Page 2728 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I would also like to acknowledge the support from the general community, evidenced by the many calls and letters received in my office and also by other members of the Assembly, and to assure those who have presented an opposing viewpoint that their concerns have not gone unheeded. Mr Speaker, I commend the Bills. I think they deserve support.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Detail Stage
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.
Clause 4
DR KINLOCH (10.30): I move the following amendment:
Clause 4, page 2, line 10, proposed paragraph 74D(b), omit "1 milligram", substitute "0.5 of a milligram".
I think it would be unkind of me to go on at great length at this time of the night. Much has already been said. May I immediately remind Mr Berry and members of the Labor Party that the overwhelming majority here now supports fluoridation in the water. That is one of the outcomes of the committee report. The question now is: What percentage of fluoride in the water? There is no perfect percentage. This depends on, first of all, naturally occurring fluoride; secondly, temperature and climate; and, thirdly, the amounts of additional fluoride in a range of substances including tea, and, of course, fluoridated dentifrices - and Mrs Nolan has spoken well to that.
Furthermore, the amount of fluoride and the effect of fluoride are bound to vary depending on age, bulk, gender, body weight and state of health. What, then, is the principle; how do we arrive at what the best percentage is? At best, it is a well-informed guess. One obvious point of reference is the "Review of Fluoride - Benefits and Risks" by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. That department advocated a rate of between 0.7 and 1.2 parts per million. The report recommended that the US Public Health Service "continue to support optimal fluoridation of drinking water" - and there is a range of 0.5 there. So, that report recognises that you cannot neatly pick a specific point and say, "That is the best possible point".
There are two premises to consider as we come to this percentage question. One premise is that fluoride is a beneficial substance in relation to preventing tooth decay. Not everyone here agrees with that. The great majority
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .