Page 635 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 20 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES (12.14): Madam Speaker, my speeches have less visual content than do Mr Moore's and I will not compete at that level. I think that was an admission by Mr Moore that he does not really have any good arguments against fluoride left. He acknowledges that the time has come for us in this Assembly to get sensible again and go for the view expressed by the majority of experts, that we should have that level added to our water once again.
Ms Szuty said in this debate that the experts are not sure. In a real sense, Madam Speaker, it is true that there is some difference of view among some people about what we should do with fluoride in the water supply. But, if Ms Szuty were to be constrained in everything she did by the appearance of some who disagreed with the majority point of view in technical matters or matters of expertise, she would not vote on anything in this Assembly, I suspect.
The fact of life is that the experts are close to united on what should be done about fluoride, and that is that it ought to be added to the water supply in order to provide protection against dental caries. I want to quote from the working party of the NHMRC which reported on this matter last year. That, of course, is the peak scientific research body in Australia. That is the body which, above any other, ought to be able to advise this Assembly and others about the best policy to pursue with respect to the properties of fluoride in our water supply, and I want to quote from that report. The first report said:
The application of 1 ppm fluoride to water has provided a public health measure of apparently great efficacy. Repeatedly, in observational and experimental studies, in which caries experience has been monitored, the standard index of decayed, missing and filled teeth or surfaces in children who have been exposed to fluoridated water supplies has fallen substantially, and the reported differences between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas have led to the inference that fluoridated water was the key determinant of the fall.
The second report, in November 1990 - I think it was 1991, in fact - said:
In the assessment of the Working Group, the aggregate evidence establishes that fluoridation of water to around 1 ppm has, in the past, conferred a substantial protective effect against dental caries. The evidence for this protective effect is strongest in childhood, reflecting the preponderance of research in this age-group. In recent decades, the magnitude of the beneficial effect of water fluoridation appears to have decreased, as the pattern of dental disease has changed and as fluoride has become widely available from a number of discretionary sources. Nevertheless, water fluoridation continues to contribute to the prevention of dental caries, and therefore to provide an important, community-wide, and readily achievable foundation to dental public health.
Its conclusion about the level of fluoride in the water supply is this:
There is no evidence of adverse health effects attributable to fluoride in communities exposed to a combination of fluoridated water (1 ppm) and contemporary discretionary sources of fluoride.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .