Draft NHMRC Public Statement 2017: Water fluoridation and human health in Australia submission

ID:

Personal Details

First Name:

Hayley

Last Name:

Green

Question 1

Q1. A. The draft Public Statement is presented in a format and manner that is useful, and is easy to read and understand:

Disagree

Overarching/General comments on the Public Statement:

The draft Public Statement is not presented in a manner which is useful or easy to understand as it is inaccurate and misleading.

Comments on a particular section of the Public Statement:

NHMRC statement

NH''MRC strongly recommends community water fluoridation as a safe, effective and ethical way to help

reduce tooth decay across the population.''

This part of the statement is misleading. MANY credible sources show community water fluoridation is not safe to all consumers. According to the highly credible Cochrane Review, community water fluoridation is not effective to those over 3 years old.

Additionally, I don't know how the word 'ethical' can be added to the statement. As many countries around the world have demonstrated by discontinuing water fluoridation because they deemed it unethical. Purposefully adding an industrial waste chemical into the public water supply, forcing all consumers from babies to the elderly, who don't know that the public water is fluoridated, and no way to opt out of injesting this chemical.

Community water fluoridation and infant formula in Australia

Again, highly unethical to not warn parents of bottle-fed babies not to use a fluoridated water. A similar warning is put on water bills in towns in the United States. As a result of the NHMRC not warning the public of this, many children will develop dental fluorosis.

Question 2

Q2. A. The boxed ‘NHMRC statement’ (page one) in the draft Public Statement is justified and supported by the evidence in the Information Paper: Effects of Water Fluoridation on Dental and Other Human Health Outcomes :

Disagree

Q2. B. If disagree or neutral, please provide recent scientific evidence not previously submitted to NHMRC. Refer to what is ‘Out of scope for this public consultation’ below:

The NHMRC has cherry picked the world wide data to come to their public statement. Leaving out credible data which doesn't suit your outcome is misleading and negliagent.

Question 3

Q3. A. For policy makers, the draft Public Statement provides sufficient information to support decision making in your jurisdiction or local area:

Disagree

Overarching/General comments on the Public Statement:

The draft Public Statement does not provide sufficient information to support decision makers in my or any area, because it leaves out important data which would give a decision maker a full scope to enable them to come to an unbiased decision.

Comments on a particular section of the Public Statement:

Question 4

Q4. How could the Public Statement be effectively disseminated?:

Who would find the draft Public Statement useful?

No one would find the information contained in this public statement useful as it's misleading. The dissemination of the current public statement would mislead health care professionals, law makers, teachers, child care workers and the public into believing that water fluordation is safe, effective and ethical.

Question 5

Q5. Is there any other information that may be useful to include in the draft Public Statement? If so, please provide details:

Starting again and including all the credible data which the NHMRC discarded previously would help.

NHMRC Public Consultations

Draft NHMRC Public Statement 2017: Water fluoridation and human health in Australia submission