Page 2713 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
people had false teeth by their early twenties". It struck me that there was a message of some sort in that, which clearly is that fluoride used in water or topical applications reduces the rate of dental caries.
A matter of concern to the committee was the repeated claims that we heard about the effect of fluoride on health. I acknowledge that quite a number of people came to the committee - indeed, we sought them out and asked them to come - and explained to us health problems that they believed had arisen because of the use of fluoride. I am not resolved in my view on that. While matters have been pointed out to me, I am not convinced that there is extensive scientific validation of the points that they raised. But obviously we listened to what those people said.
The committee came to a conclusion that fluoride should be added to the drinking water because it was beneficial for dental health. It was not a unanimous decision, bearing in mind Mr Stevenson's position in the committee; but that recommendation was subsequently made. After that we had to decide at what level the fluoride was to be added to the water. Members of that committee know, and the minutes of the committee record in brief, the debate that occurred on that. The minutes record how we had at first established that our recommended level would be one part per million, the level that is currently imposed.
After debate, consideration and reconsideration, that recommendation was, as we know, amended to read 0.5 parts per million. I am quite comfortable with it being within that range of 0.5 parts per million to one part per million. I have no difficulty with the addition of fluoride anywhere within that range. I believe that it provides benefits for teeth without imposing any risks on the health of people who consume the water.
I am well aware that in Australia, as in the United States, the premier scientific bodies that advise governments on these matters have recommended that the dose should be at the rate of one part per million. I have read their reports, and I accept those. So, any recommendation that the level be at that rate is one with which I obviously have no difficulty, because that remains consistently the quality advice that is given to government. The committee had its reasons for supporting the rate of 0.5 parts per million, but my position is not in any way of difficulty for me.
I believe that one of the outcomes of the committee report could well be the need to look at the total fluoride intake. We do not know, because it was never evaluated, the level of fluoride intake of Canberrans before 1964 when fluoride was introduced. We do not know what the level is today, but I think there is little doubt that it is more now than it was then. That is one of the reasons for the recommendation of the committee that we should look at the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .