Fluoridation

House of Lords written question – answered on 20th July 2009.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Crossbench

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Darzi of Denham on 20 May (WA 323—4), whether the Chief Dental Officer will now remove the claim in paragraph 5 of his February 2008 letter to strategic health authorities, primary care trusts and others (Gateway 9361), that the York review confirmed that there was "no evidence of any risk to health"; and whether he will notify the original recipients of the revision.

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Darzi of Denham on 18 May (WA 254) in which they rely on public statements made by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) about its systematic review of fluoridation, whether they also accept the public statements by scientists involved with the York review on which the NHMRC explicitly based its findings that "the review did not show water fluoridation to be safe", and that the evidence for any reduction in dental health inequalities was "of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable".

Photo of Lord Darzi of Denham Lord Darzi of Denham Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health)

The Chief Dental Officer is considering issuing further information to the National Health Service in the light of lessons learnt from the South Central Strategic Health Authority's consultation on fluoridation, research published since the York review and statements made by the scientists involved in the review.

Does this answer the above question?

Yes0 people think so

No0 people think not

Would you like to ask a question like this yourself? Use our Freedom of Information site.

Annotations

Jane Birkby
Posted on 22 Jul 2009 1:06 am (Report this annotation)

Lord Darzi should call a halt to fluoridation forthwith, because it is not safe for the public to ingest.