive its addition to drinking water is unlawful.
The IMB said the legislation which addresses the need for licensing of medicinal products for human use does not address the licensing of individual substances such as fluoride. The IMB said it “considers that neither drinking water itself nor the fluoride added to drinking water in the form of fluoride salts or silica fluoride as defined in the Health (Fluoridation of Water Supplies Act 1960) should be categorised as medicinal products requiring marketing authorisations”.
In addition, the IMB said that drinking water, as defined by EC Regulation 178/2002, specifies that water, when it comes out of the tap, is defined as a food or foodstuff unless it is otherwise defined as a medicinal product.
“The IMB considers that the fluoridation of drinking water should be seen as a measure consistent with general public health management.”
He added that parents “are copped on to the effects” of dental deformities, and while there is huge demand for orthodontic treatment there is no demand for the treatment of fluorisis.
Dr Joe Mullen, a member of the Irish Expert Body on Fluorides and Health, and who is Prinicipal Dental Surgeon with the HSE West, told IMN that it was a “no brainer” to discontinue water fluoridation merely to prevent fluorisis, and that fluorisis is unnoticeable, while the treatment of dental decay was so serious that it may involve having a general anaesthetic.
According to Dr Mullen, the best evidence suggests that there is not a concern with general health and he does not accept the argument that “dental fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity”.
Mr Pocock said however that “the status quo on water fluoridation now makes no sense, medical or otherwise, and this policy must be reversed”.
Julie-Anne Barnes
juliea@imn.ie
Regulations which will reduce the level of fluoridation in Irish water to 0.7 mg underestimate the fluoride risks from fluoridated drinking water and are medically indefensible according to Voice of Irish Concern for the Environment (VOICE). According to its spokesperson Mr Robert Pocock, the fluoride chemical hydrofluosilicic acid permitted under the regulations has no marketing authorisation from the Irish Medicines Board and therefore under the EU Medicines Directive its addition to drinking water is unlawful.
The IMB said the legislation which addresses the need for licensing of medicinal products for human use does not address the licensing of individual substances such as fluoride. The IMB said it “considers that neither drinking water itself nor the fluoride added to drinking water in the form of fluoride salts or silica fluoride as defined in the Health (Fluoridation of Water Supplies Act 1960) should be categorised as medicinal products requiring marketing authorisations”.
In addition, the IMB said that drinking water, as defined by EC Regulation 178/2002, specifies that water, when it comes out of the tap, is defined as a food or foodstuff unless it is otherwise defined as a medicinal product.
“The IMB considers that the fluoridation of drinking water should be seen as a measure consistent with general public health management.”
He added that parents “are copped on to the effects” of dental deformities, and while there is huge demand for orthodontic treatment there is no demand for the treatment of fluorisis.
Dr Joe Mullen, a member of the Irish Expert Body on Fluorides and Health, and who is Prinicipal Dental Surgeon with the HSE West, told IMN that it was a “no brainer” to discontinue water fluoridation merely to prevent fluorisis, and that fluorisis is unnoticeable, while the treatment of dental decay was so serious that it may involve having a general anaesthetic.
According to Dr Mullen, the best evidence suggests that there is not a concern with general health and he does not accept the argument that “dental fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity”.
Mr Pocock said however that “the status quo on water fluoridation now makes no sense, medical or otherwise, and this policy must be reversed”.
posted by Bill at
10:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home