Connect with us

Published

on

The debate around whether fluoride should be added to tap water is not new.

The practice, which is aimed at reducing tooth decay, has been ongoing for 60 years.

But since fluoride toothpaste became more widely available around the 1970s, more questions have been raised about whether adding it to the drinking supply is still necessary.

And with Donald Trump’s health secretary pick Robert F Kennedy Jr saying he would ban it, the issue has entered public debate yet again.

Despite RFK being well known for his outlandish views on public health, it seems the fluoridation issue isn’t one that can be totally dismissed.

One study in the US has linked fluoride to a lowering of children’s IQs, while another in the UK has questioned its overall effectiveness when added to water.

So what is fluoride, what do experts say – and what’s the story in the UK?

More on Health

What is fluoride and what does it do?

It’s a natural mineral found in rocks, which leaches into soil, rivers and lakes.

It helps dental health by strengthening the tooth enamel, making it more resistant to tooth decay, and also reduces the amount of acid the bacteria on your teeth produce, according to the Oral Health Foundation.

Fluoride is known to be particularly beneficial for children’s teeth, as past studies have suggested ingesting it during the period of tooth development makes the enamel more resistant to later acid attacks and subsequent development of tooth decay.

Dr Kunal Patel, who has been a private and NHS dentist for 15 years, told Sky News the benefit of fluoride is “drilled into” dental students, adding there are “scientifically proven benefits of having fluoride within your oral hygiene regime”.

Fluoride is essentially a passive way of protecting your teeth, he says.

“If you decide not to use fluoride then the technique of brushing your teeth, your flossing and other methods of cleaning have to be that much better,” he adds.

How do we get fluoride?

Almost all water contains some naturally occurring fluoride, but it’s normally not enough to prevent tooth decay.

Some areas do have water supplies where the amount of fluoride is naturally at a high level – a point that will be covered later.

We get trace amounts of fluoride from much of our food and drink, but brewed tea in particular proves a big source because tea plants take up fluoride from soil.

Most toothpastes now contain fluoride to give you extra protection from decay.

When did adding it to the water supply become a thing?

Many oral health experts believe adding fluoride to water – an act known as fluoridation – is the most effective way to widely reduce dental problems, particularly in underprivileged regions.

The practice began in 1945 in Grand Rapids, Michigan, after scientists noticed that people had less tooth decay in areas with naturally higher fluoride levels in the tap water.

It was first added to the water supply in England in 1964, when a pilot scheme was launched in Birmingham.

Over the years it’s been rolled out to about 75% of America’s population, compared to about 10% of England.

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates some 400 million people in 25 countries are getting artificially fluoridated water, while about 50 million have naturally occurring fluoride at the same level as the artificial schemes.

What is the ideal amount of fluoride in water?

The WHO recommends a maximum level of 1.5mg per litre.

In its guidelines, it says the level is aimed at creating a middle ground where tooth decay is minimised, but the risk of dental fluorosis and skeletal fluorosis is too.

Dental fluorosis is a common cosmetic condition caused by ingesting too much fluoride during tooth development, and can leave white flecks, spots or lines on teeth.

Skeletal fluorosis, a much rarer occurrence, is a chronic metabolic bone and joint disease caused by ingesting large amounts of fluoride.

The UK government aims for fluoride levels of 1mg per litre in drinking water, while the level of fluoride is kept at about 0.7mg per litre in the US.

Potential danger to children’s IQs

Fluoridation has been a contentious subject in the US, with more than 100 lawsuits over the years trying to get rid of it without success, according to the American Fluoridation Society, an advocacy group.

And the anti-fluoride group Fluoride Action Network says more than 150 towns and counties across the US have voted to keep fluoride out of public water systems or to stop adding it.

But the movement against it really gained momentum earlier this year when a US government report concluded that fluoride in drinking water at twice the recommended limit was linked with lower IQ in children.

The report, based on an analysis of previously published research, said it reached its conclusion “with moderate confidence”.

It cited a 2019 study, published in the well-respected journal JAMA Pediatrics, which found that IQ levels were slightly lower in three and four-year-old children whose mothers had higher measures of fluoride in their urine when they were pregnant.

A federal judge in California used the report to order the nation’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to strengthen its regulations on fluoridation in September, saying the current levels were posing an unreasonable risk to children.

The judge stressed that he was not concluding with certainty that fluoridated water endangered public health, but rather that it poses a risk.

Questions over fluoride’s effectiveness

In the UK, while the government is reviewing plans to raise fluoride levels for millions and roll it out into more areas of England, a major review has suggested fluoridation may only have a “modest” benefit.

Academics at Manchester, Dundee and Aberdeen universities compared 157 studies looking at the effect of fluoridation on the dental health of communities.

When the government began adding fluoride to tap water, it reduced the number of decayed, missing or filled teeth by two whole teeth on average among children with their baby teeth, researchers said.

However, once fluoride toothpaste became widely available, that number declined.

Now, it is equivalent to a reduction of a “quarter of a tooth” that is decayed, missing or filled, on average.

“Water fluoridation is only having a modest benefit on dental caries, and those benefits may take years to be realised,” said Professor Anne-Marie Glenny, of the University of Manchester, who co-authored the paper.

Could it actually be scrapped in the US?

Mr Kennedy Jr has claimed Mr Trump will push to remove fluoride from drinking water on his first day in office, referring to it as “industrial waste” in a statement on X.

He also claimed fluoride was associated with arthritis, bone fractures, bone cancer, neurodevelopmental disorders and thyroid disease.

While there have been studies regarding some of those claims, none of them have been conclusive.

After the comments, Mr Trump told Sky News’ US partner NBC News that while he had not spoken to his health secretary pick about trying to scrap fluoride yet, “it sounds OK to me. You know it’s possible”.

The decision on whether or not add fluoride to water is ultimately made by state and local health authorities, so Mr Trump’s government can only advise them to stop it.

‘It’s about risk vs benefit’

Stephen Peckham, professor of health policy at the University of Kent, previously led a study on fluoridation’s potential links to hypothyroidism – an underactive thyroid – and is now part of a research team investigating whether it could be causing IQ issues within the UK’s population.

He tells Sky News he accepts fluoride can be beneficial, but adds it is not a necessity, especially in water.

“We know that ingested fluoride is not an effective way of preventing tooth decay,” he says. “If you want to have fluoride, put it on your toothbrush and clean your teeth with it. It needs to be applied to the tooth and not swallowed.”

He says that while the benefit is limited, the children’s IQ study carried out in the US highlights a need for caution.

“What we do know is that ingesting fluoride does have a neurologic, neurotoxic effect. What’s less certain is at what level of fluoride that begins.

“The judge is saying, well, in that case, shouldn’t we be more careful? And limit in particular pregnant women’s access to fluoridated water or consumption of fluoridated water.

“And your maximum of fluoride depends on how much you drink. So if you drink more, you get more.”

It’s about the “balance of risk and benefit”, he says.

“But if there’s not much benefit, should you have any risk? The answer is no, you shouldn’t.”

‘Stick to the most deprived regions’

Dr Kunal Patel, who owns six private dental clinics in Surrey, including one for children only, says fluoridation was “great in a time where there was less education and less access to fluoride in toothpaste”.

He adds that before the IQ study came out, he would have been happy to see fluoride being added to any area in the UK because he’d have thought “anyone could benefit” without there being any negative effects.

Now, he says, he thinks it’s best to be “selective” and limit fluoridating water “to the areas that are suffering, where it’s more rural or more deprived”.

Read more:
Unhealthy food costing UK more than £260bn a year, report says
Cocoa or green tea can help you destress more than high-fat foods

He gives the North West as an example, saying he recently did a charity event there to promote dental health among young people, and it was “shocking” to see how many of them did not even own a toothbrush.

He says it’s a “good idea” to expand to similar areas of the UK where dental health is low – but thinks it would be an even better idea to provide toothpaste to schools in such areas and increase their education regarding how best to look after their teeth.

“I think education is the way forward more so than fluoridated water.”

A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson told Sky News: “The number one reason children aged six to 10 end up in hospital is to have their rotting teeth pulled out.

“Water fluoridation at levels permitted in this country is a safe and effective public health measure that reduces tooth decay.

“Prevention is always better than cure, and this government is committed to helping people stay healthy and keeping kids out of hospital.”

Is your water being fluoridated?

About 330,000 people live in areas of England with naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water, while around 5.8 million people get an artificial supply put in theirs.

It means some 10% of people in England live in areas where fluoride is added to the water, mainly in the West Midlands and the North East.

There is no fluoridation in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.

Here is the full list of areas receiving artificial fluoridation in England, according to the British Fluoridation Society:

  • Cumbria – 120,000
  • Cheshire – 137,000
  • Tyneside – 643,000
  • Northumbria – 101,000
  • County Durham – 85,000
  • Humberside – 136,000
  • Lincolnshire – 250,000
  • Nottinghamshire – 287,000
  • Derbyshire – 43,000
  • Birmingham – 1,000,000
  • Solihull – 200,000
  • Coventry – 300,000
  • Sandwell – 300,000
  • Dudley – 305,000
  • Walsall – 253,000
  • Wolverhampton – 236,000
  • Staffordshire – 497,000
  • Shropshire – 22,000
  • Warwickshire – 431,000
  • Worcestershire – 253,000
  • Bedfordshire – 198,000

And here is the list of areas getting the “optimal” amount of fluoride naturally:

  • Hartlepool, County Durham – 89,000
  • Easington, County Durham – 47,000
  • Uttoxeter, Staffordshire – 13,000
  • Redbridge, London Borough – 180,000

Where else could fluoride be added to water?

The Conservative government introduced proposals to expand fluoridation schemes across the North East “because of the significant and long-standing inequalities in the region” when it comes to dental health.

A public consultation on the plans was launched in June and closed in July. Since Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government won the election, it has not been clear whether the plans are still being pursued.

These are the areas the government proposed extending the fluoride supply to:

  • Darlington
  • Durham
  • Gateshead
  • Hartlepool
  • Middlesbrough
  • Newcastle
  • Northumberland
  • North Tyneside
  • Redcar and Cleveland
  • South Tyneside
  • Stockton
  • Sunderland

Continue Reading

UK

‘Broken’ water industry set to be overhauled – nine key recommendations from landmark report

Published

on

By

'Broken' water industry set to be overhauled - nine key recommendations from landmark report

The system for regulating water companies in England and Wales should be overhauled and replaced with one single body, a major review of the sector has advised.

It has recommended abolishing regulator Ofwat as well as the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI), which ensures that public water supplies are safe.

The report, which includes 88 recommendations, suggests a new single integrated regulator to replace existing water watchdogs, mandatory water metering, and a social tariff for vulnerable customers.

The ability to block companies being taken over and the creation of eight new regional water authorities with another for all of Wales to deliver local priorities, has also been suggested.

The review, the largest into the water industry since privatisation in the 1980s, was undertaken by Sir Jon Cunliffe, a career civil servant who oversaw the biggest clean-up of Britain’s banking system in the wake of the financial crash.

He was coaxed out of retirement by Environment Secretary Steve Reed to lead the Independent Water Commission.

Here are nine key recommendations:

More from Money

• Single integrated water regulators – a single water regulator in England and a single water regulator in Wales. In England, this would replace Ofwat, the Drinking Water Inspectorate and water-environment related functions from the Environment Agency and Natural England

• Eight new regional water system planning authorities in England and one national authority in Wales

• Greater consumer protection – this includes upgrading the consumer body Consumer Council for Water into an Ombudsman for Water to give stronger protection to customers and a clearer route to resolving complaints

• Stronger environmental regulation, including compulsory water meters

• Tighter oversight of water company ownership and governance, including new powers for the regulator to block changes in water company ownership

• Public health reforms – this aims to better manage public health risks in water, recognising the many people who swim, surf and enjoy other water-based activities

• Fundamental reset of economic regulation – including changes to ensure companies are investing in and maintaining assets

• Clear strategic direction – a new long-term National Water Strategy should be published by both the UK and Welsh governments with a “minimum horizon of 25 years”

• Infrastructure and asset health reforms – including new requirements for companies to map and assess their assets and new resilience standards

In a speech responding to Sir Jon’s report, Mr Reed is set to describe the water industry as “broken” and welcome the commission’s recommendations to ensure “the failures of the past can never happen again”.

Final recommendations of the commission have been published on Monday morning to clean up the sector and improve public confidence.

Major other suggested steps for the government include greater consumer protection by upgrading the Consumer Council for Water into an ombudsman with advocacy duties being transferred to Citizens Advice.

Stronger and updated regulations have been proposed by Sir Jon, including compulsory water metering, changes to wholesale tariffs for industrial users and greater water reuse and rainwater harvesting schemes. A social tariff is also recommended.

Oversight of companies via the ability to block changes in ownership of water businesses and the addition of “public benefit” clauses in water company licences.

To boost company financial resilience, as the UK’s biggest provider Thames Water struggles to remain in private ownership, the commission has recommended minimum financial requirements, like banks are subject to.

It’s hoped this will, in turn, make companies more appealing to potential investors.

The public health element of water has been recognised, and senior public health representation has been recommended for regional water planning authorities, as have new laws to address pollutants like forever chemicals and microplastics.

A “supervisory” approach has been recommended to intervene before things like pollution occur, rather than penalising the businesses after the event.

A long-term, 25-year national water strategy should be published by the UK and Welsh governments, with ministerial priorities given to water firms every five years.

Companies should also be required to map and assess their assets and resilience

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

Continue Reading

UK

Inquiry launched to ‘uncover truth’ behind bloody clashes at Orgreave miners’ strike

Published

on

By

Inquiry launched to 'uncover truth' behind bloody clashes at Orgreave miners' strike

A new public inquiry will “uncover the truth” behind the so-called “Battle of Orgreave”, a bloody fight between striking miners and police officers in the 1980s.

One hundred and twenty people were injured in the violent confrontation on 18 June 1984, outside a coal processing factory in Orgreave, South Yorkshire.

Five thousand miners clashed with an equal number of armed and mounted police during a day of fighting.

Police used horse charges, riot shields and batons against the picketers, even as some were retreating.

5000 miners clashed with an equal number of armed and mounted police during a day of fighting
Image:
Masses of miners and police clashed during the day of fighting

Police also used horse charges against protesters
Image:
Police officers on horses charged against protesters

In the aftermath, miners were blamed for the violence in what campaigners believe was an institutional “frame-up”.

“There were so many lies,” says Chris Peace, from campaign group Orgreave Truth and Justice, “and it’s a real historic moment to get to this stage.”

“There’s a lot of information already in the public domain,” she adds, “but there’s still some papers that are embargoed, which will hopefully now be brought to light.”

More on South Yorkshire

Campaigner Chris Peace
Image:
Campaigner Chris Peace

Although dozens of miners were arrested, trials against them all collapsed due to allegations of unreliable police evidence.

Campaigners say some involved have been left with “physical and psychological damage”, but until now, previous governments have refused calls for a public inquiry.

Launching the inquiry today, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper told Sky Newsi that she wanted to “make sure” campaigners now got “proper answers”.

“We’ve obviously had unanswered questions about what happened at Orgreave for over 40 years,” Ms Cooper says, “and when we were elected to government, we determined to take this forward.”

Although dozens of miners were arrested, trials against them all collapsed due to allegations of unreliable police evidence
Image:
A police officer tackling a miner

Campaigners say some miners involved have been left with 'physical and psychological damage'
Image:
A bleeding protester being led away by police during the ‘Battle of Orgreave’

The Bishop of Sheffield, Pete Wilcox
Image:
The Bishop of Sheffield, Pete Wilcox, will chair the inquiry

The inquiry will be a statutory one, meaning that witnesses will be compelled to come and give evidence, and chaired by the Bishop of Sheffield, Pete Wilcox.

“I’m really happy,” says Carl Parkinson, a former miner who was at Orgreave on the day of the clash, “but why has it took so long?”

“A lot of those colleagues and close friends have passed away, and they’ll never get to see any outcome.”

Former miner Carl Parkinson
Image:
Former miner Carl Parkinson

Former miner Chris Skidmore
Image:
Former miner Chris Skidmore

Mr Parkinson and Chris Skidmore, who was also there that day, were among the group of campaigners informed first-hand by Ms Cooper about the public inquiry at the Orgreave site.

“It wasn’t frightening to start off with,” Mr Skidmore remembers of the day itself, “but then what I noticed was the amount of police officers who had no identification numbers on. It all felt planned.”

“And it wasn’t just one truncheon,” says Mr Parkinson, “there were about 30, or 40. And it was simultaneous, like it was orchestrated – just boom, boom, boom, boom.

“And there’s lads with a split down their heads for no good reason, they’d done nothing wrong. We were just there to peacefully picket.”

Police used horse charges, riots shields and batons against the picketers, even as some were retreating
Image:
Police used riot shields against the picketers, even as some were retreating

In the aftermath of the fighting, miners were blamed for the violence
Image:
In the aftermath of the fighting, miners were blamed for the violence

In the intervening years, South Yorkshire Police have paid more than £400,000 in compensation to affected miners and their families.

But no official inquiry has ever looked at the documents surrounding the day’s events, the lead-up to it and the aftermath.

Read more from Sky News:
E-bike riders are doing double the speed limit
Environment secretary pledges to cut sewage pollution

“We need to have trust and confidence restored in the police,” says South Yorkshire Mayor Oliver Coppard, “and part of that is about people, like this campaign, getting the justice that they deserve.

“Obviously, we’ve had things like Hillsborough, CSE [Child Sexual Exploitation] in Rotherham, and we want to turn the page.”

Continue Reading

UK

New water ombudsman to give public stronger protections, government pledges

Published

on

By

'Broken' water industry set to be overhauled - nine key recommendations from landmark report

Consumers will get stronger protections with a new water watchdog – as trust in water companies takes a record dive.

Environment Secretary Steve Reed will announce on Monday that the government will set up the new water ombudsman with legal powers to resolve disputes, rather than the current voluntary system.

The watchdog will mean an expansion of the Consumer Council for Water’s (CCW) role and will bring the water sector into line with other utilities that have legally binding consumer watchdogs.

Consumers will then have a single point of contact for complaints.

Politics latest: Labour should let water companies ‘go bust’, Farage says

The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said the new watchdog would help “re-establish partnership” between water companies and consumers.

A survey by the CCW in May found trust in water companies had reached a new low, with fewer than two-thirds of people saying they provided value for money.

Just 35% said they thought charges from water companies were fair – even before the impact could be felt from a 26% increase in bills in April.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘We’ll be able to eliminate sewage spillages’

Mr Reed is planning a “root and branch reform” of the water industry – which he branded “absolutely broken” – that he will reveal alongside a major review of the sector on Monday.

The review is expected to recommend the scrapping of water regulator Ofwat and the creation of a new one, to incorporate the work of the CCW.

Read more:
Labour will eliminate unauthorised sewage spillages in a decade
Under-fire water regulator could be scrapped

sewage surfers water pollution protest brighton
Image:
A water pollution protest by Surfers Against Sewage in Brighton

Campaigners and MPs have accused Ofwat of failing to hold water operators to account, while the companies complain a focus on keeping bills down has prevented appropriate infrastructure investment.

On Sunday, Mr Reed avoided answering whether he would get rid of Ofwat or not when asked on Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips.

He pledged to halve sewage pollution by water companies by 2030 and said Labour would eliminate unauthorised sewage spillages in a decade.

Mr Reed announced £104 billion of private investment to help the government do that.

Victoria Atkins MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said: “While stronger consumer protections are welcome in principle, they are only one part of the serious long-term reforms the water sector needs.

“We all want the water system to improve, and honesty about the scale of the challenge is essential. Steve Reed must explain that bill payers are paying for the £104 billion investment plan. Ministers must also explain how replacing one quango with another is going to clean up our rivers and lakes.

“Public confidence in the water system will only be rebuilt through transparency, resilience, and delivery.”

Continue Reading

Trending