THE controversial issue of fluoridating drinking water is on the agenda again in North Yorkshire - ten years after sparking large-scale protests across the county.

Amendments to the Water Industry Act, which have gone through Parliament recently, give water companies adding fluoride to supplies indemnity against any legal action.

The aim of adding fluoride to drinking water is to improve dental health by trying to prevent tooth decay.

Now councillors want North Yorkshire County Council to reaffirm its disagreement with fluoridation and write to Secretary of State for Health John Reid and local MPs.

A motion will go before the quarterly meeting of the full council on Wednesday, asking for the council to reiterate its opposition to fluoridation which, if introduced, would affect more than half a million people in the county.

The issue caused major controversy in North Yorkshire in 1993 when the county's Health Authority announced that it would back proposals to fluoridate the water.

A huge public outcry followed and Yorkshire Water rejected the idea in 1995.

One of the key campaigners against it, Councillor Richard Hall, put forward the county council motion.

He said yesterday: "It is compulsory medication without informed consent.

"We have heard from the evidence from expert testimony that, at the very least, it causes problems with the thyroid.

"There is also evidence about the way it causes harm to babies, especially bottle-fed babies, because they would consume far more fluoride. It is evidence like this that makes me realise we should not actually be compulsorily medicating people."

Campaigners said there could be numerous outcomes of fluoridating water, including effects on the immune system, reproductive and birth defects and effects on the kidneys.

But a Medical Research Council working group report said: "There is no evidence for any significant health effects of this type."

Yorkshire Water has said the decision to fluoridate supplies should be taken by the Government and health authorities.

Council officers have recommended that the motion be supported and have put together evidence that will be discussed at next week's meeting.