Page 1489 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 27 September 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
On 6 July 1989, Doctors Mark Diesendorf, John Colquhoun and Philip Sutton wrote a letter to Professor John Chalmers, chairman of the National Health and Medical Research Council, headed "Exaggeration of the effectiveness of water fluoridation". Amongst other things it suggested that the recommendations of the council had been unscientific and biased.
These three professionals are closely associated with Mr Prowse, who has presented the Bill to this house. As a result of Mr Prowse's private member's Bill, three professionals who are opposed to fluoridation have approached the National Health and Medical Research Council - the premier group, I think all members would admit. Professor Chalmers sent the letter to Mr David Roder, director of the epidemiological branch of the Health Commission of South Australia, for review, and to Professor Tony McMichael, professor of occupational and environmental health at the University of Adelaide. Professor Chalmers has since invited Professor McMichael to chair a working group for the National Health and Medical Research Council to examine the allegations contained in the letter. Now what is happening, of course, is that there is an attempt to bully this sort of amendment through this house and impose another will on the people of Canberra while an eminent group is considering the matter.
This will be the third group that the council has convened since 1979 to review the council's position on the fluoridation of domestic water supplies. In the two previous reviews, in 1979 and 1984, the council reaffirmed its strong view that fluoridation of water supplies at the recommended level was a safe and effective way of controlling dental decay. It may be that there is some fear that the National Health and Medical Research Council might come to the same decision again, but the proper decision is to wait and find out what this premier group will find in relation to fluoridation.
I mention this in some detail because the proposed Bill, if passed, will effectively remove fluoride from our water supply and, as I said, the views of the foremost body will not be considered in the debate. It would therefore be premature and irresponsible for this house to make a decision on the question without first hearing the result of the working group's findings, which can be examined and evaluated along with public submissions that other organisations and individuals may care to place before an appropriate committee of the house.
When Mr Prowse introduced this Bill on 23 August, his speech contained a number of statements which should be considered in more detail. He said that fluoride is a poison of high toxicity, quoting the World Health Organisation as his source. What was omitted - I think Mr Prowse will agree with me on this - was that the WHO said that poisoning and toxicity are related to dose. The WHO strongly recommends the addition of fluoride to domestic
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .