Water Bill - Flouride or not?

Written by Vincent Cable MP and published in The Richmond Informer on Mon 15th Sep 2003

I am getting a steady trickle of letters about water. Should it be enriched - or contaminated, depending on the point of view - with fluoride? This issue is a major issue in the Water Bill, now before parliament.

Arguments about fluoride, a generation ago, were more clear cut. There was a strong case for preventative action to safeguard the nations teeth which, for most people, did not survive beyond early middle age: hence dentures. Objectors argued against on broad grounds of principle: the government had no right to decide what was good for us.

These days the case for compulsory mass medication is less obvious. Most people obtain fluoride protection through their toothpaste though there are still worryingly large numbers of children who are not being taught about dental hygiene.

Applying fluoride to water supplies, much of which ends up washing cars or watering gardens, is inefficient. Also we are less trustful, these days, of scientific advice and some people worry about the rumoured side effects of fluoride.

Faced with a possible water drinkers' revolt the government is considering a referendum. But it seems absurd to organise a referendum on fluoridisation but refuse one on bigger issues like the proposed European Constitution. A simpler solution would be to allow people to vote on the issue regionally when they pay their water bill.

One positive side effect of this concern with our teeth is that it will focus attention on the privatisation and near collapse of NHS dentistry. I am frequently approached by parents who cannot find a NHS dentist for their child and adults, with very modest means, being asked to pay thousands for dental surgery. That is the real scandal.