(18/04/10) New fluoridation scheme for Southampton
(23/06/08) Isle of Man has announced on 12th June that it will not be fluoridating its water supply
(29/04/08) Response to Council on Bioethics report (Public health: ethical issues - November 2007)
(09/02/08) Secretary of State calls for more fluoridation.
A consultation process was started on 8th September 2008 for a possible new fluoridation scheme in the Southampton area. This will run until 19th December. There have been protests locally about the biased account of the evidence given out by South Central Strategic Health Authority, with whom the final decision will rest, and changes were made to the literature as a result. But the SHA's current consultation paper remains a flawed and unscientific document.
The All-Party Group is the focus within Westminster for opposition to the policy of water fluoridation. MP's and Peers meet regularly to discuss developments, and to organise meetings with Ministers and other parties.
It was a campaign of Parliamentary questioning that led to the setting up of the major scientific review of the evidence world-wide in 2000 (the 'York review'), which first exposed the weakness of the case for fluoridating public water supplies. This, with the overriding ethical objection to medicating populations who have not given their individual consent, is what underpins the Group's objection to fluoridation.
Many of the Group's position papers and responses to aspects of fluoridation can be found on this website.
This website offers well-informed comment on some current issues. We do not aim to duplicate what other websites already cover, for example by providing all the latest news on the fluoridation scene.
We believe in arguing the case forcefully, but without overstating it. Where we give one side of the picture, this is to draw attention to important areas which 'official' presentations leave out. Readers should be aware of the deep commitment to fluoridation, dating back to long before the state of the evidence was known, by dentists and doctors, by public health bodies and by government, who between them issue most of the information on the subject.
Most professions hold some beliefs which acquire the status of sacred cows. In the authoritarian culture of the medical professions it is especially hard to challenge the received wisdom of fluoridation. This website does that, in a variety of ways.
Readers interested in parliamentary activity over fluoridation should go to www.parliament.uk
Water fluoridation is a complex issue, differing from other medical interventions in a number of ways.
In addition it requires technical equipment which is not without problems and expense. The gap between the claimed therapeutic dose and the toxic dose of fluoride is unusually narrow. Fluoridation is only one of a number of methods of combating dental caries.
This means that in addition to the usual scientific questions of efficacy and safety, there are other criteria by which society may decide whether or not to fluoridate, as examples from other countries that have rejected fluoridation demonstrate.
The questions that must be addressed in a free and responsible society are therefore
At present only the scientific question is being publicly addressed, in the wake of the York Review and the MRC's report. All these questions, however, need to be satisfactorily answered before fluoridation schemes are promoted in a society which respects individual freedoms, the environment, the law, value for money, and good scientific evidence.
Meanwhile 5 million people are receiving fluoride through their water supply, which is probably a greater number than receive any medical drug [Compendium of Health Statistics for 2000, 14th Edition].