THIS autumn MPs will vote on a new water bill which would give strategic health authorities the power in law to force water companies to fluoridate our water supplies.

The government says it is a move intended to reduce tooth decay.

Opponents say it would compromise the health of the nation and amount to a form of compulsory mass medication, breaching human rights.

SNJ reporter David Gibbs examines the controversial issue...

A Stroud environmental policy student has accused the government of trying to poison people following plans to expand the fluoridation of tap water.

The House of Lords last month backed an amendment to the 2003 Water Bill, which if it becomes law this autumn would force water companies to fluoridate their supplies wherever a strategic health authority demanded it, following public consultation.

The government's intention is to reduce tooth decay, particularly in areas of poor dental health.

Water companies, which previously had discretion over whether or not to fluoridate water, would receive indemnity from liabilities incurred as a result of fluoridation.

Stroud MP David Drew refused to sign up to the early day motion leading to the amendment, which was supported by 149 MPs and will be the subject of a final debate and free vote in the House of Commons on September 8.

Department of Health spokesman Rachel Clinton explained the government's reason for transferring the onus of responsibility from water companies to strategic health authorities.

She said: "Fluoridation is about improving oral health not water quality and therefore it is a decision to be taken by the strategic health authorities."

But critics claim fluoride is largely ineffective against tooth decay and is a cumulative poison with widespread health implications, including dental fluorosis - a discoloration of the teeth - increased risk of bone cancer, infertility, depressed thyroid function and neurological problems.

They also argue compulsory water fluoridation would be a breach of human rights law. Brimscombe resident David Judd, an Open University student studying environmental policy, said:

"Rather than educate children on the perils of eating too many sweets, New Labour is minded to poison us all in the name of reducing tooth decay.

"As well as the risks, water fluoridation denies people their right to refuse or give consent to medication, be it for themselves or their offspring.

"This is illegal under the 1998 Human Rights Act."

But, in a preface to the bill, Margaret Beckett, secretary of state of the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, declared the provisions of the water bill compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

If the new bill becomes law it would fall to Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire Strategic Health Authority to decide whether or not water companies should fluoridate water in the Stroud Valleys.

However, health authority spokesman Caroline Thomas said the authority did not regard water fluoridation as a near term priority for the area.

She explained: ""We think areas of poor oral health would be keener to consider it more quickly than our area which has relatively good oral health.

"Before we would consider it locally there would have to be full analysis of the costs and benefits of it."

But she added the authority would not rule out fluoridation of the water as a longer-term option.

"It is a proven public health measure and it has been endorsed by lots of international organisations, like the World Health Organisation, so we fully appreciate the benefits of it," she said.

But, Stroud nutritional therapist Helen Cranston believes fluoridating water is the wrong way of addressing the problem of dental decay.

She believes the government should concentrate on eliminating the causes of tooth decay rather than what she described as a highly controversial technical fix for the symptoms.

She said: "Poverty and the over-availability of addictive, sugar-rich foods are significant causes of tooth decay. "Better dental care, nutrition and education is what we need, not fluoridation."

Severn Trent Water, which supplies the Five Valleys area, would be the company on the receiving end of any order to fluoridate.

Caroline Hosie, a company spokesman, said: "The health authority are the health experts and we would follow their advice.

"If this bill becomes law and we were required to fluoridate the water then we would obey that law."

But the anti-fluoride campaign group National Pure Water Association questions why if fluoride is in the interests of the nation's health the government is offering indemnity to water companies.

Campaign director Jane Jones points out that if people successfully sue because of effects ascribed to fluoride, it will be the taxpayer that foots the bill.

She said: "It's evil and wicked what they are doing. The science is rubbish and most importantly fluoridation would deny every individual the right to choose or refuse what medication they take.

"We are not talking typhoid here. We are talking tooth decay. It is not a life-threatening condition."

However, department of health spokesman Rachel Clinton said the chief medical and dental officers had asked the Medical Control Agency to produce a report on the positive and negative effects of fluoride in water.

It is due to be published this autumn before the MPs debate the bill in the House of Commons on September 8.

She said: "If and when the bill gets passed it will mean strategic health authorities who are carrying out the consultation will be armed with the most up to date information on the health effects of fluoride in the water."

And, in a bid to mollify critics, she added: "Local communities are going to be consulted extensively before any fluoridation takes place and will be given all the information."

Stroud District Council is to invite health authority and water company representatives, alongside other speakers, to a fluoridation policy panel being held at Ebley Mill on Tuesday, September 30.