A CALL for a mature debate over the level of fluoride in London’s water has been voiced by Richmond’s member of the London Assembly, Cllr Tony Arbour.

An investigative report into the effects of adding fluoride to the borough’s drinking water is due to be published within the next two weeks.

Although five million people in Britain already have fluoride added to their water, Londoners do not. Those who are opposed to the addition of fluoride to water argue that for many British people there are strong religious convictions that proscribe the adulteration of water and that the long-term impact has not been fully investigated.

Those who are in favour of fluoridation claim that it is the most effective public health measure in reducing dental decay and for tackling oral health inequalities and that without fluoridation, hundreds of thousands of children have a life of poor dental health, low self-esteem and other related health and social problems.

After a preliminary and emotive discussion, the London Assembly recently decided to investigate the matter further, and their report was scheduled to return at the end of October.

Cllr Arbour, who is also Richmond council leader, said: "It is paramount that the debate into the addition of fluoride to water does not turn into a hysterical shouting match, whereby the proponents and opponents try to out argue each other.

"We firstly need to ascertain whether or not it is safe for Richmond’s water to have fluoride added.

“If it is, then the considerations of those who might have concerns need to be taken into account."

He concluded: "It is imperative that the debate into this is handled maturely and I hope other political parties will not make knee jerk comments in a bid to gain publicity."

A report has been commissioned to examine the evidence including the association between child poverty and severe tooth decay, the association between water fluoridation and reduction of child tooth decay, the association between water fluoridation and unintended medical side effects and also to consider the legal and ethical implications of water fluoridation and tooth decay.

A spokesman stressed: "This is the start of the debate and is not a conclusion at all. It’s possible fluoridation may have a greater effect in boroughs with higher deprivation levels but we are unsure and await the conclusions of the report, as no London studies have been done yet to establish the effects."