Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-13-Speech-2-237"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040113.11.2-237"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"I thank the Commissioner for answering my question here today. I am still not satisfied, however. In answer to a parliamentary question – PQ 1434/00 – put in May 2000, you said, Commissioner, that you would examine whether there was any significant new evidence on artificial fluoridation. This would, you said, include 'obtaining an appropriate update by consulting the Commission's Scientific Committee for Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment'. Apparently, you did not consult that committee, you went immediately to the WHO and you are still quoting what it considers to be desirable levels.
The evidence is extremely shaky in this area. Yes, the scientific jury is out, but 13 out of 23 developing countries working under the WHO guidelines have serious problems with fluoride poisoning, or fluorosis, in the dental care of their people. In my own country fluorosis is becoming an increasing dental problem, particularly in teenagers.
I would ask you to look particularly at the problem of neonates and infants, who are being fed milk formula from reconstituted, fluoridated tap water. Given that it constitutes a huge proportion of their diet, fluoridated tap water that is not inspected, in which the levels of fluoride are not regularly checked, is a serious health risk to our neonates and infants in Ireland and in parts of the UK where they still fluoridate tap water.
As well as the ethical question of mass-medicating members of the public, who do not want fluoridation in their tap water, could you comment on the ethical and infant-related issues?"@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples