Page 58 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 12 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There is no doubt that the spreading of fluoride through the reticulated water supply is the most effective way of getting that beneficial substance to the community. Therefore, I totally support the recommendation of the committee that we continue to provide fluoride through our water supply. I note that there are studies indicating that the rate of dental caries is decreasing in areas of no water fluoridation. There have been a number of sensible reasons advanced for that.
I note also that the impact of fluoride, once very great but still very strong, is now, nevertheless, lessened somewhat, although still very significant. The committee had drawn to its attention that other sources of fluoride, notably toothpaste, are having considerable impact on the dental health of our young people and perhaps the older population. Indeed, it is very difficult to get toothpaste that is not fluoridated. You will note recommendations in the report concerning toothpaste; its availability and the way in which it should be marketed.
I would point out to you that the level of fluoride exposure that we have cannot be accurately assessed solely on the fluoride content of drinking water in this area or any area. There is no doubt that people - and that includes people in the ACT - are ingesting more fluoride than they did when it was introduced in 1964. There are just so many other sources of fluoride. A great deal of our debate has centred on health matters. I accept the statement in the report that there is no substantial evidence of adverse health effects.
I took the view that was presented to us that it is, nevertheless, sensible to keep any additive at the lowest level that will achieve maximum effect. That really is the basis of my decision to support fluoridation at half a part per million. We do not need to put in any more. We are now getting more fluoride into our system. Why do we need to put more fluoride into the water than we really need? I am not convinced that there is a great deal of difference between 0.5 and one part. I do not think that would make a great deal of difference to our health.
I think it was entirely sensible to recommend that that level be now established at 0.5 parts per million. We need to remember that the level of one part per million was never established irrevocably and is always open to review. I believe that the NHMRC expected that there would be, on their figures, a minor decline in dental health if the level was reduced. The figures we quote in the report say that there may be 215 more affected teeth per thousand 12-year-olds over a period of five to 10 years. That is undesirable, but I do not believe that it is highly significant. Given that the ACT has a very good school dental service and is a discrete community that can be educated, if needs be, to be just a little more careful, I do not think that the careful monitoring we must have will show any real decline.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .