Page 2725 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
in the water until 31 August, so as to have the benefit of the NHMRC report and subsequent community discussion on the issue. Both reports recommended continuation of fluoridation of Canberra's water supplies.
Further, they both addressed the problem of ingesting extra fluoride from supplements, especially fluoridated toothpaste and infant formulas, and also recommended that further research be done on the effectiveness and level of fluoride addition to public water supplies. An apparent difference in recommendations was the concentration at which fluoride should be added. The standing committee recommended 0.5 parts per million, or 0.5 milligrams per litre. The NHMRC report maintained its previous recommended level of one part per million, or one milligram per litre.
The terminology in the Bills before the Assembly is expressed in milligrams per litre as this is considered a more accurate expression of the level of concentration. However, the NHMRC recommendation was qualified by the clause, "subject, as in the past, to modulation in accordance with climatic variation".
A similar report, prepared by the Department of Health and Human Services in the United States and titled "Review of Fluoride - Benefits and Risks" recommended inclusion of fluoride in community water supplies in a concentration ranging from 0.7 parts per million to 1.2 parts per million. This report qualified the level of concentration with the clause, "depending on daily air temperature for a geographic area".
So, it can be seen that both reports from the scientific bodies qualified their assessment of the concentration according to local climate conditions and the two Australian studies supported fluoridation of community water supplies within the broad range of the report from America.
The Government has decided to accept the recommendation of the NHMRC, but this is not to be seen as a denigration of the recommendation of the standing committee with its lower preferred concentration. The NHMRC recommendation has been accepted primarily because it is the peak scientific research body in the field in Australia, and governments have consistently accepted the recommendations of this world renowned body on this and other matters. It is only a matter of fortunate coincidence that another scientific study had come up with a similar conclusion at about the same time.
These Bills, therefore, are to repeal the legislation that allowed reintroduction of fluoride pending the receipt and discussion of the standing committee and the NHMRC reports, as they effectively expire on the 31st of this month, and to amend the parent legislation to allow fluoride to be reintroduced to the water on a permanent basis, without the need to go to a referendum.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .