The Independent, 23 October 2003.

Dump your toothbrush, says health minister
By Marie Woolf Chief Political Correspondent

Children up and down the country will be delighting at the latest
public health advice from ministers: throw away your toothbrush.

Drinking a glass of fluoridated water is now the "preferred
method" of preventing tooth decay, according to the public health
minister, and is cheaper and easier than brushing.

Melanie Johnson wrote to MPs last week informing them that
brushing requires "ongoing positive personal action by the
individual". But people who drink fluoridated water can protect
their teeth "without needing to take any personal action".

Ms Johnson's letter, designed to persuade MPs not to block her
proposals to make it easier to add fluoride to the public water
supply, says "there are important reasons to consider water
fluoridation as the preferred method of preventing tooth decay on
a population basis".

She goes on to compare brushing with drinking fluoridated water,
and concludes that the latter brings more health benefits.

She adds: "An alternative to water fluoridation is fluoride
toothpaste. But water fluoridation delivers greater reductions in
decay than toothpaste and reaches the whole population rather
than just those who adhere to a regular cleaning regime using
fluoride toothpaste.

"It is also cheaper - water fluoridation costs around 50p per
person per year; a year's supply of toothbrushes and toothpaste
costs around £10."

Her comments have outraged MPs, who will vote today on the
government proposals in a standing committee on the water bill.

Simon Thomas, environment spokesman for Plaid Cymru and a member
of the committee, said: "She seems to be saying we should stop
brushing our teeth and should drink fluoride with water. It's
crazy.

"These proposals are full of contradictions. She says that it is
not possible to encourage people to eat more healthily. But what
about all these government obesity programmes?"

A spokeswoman for the Department of Health said the government
was "only going to encourage areas with poor dental health to
fluoridate water".

 letters@independent.co.uk

----------------------------------------------
PRESS RELEASE from National Pure Water Association.
21 October, 2003

Fight over Water Bill's Clause 61intensifies.

In July this year, a few days before the Third Reading of the
Water Bill in the House of Lords, the Government slipped in a
controversial amendment which seeks to force water companies to
artificially fluoridate drinking water supplies when ordered to
do so by strategic health authorities. Several of their Lordships
protested, but the Bill passed its Third Reading.

At the Second Reading in the House of Commons on 8 September,
Environment Minister Elliot Morley warned MPs that fluoridation
should not dominate the proceedings, but the five-hour debate
drew frequent fire from MPs who strongly object to Clause 61.

Mr John Butterfill, MP, said: "The Government should withdraw the
clause [on fluoridation] to allow proper discussion of the
important issues contained in the rest of the Bill in Committee
and on Report . . . .if they persist with the measure, they will
face legal action."

Bill Wiggin, MP says that he will vote against fluoridation. He
wrote recently, "I fear that Clause 61 will become the centre of
the debate when there are other important issues that need
careful consideration."

The Committee will give three sessions (21 and 23 October) to
scrutiny of Clause 61. Submissions have been sent to every member
of the Committee by National Pure Water Association, as well as
from the Muslim community.

Dr Paul McCormick, barrister, President of the NPWA, showed that
the incidence of dental fluorosis more than doubled from 23% in a
non-fluoridated areas to 54% in fluoridated areas, with a 6-fold
increase in "aesthetically important" dental fluorosis. He wrote
to Committee members, "Water fluoridation, however
well-intentioned, is the indiscriminate poisoning of children,
evidence for which, dental fluorosis, is the biomarker." He
urged them to remove Clause 61 from the Water Bill.

Dr A. Majid Katme, spokesperson for the Islamic Medical
Association, also asked the Committee to withdraw Clause 61.

He wrote, "Muslims are opposed to artificial water fluoridation
on religious, health, ethical and human rights grounds . . . As
Muslims have been mass medicated without their knowledge or
consent, and water fluoridation is known to poison children, a
campaign is being planned to stop the artificial fluoridation of
Birmingham. We do not yet know how many Muslim children have
dental fluorosis, but information has been passed to the
Association of Muslim Lawyers. An Islamic national education
campaign against the fluoridation of water has already begun in
the Muslim media and the Mosques."

The Green Party website quotes their media chief, Dr Spencer
Fitzgibbon: "The dentists' dodgy dossier did its job. The case
for fluoridation was effectively sexed-up . . . the British
Dental Association have misled people about the human rights and
medical ethics issues [by] publicising a supposed 'community
right' to decide to medicate people without their consent. No
such right exists in any UK or EU law. But the European
Convention on Human Rights and the European Charter of
Fundamental Rights both explicitly recognise the right of
individuals not to be medicated without their consent."

Jane Jones, NPWA campaign director, said: "Human rights belong to
individuals - not to Tony Blair, MPs or strategic health
authorities. Fluoridation is a violation of the rights of
everyone. Our 43-year campaign will continue until all
legislation permitting fluoridation is dead on the floor of the
House of Commons." /ends

Contact:

Dr Spencer Fitzgibbon, Green Party Media, 0161 225 4863.
Jane Jones, Campaign Director, NPWA, 01226 360909.

NOTE FOR EDITORS - Letters to the Committee can be found at:
 http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/committee.html
 http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/muslim_letter.html