Page 2716 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
joined that group, and unfortunately so has the NHMRC. It is held up as the epitome of all science in our community. Unfortunately, it is made up of human beings with failings. As I have said, Professor Douglas, who was a member of the NHMRC committee, is aware of and has reported on this particular report. So, for it and these members of this Assembly to claim that the NHMRC could find no evidence of ill effect is absolute rubbish.
Mr Humphries: They have; that is what they said.
MR PROWSE: They said that, and I challenge it. You should look further, because I presented this to all members of the Assembly in my opening speech on this issue. If you have not read it, you choose to ignore it, as others have done.
Mr Duby: Should this not go through the Chair?
MR PROWSE: That is the point that I would make, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Another of the papers that Mr Humphries and Mr Berry have held up to us as the authoritative documents as to why we should have fluoride at the rate that they recommend is this report from the study conducted in the United States, "Review of Fluoride - Benefits and Risks - report of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Fluoride of the Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs, Public Health Service". This has been thrown up to us as the reason why we should stick with fluoride at one part per million. I think I have destroyed the NHMRC argument; but, if I have not, it remains for the learned member opposite to read this report in the dental health journal.
Mr Collaery: Who did you call "learned"?
MR PROWSE: Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker: We are all learned, in different degrees, unfortunately.
Mr Berry: Some of us are more learned than others.
MR PROWSE: That is what I am saying. The Government was relying on the report from the United States to support some of the claims for fluoride efficacy in control of dental caries. I do not argue their position; I am not involved in that issue at all. I am not particularly interested one way or the other. They do recognise here, though, the research on the risks of fluoride. This is in the report that Mr Berry has submitted to us as the reason why he has taken such a strong stand on the rate of one part per million.
They recommend research into the risks of fluoride. They say that the community that is investigating fluoride should develop a method of quantitatively identifying dental fluorosis that is specific, reliable and acceptable to the public. In other words, they have not done that yet. They also recommend the continuation of the study of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .