Page 57 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 12 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
conspiracies, deceit, professional misconduct and fraud. All of these claims have crossed my desk as I read and listen to people.
I might hasten to add that I have also heard a great deal of quite sound information from people who are opposed to the use of fluoride. Justice Crisp also heard some of this nonsense in the Tasmanian royal commission some years ago. He said that fluoride had been responsible for so many claims, and he put it this way, "From dandruff to tinea, from blindness to bed-wetting, from sterility to stammering. Most known ills to which the flesh is heir have been laid at its door". I say with some sincere regret that I think anti-fluoridationists are, in many ways, their own worst enemies. The history of the debate shows that.
I know of that from the time many years ago when the question of fluoride was first drawn to my attention. There are so many overstatements that the broader community often rejects them as nonsense and the inclination is for people to overlook the sensible things that are said. I believe that the established scientific community does not take the arguments of those opposed to fluoride seriously, for the reasons that I have indicated. I think that is a regret, because the voices of those who are concerned about fluoride do need to be heard.
The NHMRC, I believe, properly reviewed the literature. As part of our report we considered their interim report quite seriously. That report rejected recent claims expressing lack of confidence in the benefits of fluoride and concern about safety. Can I say, for my part, that I set aside the less serious material that came to us as far as I possibly could. I genuinely set out to do that so as not to have it sitting in the back of my mind. I set out to take all other material seriously. I think I read everything that came to me, except that I did not read all the material in various books that were provided.
I encouraged those who gave evidence at the hearings - and very substantially they were people opposed to fluoride - by asking questions that would elaborate on their views. I did not in any way set out to denigrate witnesses. Indeed, our screening ensured that people who came to our committee were generally more reputable than some of the material that we received. After all that, we came to the time, only a little while ago, when we had to make our decisions based on the vast range of material that we had received. Let me summarise for you the views that I came to. I believe that fluoride delivered through water supply has been of enormous benefit to the dental health of our young people. There seems to be increasing evidence - and I am interested in this - that there is also benefit for the more mature population.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .