Page 631 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 20 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON: Judge Jauncey was the judge who heard the longest fluoride case in our history in Edinburgh's Court of Sessions. In June 1983 he said:
"... to supply water which had been treated for the purpose of improving the general health of the consumers", since there would then be "no reason why they should not add thereto any substance which they had genuine reason for believing was likely to improve the health of some or all of the consumers ...
I grant totally that many people sincerely believe that fluoride prevents tooth decay. Many people sincerely believe that they should force every man, woman, child, animal and plant to take a regular dose of fluoride. But is that the thing we should do?
I had intended to talk only on the freedom of choice aspect, because that is one that has never been handled effectively by people who promote fluoridation. It cannot be, because it is an individual's right to determine what drugs they take. We are not talking about treating the water; we are talking about treating the person. It is not suggested that dental caries is a contagious disease.
Has anyone looked at whether or not fluoridation works? It is fascinating that in 1982, in June, in Boston in America, there was an international symposium. People from many countries around the world gathered to look at one aspect of dental health - why there are less caries in children's teeth. What did they decide? They decided that all around the world children's teeth are getting better - well, in nearly all countries around the world. There were some exceptions, and those exceptions - leaving aside one which we do not know - were all countries where there was increased importation and use of a particular white substance that often goes on the top of people's cornflakes, sugar. It showed that in undeveloped countries you import and use more sugar, and you get an increase in the number of holes in children's teeth. Nearly all other countries throughout the world showed a decrease. That is an interesting thing.
This is the important point: Is it that in all other countries around the world they have fluoride? If so, we could safely say, "Well, it looks like it was caused by fluoride. The improvement throughout the world is caused by fluoride". But we come up with the startling fact that a lot of people do not know, that a lot of people have not been made aware of - that less than 5 per cent of the world's children are artificially fluoridated. Less than 5 per cent get fluoride; yet the vast majority of children are getting better teeth. Indeed, the studies that were presented at that international symposium in Boston showed that it did not really matter whether there was fluoride in the water in one city and none in the water of a city next-door; children's teeth were getting better.
Mrs Carnell: At what rates?
MR STEVENSON: That is an interesting point. Kate Carnell said, "At what rates?". The interesting thing is that sometimes you found that the rate of improvement in non-fluoridated areas was slightly better than the rate of improvement - - -
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Stevenson, excuse me. I do not like to interrupt you, but I would like to remind you that you are supposed to be addressing the chamber. Would you keep that in mind, please.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .