DRINKING WATER SEMINAR SUBMISSION BY VOICE

 

Voice of Irish Concern for the Environment

7 Upper Camden St,

Dublin 2

Email : avoice@iol.ie web www.voice.buz.org

Response to Seminar reviewing EU Drinking Water Directive(98/83/EC)

Submitted by VOICE of Irish Concern for the Environment

October 27-28th 2003.

To Preparatory Group 1 "Chemicals"

Introductory note:

While the following submission on the parameter 'Fluoride' is presented to Preparatory Group 1, it raises several issues dealt with in the other groups reviewing

    1. Endocrine Disrupting Compounds,
    2. Risk Approach for Drinking Water
    3. Substances and Materials used.

This submission is made by VOICE of Irish Concern for the Environment as a stakeholder in the five year review of drinking water intended for human consumption within the EU.

Background

  1. Ireland is the only EU member state in which artificial fluoridation of public drinking water is mandatory.
  2. Some 450 Irish water supplies serving 2.7 million consumers currently add industrial grade

    3. hydrofluosilic acid (a by-product of fertiliser production) to public drinking water intended

    for human consumption.

  3. Since the Environmental Protection Authority's (EPA) most recent report (for year 2001) criticizes, for the second year running, the failure of all 42 Sanitary Authorities that fluoridate public drinking water to monitor background levels of fluoride in source water, there are serious questions about the reliability of the end-product test results from the 450 fluoridating supplies. Background fluoride levels vary widely (from 0.01 to 0.3mg/L) dependent on the degree of contamination, mainly by phosphate fertilizer run-off.

    4. Since only a handful of fluoridating supplies operate on-line process control and the EPA report states that none check background fluoride levels, virtually all would fail a Water Safety Plan under risk assessment and risk management, were it to be introduced into Ireland.

  4. The same EPA report reveals for 2001 that eight test samples for fluoride were taken in Monaghan, a town of 7,000 people, however they were taken on only two days (four on 5th May & four on 11th December), with none taken during the other ten months. As sampling frequency is legally required on a monthly basis, these samples do little to protect consumer health and safety in Monaghan town.
  5. The fluoride compound added to drinking water has not been (independently) reviewed for quality, safety and efficacy by the responsible regulatory authority in Ireland, the Irish Medicines Board. Thus its effective status is that of an illegal medicine.
  6. While the fluosilic acid used to fluoridate drinking water enjoys EN status (12175), the EN

    7. standard confers no authorization for use in a member state. Furthermore, along with other

    standards(EN12173, EN12174) for anthropogenic fluorides the standard is merely voluntary;

    they are all without legal effect in Ireland according to the responsible Irish authority

    (Minister for Enterprise, Trade & Employment, Letter 23 May 2002 Ref 020068/MSTC) yet

    silicofluorides are used every day throughout Ireland.

  7. Although the 1960 Fluoridation Act stipulated that " it shall be the duty of the Irish Health

Minister to arrange for ...health surveys" to assess the long-term general effects on health, no

such surveys have been either commissioned or commenced to date.

While the Health Minister has repeatedly claimed that there are no adverse health effects

from water fluoridation in Ireland, a recent research report (North-South Survey, Oral Health

Services Research Centre, University College Cork, June 13th 2003, p 36-7) states that 37%

of 15 yr olds in fluoridated communities have dental fluorosis, which is evidence of systemic

fluoride poisoning, a direct health effect. In unfluoridated parts of Ireland (which includes all

of N. Ireland) dental fluorosis in 15 year olds was reported at approximately 17%.

8) While the WHO advised in 1971

"In the assessment of the safety of a water supply the total daily intake of fluoride by the

individual should be considered"

no data on fluoride intake by individuals in the Irish population has been released by the

Health Department.

  1. When the Health Minister's Fluoridation Forum engaged in public consultation in 2000/2001 no less than 931 of the 1,021 or 91% of valid responses opposed water fluoridation.

We consider that the addition of fluosilic acid to public drinking water for human consumption as practiced in Ireland undermines the Drinking Water Directive whose purpose is to protect consumer health and the environment throughout the EU.

2. Submission.

I) Consistency with existing EU Rights Legislation and Policies.

Whereas

- It is necessary to recognize the legal effect of the Drinking Water Directive within the 25 member states of the EU for the next five years;

The provisions of the Drinking Water Directive should be consistent with rights and freedoms established and enforced in EU law including ;

  1. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000), which has been

signed by all 25 members of the EU, proclaims in the Preamble

"that the people of Europe, in creating an ever closer union among them, are resolved to share a peaceful future based on common values. It places the individual at the heart of its activities."

Article 3 The right to the integrity of the person, states in 3.2

" In the fields of medicine and biology the following must be respected in particular

- the free and informed consent of the person concerned "

b) The EU Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (1997) which aims to safeguard 'the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual with regard to the application of biology and medicine' provides in Article 2, Primacy of the Human Being

'that the interests and welfare of the human being shall prevail over the sole interest of society or science.'

It declares in Article 5, Consent

' An intervention in the health field may only be carried out after the person concerned has given free and informed consent to it.'

It adds ' This person shall beforehand be given appropriate information as to the purpose and nature of the intervention as well as on its consequences and risks. The person concerned may freely withdraw consent at any time'.

Noting that

- In the member state Ireland, the government, via the minister of health (Letters from Minister of 20/02/2002 & 15/05/2002) and the area health authorities in the state, have received in 2002 notification of individual refusal of informed consent to having fluosilic acid prescribed in tap water and yet enforce continuation of the policy.

- There is a high level of opposition to the practice among informed consumers in Ireland; for example in 2000-2001 931 people in 1,021 informed the Health Minister that they disapprove of the fluoridation of drinking water (www.fluoridationforum.com. page157.)

- The artificial fluoride compound, fluosilic acid, contains substances ' likely to have pharmacological or toxicological actions in the body it is', according to the regulatory authority for medicines in Ireland, 'likely to be considered as a medicine and will therefore need product authorization from the Irish Medicines Board. Only authorized medicines will have received an independent review of their quality, safety and efficacy' (Irish Medicines Board 2000).

No product authorization for the fluoridating compound is available, indicating that as an unauthorized medicine, fluosilic acid has not been independently reviewed for quality, safety or efficacy.

The Drinking Water Directive's primary concern is for the quality of water intended for human consumption and not in facilitating or endorsing an intervention in the field of medicine.

II) Review of parametric values.

Noting

- The artificially added fluosilic acid is persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic (PBT) according to the importer's Health & Safety Data Sheet and that the REACH Regulation proposes 'to phase out those chemicals that accumulate in our bodies or the environment, or disrupt hormonal systems' in order to protect human health and the environment (29th Oct 2003).

- Fluosilic acid is classified (1996) by the USEPA as "a hazardous air pollutant"; EU Directive 2000/60/EC defines hazardous substances as "substances or groups of substances that are toxic, persistent and liable to bio-accumulate".It has never been safety tested on humans or animals in the EU; even the responsible WHO officials are unable to cite any test results for fluosilic acid.

- While the principle already established in the EU for pesticides is that drinking water should not contain them, nevertheless there are four pesticides ( aldrin, dieldrin, heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide) which have been assigned health-based lower parametric values of 0.03ug/L versus the general limit value for an individual pesticide of 0.1 ug/L.

- The naturally occurring fluoride that is present in certain parts of the EU is, by virtue of its low chemical volatility and negligible propensity to bio-accumulate, substantially less toxic to mammals, aquatic life and the environment and is not classified as hazardous(Kick et al ,1935).

Since fluosilic acid is a pollutant and its contaminants (arsenic, lead, chromium, mercury and uranium 238) are all carcinogenic and/or neurotoxic, it should not be an allowed substance in drinking water; alternatively, it should be assessed in the same way as pesticides and assigned a lower limit value in the Directive in order to protect human health and the environment.

III. Incompleteness of Scientific Knowledge

Noting

- Since virtually all fluoride research has been confined to sodium fluoride, there is insufficient scientific understanding of the health and environmental effects of fluosilic acid in drinking water. 'The research needs into mixed fluorohydroxo complexes with aluminium, iron and other metal cations likely to be found under drinking water conditions' have been confirmed by the USEPA Request For Assistance of 15th March 2001 reinforcing the knowledge deficit concerning the most used fluoridating compound in drinking water.

This lacuna in fluoridation chemistry has potentially serious adverse effects for Ireland because a) almost all of the 42 Sanitary Authorities add both aluminium AND fluosilic acid to drinking water and b) because all but seven of the authorities regularly exceed the Aluminium parametric value of 0.2mg/Litre, sometimes by 80 to 100 times the limit.

It should also be noted that recent research has called for the current Al parametric value to be reduced from 0.2mg/L to 0.05mg/Litre (See separate submission from Prof Paolo Zatta www.bio.unipd.it/~zatta/aluminum.html. )

constitutes sufficient grounds to prohibit silicofluorides in water intended for human consumption.

The CSTEE Opinion (see IV below) on drinking water quality in 20 selected European cities noted that of the 80 survey samples which exceeded the 1996 WHO guideline value (10ug/L) for lead, no less than 8 were found in Dublin's water. The high incidence of lead in Dublin water may well be due to the presence of fluosilic acid. Besides being the possible cause of the higher absolute amount of lead in Dublin's drinking water, silicofluoride's propensity to increase the blood lead level in children leading to increased aggressive and dysfunctional behaviour

( http://www.fluoridealert.org/sf-lead.htm) adds further weight to invoke the precautionary principle and cease fluoridation of water consumed every day in Dublin.

It is already well established in the EU that in the absence of conclusive evidence of risk, the precautionary principle is applied. For example four named antibiotics in animal feed

( virginiamycin, bacitracin zinc, spiramycin and tylosin phosphate) were banned in the EU even though there was no demonstrated link between their use in animals and resistance in humans. Not only is the evidence of risk to human health from water fluoridation much stronger but the precautionary principle has been already been invoked by several European countries in order to prevent fluoridation of drinking water.

IV. Consumer Protection

Noting

- The Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment on the quality of drinking water surveyed in selected European cities, was issued on 12th June 2003,

Ref C2/VR/csteeop/12062003/D(03).

It states under 'Chemical Risks'

"Infants and small children who drink water will receive a proportionally higher dose per kg bodyweight compared to adults. In this respect bottle-fed babies are especially exposed.

Children have also been shown to be especially sensitive to some pollutants such as lead, nitrate and fluoride. However in the case of lead and nitrate the limit values have been set with special reference to children in order to be protective also for children. For other pollutants, the limit value may be less protective children than for adults. In the case of pesticide residues, however, the parametric value is often lower than toxicologically based guidelines, which means that children should be protected anyhow."

- It has recently been noted ( Letter 4th Sept 2003 from Dr C.V.Howard, Toxico-Pathologist, Dept of Human Anatomy & Cell Biology, Liverpool University) that

"on the evidence of neurotoxicity alone, it seems both illogical and morally unacceptable

to intentionally add fluoride to drinking water supplies, at a rate which leads to fluoride

levels that are above the natural upper limit (10 parts per billion) present in breast milk."

Infant formula made up with fluoridated drinking water contains 1,000ug/L fluoride, one hundred times the level in breast milk. Whereas less than a third of babies born in Ireland are breast fed, leaving over 60 % of newborns at risk, the health minister's Fluoridation Forum (p18) recommends (boiled) fluoridated tap water should be used to reconstitute infant formula.

- In conscious disregard of WHO guidelines which refer to 1.5 mg/F in water as "desirable", 13 of the 23 nations suffering from endemic fluorosis from naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water, have proposed a maximum tolerable level of 0.5mg/L in drinking water. (Conference on Fluorosis & Defluoridation of water[2000] held in Chiang Mai. From A.K Susheela 'Fluorosis in Developing countries: Remedial Measures and Approaches' 20 July 2001. PINSA B68 No 5 pp389-400)

- Dental fluorosis in humans has been noted at levels as low as 0.35 mg/L (Lin FF, Aihaiti, Zhao HX et al; see Iodine Deficiency Disorders Newsletter vol 7 no 3 August 1991) every effort must be made to minimize naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water.

- Fluoride from all non-water related sources (pesticides, cleaners, foodstuffs and dentifrices etc) is currently associated with dental fluorosis in 17% of the Irish population living in unfluoridated areas, therefore drinking water intended for human consumption should not contain any fluoride.

