Page 2727 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
that some isolated cases of skeletal fluorosis may be occurring in individuals with either a high long-term intake or a particular metabolic susceptibility, no cases have been reported in Australia.
This major conclusion reiterates the NHMRC's previous viewpoint, although it is possible that it might consider funding a major independent study of a community that decided to opt for a lower level.
As I said in my opening remarks, the Government's commitment to maintaining a high standard of public health is at the heart of the legislation. The fluoride debate in the community is unlikely to go away. Certainly, after we have finished debating the issue in this place it will continue to be a major topic of conversation in the community and in academic fields. There is a need to monitor the total ingestion of fluoride - from the water, infant formulas and toothpaste to the many proprietary fluoride supplements that are on the market today. This is an education process - the same as people who are overweight must be educated to monitor their intake of sugar and carbohydrates. It is an education process that is specifically recommended by the NHMRC report, and one that this Government will be encouraging in the Board of Health's dental services as well as in the private sector.
The Government looks to the greater community good. It has been clearly shown that fluoride added to the community water supply in the concentration of one part per million has no deleterious effect on health. On the contrary, it has been shown to improve resistance to dental caries to a marked degree, especially in children. This has been demonstrated for nearly 30 years in our own Canberra community.
In conclusion, I would like to pay tribute to the members of the Standing Committee on Social Policy for the deliberation and research they have undertaken in this matter and thank them for their objective report, which includes the appendix setting out a dissenting view from one committee member. I have to say that I do not find much in that dissenting report convincing.
Mr Stevenson: You have not read it.
MR BERRY: I did, too.
Mr Stevenson: You have not read it, Wayne, and you know it. Would you like 20 questions?
MR BERRY: I have. I must say that I did not read it twice - and I am not prepared to take questions on it either. But I have to say, Dennis, that I know where you are coming from - I think.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .