Page 1784 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 18 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In relation to the substantive issue, I find it very difficult not to accept that fluoride is beneficial for teeth. I have studied a welter of material over the last four or five weeks in relation to this and I find that I have grave problems in not accepting that, if it is taken out of the water supply, there will be an increase in dental caries. I have also talked to a number of people and got a number of statements from people who do appear to be allergic to it, and I also accept that indeed some people are allergic to fluoride. It will certainly be interesting to see what is put before the committee in relation to these matters.
I was interested in some figures I was given in relation to a study taken in Wick, Scotland, where fluoride was taken out of the water in 1979 and a study was done some six years later which indicated a 40 per cent increase in five- and six-year-olds in terms of dental caries. The area had become a richer area. Diet problems, so I am told, were very similar to Australia's.
When organisations like the AMA, the Dental Association and the Pharmacy Association all indicate that fluoride is good for your teeth, I have trouble seeing any great conspiracy there. It seems somewhat illogical. As I said, I also accept that there are people who are affected adversely by fluoride.
Dr Kinloch has talked about such things as doubling, halving, taking it out, leaving it in at exactly the same level. That is, obviously, a very important issue for the committee to look at, and there are a number of studies coming down shortly which will be put before this committee, no doubt. There are large numbers of people in the Canberra community - professional people in the areas of dentistry, medicine and pharmacy, individuals and bodies - who will put a contrary view for the committee to carefully consider. I personally will be following with a lot of interest the evidence that is put before the committee. There has been some talk today of a level playing field. I think one area where we were wrong as an Assembly was in establishing a committee after fluoride was taken out, because when a situation has existed for 25 years there is a status quo. When you consider whether you do one thing or the other to alter that status quo, while you are considering what you are to do the status quo remains.
There has been a lot of media hysteria engendered over this debate, but I think one consistent, solid and very justifiable criticism that has come through in relation to the Assembly's handling of this issue is: for goodness sake, why didn't you leave the fluoride in there while the issue was looked at by a committee, then make a decision, and either leave it in, alter it or take it out? I think the logic is irrefutable, I accept it, and that is the rationale behind this Bill which Mr Kaine has put forward.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .