Page 1830 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 18 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
free fluoride tablets to the population in that area, and the cost per annum is $3,500 - a little different from the $2.5m that was suggested by the Minister. What an exaggeration!
Mr Berry: What was the figure?
MR PROWSE: Three and a half thousand dollars, and that information came directly from the clerks of those councils involved.
I will tackle Mr Stefaniak next. No-one is saying that fluoride does not affect teeth. I did not say that; no-one has said it. There is proof that it affects teeth. What we are saying is: are the side effects worse? That is the question. He mentioned Wick in Scotland - a very interesting one. That is part of the pro-fluoride lobby information. Unfortunately, it is incorrect. The Wick statement was initiated by one dentist three years earlier than this statement from the Glasgow Herald of 20 August 1988. I would like to table this. It declared that a nationally coordinated exercise involving all of Scotland's 15 health boards - I repeat, not one dentist but all of Scotland's 15 health boards - was welcomed by the Scottish Health Minister, Mr Michael Forsyth. It states:
The Minister said that in 1983 only 24% of five year olds across the whole of Scotland had no cavities or fillings.
Further in this article it says that it improved by 20 per cent in 1987; it improved to 44 per cent. I will wait for Mr Duby to finish so that I can get this message to the Minister for Health because he is not open to these ideas normally.
Mr Duby: I am seeking further information.
MR PROWSE: Thank you, Mr Duby. So here we have a statement by the Minister for Health in Scotland that there was an improvement of 20 per cent in 1987 over the 1983 figures, which gave 44 per cent of five-year-olds across Scotland as having no cavities or fillings. That is interesting because fluoride was switched off in Scotland in 1979. That statement can be challenged, I suggest, because it is not written in the dental journal, but are we saying that we cannot rely on any information other than that provided by the dentists? There is the statement, and I put it to Mr Stefaniak to please check his facts. If you are going to enter this debate, please check your facts; otherwise you will make a fool of yourself.
The next thing I would like to table is a letter from Abbott Laboratories, Scientific Divisions, North Chicago, Illinois, dated 18 June 1963. We have been challenged in that, because this is from 1963, obviously it is outdated. Fluoride has not changed; neither have the people. This is current information. I would like to table this letter from Abbott Laboratories.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .