HL Deb 12 May 1999 vol 600 cc147-8WA
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they agree with the following arguments in the Opinion of Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle in the case of McColl v. Strathclyde Regional Council (Sessions Cases, No.23, June 29, 1983):

  1. (a) "Section 130 (of the Medicines Act 1968) defines 'medicinal product' and I am satisfied that fluoride in whatever form it is ultimately purchased by the respondents falls within the definition";
  2. (b) "there is no evidence that water with a natural fluoride content of 1ppm is normal by world standards";
  3. (c) "to suggest as do the respondents that they are merely replicating nature by increasing the fluoride content of surface water is inaccurate"; and
  4. (d) fluoridation involves "using water as a means of passing into consumers' bodies substances which could be obtained aliunde";
and, if they dissent from any of these arguments, on what grounds. [HL2320]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman)

While some products containing fluoride are classified as medicinal products in accordance with the definition in Section 130 of the Medicines Act 1968 and the relevant definition in Directive 65/65/EEC, we confirm that fluoridated water has not been classified as a medicinal product by the United Kingdom's competent authority. Water intended for human consumption falls within the definition of food and is thus regulated partly under the Food Safety Act 1990 and partly under water legislation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, included these opinions in a judgment in which he found the fluoridation water at 1 part per million to be a safe and effective means of reducing dental decay. We will shortly be announcing our position in a policy statement on oral health to be included in a White Paper on Public Health.