Page 4549 - Week 15 - Thursday, 22 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR WOOD (5.42): Mr Speaker, when people writing in newspapers around Australia want to have a cheap shot at the ACT the on again off again nature of adding fluoride to the ACT's water is one of the things they regurgitate. This is something I would wish to avoid in the future. We are onto an on again off again situation; here we go once more. The Standing Committee on Social Policy some time ago sought an extension of its reporting date since there was interest in America and Australia about a report of the national toxicology program in the US - a very serious, well conducted study. Interim statements came down. We waited for a report. We have a clear statement of that report. The massive data is yet to be assembled in a consolidated form but an interim statement has been released which is quite clear.
Having received that from the most authoritative bodies, the committee, at a recent meeting, determined that it should aim to meet the reporting date of 29 November. It is only a week away. As it turns out, we are going to have the most severe difficulties even reaching that date. It may be that we will come back, but certainly, in my view, 13 December - the last sitting day this year - is the absolute deadline for getting this report in. Even if we agree on the final report at our meeting on Sunday, as I hope we will, the following Thursday is going to be a tight deadline to meet. But I will come back to the Assembly; we do not want to tie that into this debate. Mr Speaker, perhaps I should not say this, but let me tell you that the committee voted three to one to try to meet that reporting date and we had a clear impression from the fifth member that this was the desire of that person also.
Mr Stevenson quoted equivocal evidence of that scientific study in America. Let me quote you something about the word "equivocal". I quote from a letter from Dr A. L. Black, who is chairman of the National Health and Medical Research Council committee on toxicity. Not surprisingly, the National Health and Medical Research Council working party on fluoride sought the advice of the experts in another committee. I quote from that report:
The Committee noted that the NTPs Board of Scientific Counsellors' Technical Reports Review Panel had concurred with the NTP conclusions of -
and they quote -
"equivocal evidence of carcinogenic activity" in male rats, "no evidence of carcinogenic activity in female rats or in male and female mice".
This is the key part:
According to NTP criteria, "equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity is demonstrated by studies that are interpreted as showing no chemically-related increase in malignant or benign neoplasms".
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .