A health campaigner has raised concerns about the lack of meaningful public consultation by the government before it approved the biggest expansion of water fluoridation in England since the 1980s.
The NHS announced on Friday it would press ahead with plans to add the fluoride compound to an additional 1.6 million people across the north-east, which it says will help tackle dental decay in children, particularly in poorer areas.
But Joy Warren, founder of the UK Fluoride Free Alliance (UKFFA), told The Epoch Times that far from reducing health inequalities, the plans could increase them because of the negative health impacts which dozens of scientific studies suggest are being caused by fluoridated water.
“We were told these studies were old arguments and we couldn’t submit them again,” she said of the public consultation process.
Lack of Public Awareness
Warren said the consultation process was not meaningful due to a lack of public awareness and the lack of media reporting of the possible negative health impacts of fluoridation.
“We knew that most of the people in the north east never got to find out about it because it was so poorly advertised ... and if you’ve got a media shutdown, you are never going to get anywhere.”
Public health officials maintain that adding the compound at the correct level is safe and effective in preventing tooth decay, with the Health and Care Act of 2022 taking the power to introduce fluoridation schemes away from local authorities and placing it in the hands of central government.
Studies have shown an average reduction of five to seven points between those who consume fluoridated water and those who do not, although health officials do not accept that the difference is down to adding the compound.
Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral found in water and some foods, but the compound that is added is derived from an industrial hazardous waste product of fertilizer manufacturing, which is washed out of chimneys in the Middle East and transported in tankers.
It is added to only around 5 percent of the worldwide water supply, with most developed nations rejecting the practice of fluoridation, including the vast majority of Western Europe.
Fluoridation in the UK began in 1964 without public consultation after researchers found that people had less tooth decay in areas with higher natural fluoride levels in the drinking water. England has a current fluoridation rate of around 11 percent, with the compound added to the water supply of some 6 million people in the north east, parts of the west Midlands including Birmingham, and parts of the east Midlands.
The consultation proposed that the programme should expand across the north-east to Darlington, Durham, Gateshead, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Newcastle, Northumberland, North Tyneside, Redcar and Cleveland, South Tyneside, Stockton and Sunderland.
Benefits Have Declined
A review published last October concluded the benefits of fluoridating water supplies appear to have declined since the 1970s when fluoride toothpaste became widely available in the UK.Warren said, “It is far more beneficial to teach children how to brush their teeth properly than to fluoridate the water, which can cause dental problems like fluorosis.”
Professor Sir Chris Whitty, chief medical officer for England, has dismissed safety concerns over fluoridation, condemning what he called “exaggerated and unevidenced” claims about health risks.
The Health and Care Act 2022 provides powers for the secretary of state to introduce, vary and terminate community water fluoridation schemes.
California Ruling and RFK Jr.
Warren believes it was “negligent” of the UK government not to take into account a ruling by a California judge last September that fluoride can lower children’s IQ—effectively branding it a neurotoxin—following a high profile court case.“In America, the level of fluoride is point seven milligrammes per litre ... in England, it’s one milligramme—one third higher—so you can imagine that our IQ is even more damaged in the west midlands and Newcastle and other fluoridated areas?”
“If the government hasn’t taken any notice of [the ruling], it’s criminal, it’s negligence,” she said, adding that the NHS constitution makes clear that people are allowed to refuse their consent to medical treatment, which is what fluoridation effectively is.”
Warren believes that fluoridation amounts to “forced medicine” as “only those who can afford to pay for bottled water and filtration systems,” and have awareness of possible health implications will do so.
Following the San Francisco case, Judge Edward Chen ordered the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to strengthen regulations for fluoride in drinking water, saying the compound poses an “unreasonable potential risk” to children’s developing brains at levels that are currently typical nationwide.
Chen sided with several advocacy groups, saying they had established during the trial that fluoride posed a risk of harm sufficient to require a regulatory response by the EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
“The scientific literature in the record provides a high level of certainty that a hazard is present; fluoride is associated with reduced IQ,” Chen wrote in his judgment.
President Donald Trump has indicated he will look at recommending the removal of fluoride from the water supply, although the decision to add the compound is currently made at local level in the United States.
Warren said the UKFFA has appointed a barrister with the intention of bringing a class action lawsuit against the UK Government over alleged health harms caused by fluoridation, and the group plans to fight the proposed expansion in the north-east.
There is a legal obligation for the government to monitor the health impacts of fluoridation every four years, with the next report due to be published in 2026, ahead of when the scheme for the northeast is expected to be implemented.