- The lifetime exposure to systemic fluoride via drinking water has a multiplicity of chronic systemic health effects that, though widely recognized in virtually all EU member states, are now also known to adversely affect many organs in the body. These include the skeleton, teeth, thyroid and pineal glands and other hormone function, brain development and the immune system (www.fluoridealert.org/health.htm).

- Twenty-two of the twenty-five EU member states do not use drinking water as a dental health intervention for individual consumers, the exceptions being minor regions of England and a few individual Spanish cities. Some 98% of consumers in the EU are not exposed to artificially fluoridated drinking water.

These same twenty-two EU member states successfully use safer alternative interventions in oral health including educational and preventive initiatives that enjoy widespread consumer and medical approval.

Proposals

We hereby propose

  1. The Drinking Water Directive prohibit the addition of the pollutant, fluosilic acid and similar forms of anthropogenic fluoride to drinking water intended for human consumption because
    1. they infringe existing Human Rights in the EU and
    2. constitute an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment.

This prohibition should be effective on 25th December 2003 with a provision to allow member states to effect orderly compliance within six months and to permit introduction of alternative health interventions.

  1. The parameter 'fluoride' should be restated as 'calcium fluoride' for which the parametric value should be set at 0.5 mg/Litre in order to protect not alone the health of adults but of vulnerable groups especially sensitive to fluoride such as babies and children.

    2. Recognizing the resultant costs of removal to some suppliers of drinking water in the EU, the implementation should be within three years of 25th December 2003.

    The medium term objective of the Drinking Water Directive should as far as practicable aim to progressively reduce calcium fluoride in drinking water intended for human consumption.

  2. I n order to protect the legal integrity, consistency and public credibility of the Drinking Water Directive and to safeguard health and the environment in the EU for future generations, the Drinking Water Directive's preamble should make express reference to rights and freedoms established in other EU legislation. In particular the Directive should defend any rights that are threatened as now when drinking water, containing artificially added pollutants in the form of silicofluorides, is unlawfully used as an intervention in the medical field without individual informed consent.

 

Dublin, October 24th 2003.

 

 

 

 

 

 

STATEMENT FROM LABOUR PARTY SPOKESPERSON FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, EAMON GILMORE TD ( by email)


24October 2003


Dear Robert

I refer to our recent discussion concerning water fluoridation.

As Labour Party spokesperson for the Environment, I have a number of serious
reservations about the practice of fluoridation of public drinking water in
Ireland:-

1. While responsibility for the Fluoridation Act is vested in the Minister for
Health & Children, it is implemented by local authorities, 42 of whom add
fluoride to public water, according to the Quality of Drinking Water Report for
2001 published by the Minister for the Environment.

2. The Department of Environment exerts only general 'supervision'
(Parliamentary Question No 412 Ref 10954/03) on the sanitary authorities
within each local authority 'to ensure that drinking water meets the
standards of the Drinking Water Directive'. Its remit involves the annual
publication of monitoring results and recommendations and may also extend to
urging their early implementation by the local authorities.

3. Should local authorities fail to implement recommendations as in the case
of failing to 'monitor background levels of fluorides in raw water prior to
treatment for use as drinking water' (Parliamentary Answer to PQ 412 above) in
contravention of EC(Quality of Surface Water Intended for the Abstraction of
Drinking Water) 1989, there is no adequate governmental accountability for the
omission since the Minister for the Environment has only general supervision of
the matter. Despite alerting local authorities to the omission in Drinking Water
Quality reports 2000 and 2001, local authorities are still not monitoring raw
water for fluorides, as legally required to do.

4. The legislative basis for the fluoridation of public water in Ireland is
under the remit of the Minister for Health and Children, however the
far-reaching recommendations of the Fluoridation Forum report which were made on
September 10th 2002 have not been acted upon over a year later.

Since local authorities are nominally accountable to the Minister for the
Environment and he admits to only a supervisory role in monitoring of background
levels of fluorides in raw water, there is a serious disconnect at the heart of
fluoridation policy as implemented in Ireland today. This needs to be remedied.
At very least, there needs to be a more co-ordinated, coherent, and consistent
approach to the supervision and monitoring of water fluoridation in Ireland.

Yours sincerely,


EAMON GILMORE T.D.