UK - Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee

Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee
Policy Review: Evidence Gathering Session 6
WATER FLUORIDATION
Meeting Objectives: To understand the view opposing a fluoridated water
scheme.
In attendance: Cllrs Dixon (Chair), Davison, Leadbitter, Mann and McClennan
Joy Warren (UK Freedom From Fluoridation Alliance), Linda
Forrest (Fight Against Fluoridation) Dave Forrest (Fight Against
Fluoridation)
Apologies: Cllrs Cunningham and Butler
The main points arising from the session were as follows:
• Questions were raised over Public Health England’s costs and savings
associated with water fluoridation schemes. It was noted that PHE should
have used a similar criteria across all schemes to better reflect the return on
investment of the highlighted oral health improvement programmes.
• There has been a tremendous reduction in dental decay, over the past 40
years, whether water has been fluoridated or not. It was stated that dental
decay rates were universally low.
• It was also reported that both the York and Cochrane reports highlighted a
reduction in dental caries levels of 15%, through water fluoridation, which was
just under half of that identified by the PHE tool.
• Members were also informed that in any water scheme ongoing maintenance
costs would be the responsibility of the local authorities involved. It was
stated that PHE would pay the capital costs initially, but may seek to recover
these costs from local authorities.
• One of the main concerns raised was that adding water fluoridation removes
freedom of choice for an entire population affected. If added to the water
supply, it is impossible to control the amount being used by individuals.
• The main people at risk from fluoridation are the very young, the very old,
those with kidney problems, those who drink a lot of water, such as manual
workers, nursing mothers, take part in a lot of sport, or who are exposed to
fluoride at work or in the environment.
• CWF Schemes are indiscriminate, non-consensual, take no account of a
person’s health and make no impact on a person’s behaviour. Parents and
carers have a very important role to play in oral health education.
• It was reported to the Committee that any dental health benefits from fluoride
are derived from the topical application to the exterior surface of the teeth. No
dental benefit is gained from swallowing fluoride but the risks of exposure to
adverse health effects are increased.
• It was acknowledged as important to improve dental health education to
tackle the causes of tooth decay and not the symptoms. The various
supervised tooth brushing schemes across the country were highlighted as a
positive way forward.
• Concerns were also raised to Members on the effects of exposure to
fluoridated water and the link to a drop in intelligence levels.
• It was also argued that water fluoridation, as practised by the majority of
fluoridating water treatment works in England was not compatible with primary
UK Law. It was also noted that water companies were indemnified against any
issues as a result of a CWF Scheme.
• Increased cases of hypothyroidisms in fluoridated areas were also noted and
in particular the West Midlands.
• It was noted that there was nothing positive about swallowing fluoride and that
fluoridation was not the solution as there were too many side effects to its
use, including dental fluorosis and an effect on intelligence.
• The session was summed up by stating that water fluoridation was
- Inefficient and costly as a treatment for patients
- Unnecessary as there were better alternatives
- Set a precedent of using the public water supply to deliver medication to
individuals
- Breached the fundamental rights of an individual
- Widely opposed
- Legality is questionable
- Uncertainty over the benefits
- Exposes populations to inadequately safeguarded harmful risks.

The Chair thanked everyone for their attendance and contribution and closed the
session.