Page 1508 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 27 September 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
So, following the logic of the Chief Minister's argument and in order to protect civil liberties, I wish to remove fluoride from the water and then look at the reasons why, for example, Holland has eliminated fluoride from the water and also whether there are preferable ways to deliver that medication if it is good medication. I would want to see that proven.
I am also worried about the bullying, both from the pro-fluoride people and from the anti-fluoride people. I do not want to be pressured. I want to have a chance to look at this evidence carefully and thoughtfully and without at the same time having the very substance which is being examined continuing to be delivered. So, my reason for supporting the Bill is partly one of delay, of wanting to make sure that over a good period of time there can be a fair look at the matter without the existence of the fluoride in the water while we are doing that.
I do respect Mr Humphries' arguments. I join with him in not wanting to come to any conclusion which is unscientific. It is clear to me, however, that the research data is not conclusive. Some research data is conclusive in one direction, especially if it is related to the subject only of caries. Some research data is conclusive in the other direction if it is not related to the question of caries, but the question of caries is itself dubious, as we have heard from some of the comments, especially those made by Mr Moore.
Both sides, pro-fluoride and anti-fluoride, have been exaggerated and I would like to see studies which do not concentrate on the limited area of caries. The 1984 booklet has been raised by several speakers, and I have looked at it. I do not find it a convincing booklet. We did raise, in the group that came to us, a question about some of the articles in the booklet. I asked specifically that some articles be given and they said that they were too technical. I said, "Well, what material can you give me that isn't technical but really goes beyond the simplicities of that booklet?". For instance, Down's syndrome, about which I have particular concern, was dismissed in a couple of sentences. I just did not think the material was adequate for the kind of discussion we were having.
So what I am asking is that, given the lack of public consultation in the first instance and given the lack of certainty about the matter, we now remove fluoride from the water and at that point, beginning as soon as possible, look most carefully at objective evidence from around the world, to be able to come to some conclusion eventually. Unhappily, one area about which it is very hard to make conclusions is the area which is related to the long-range effects of fluoride. We have only 20, 30, 40 years of evidence. The same kind of thing is true for birth control pills and so forth. However, that research, presumably, will go ahead. But for the moment I will certainly support
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .