HL Deb 03 November 2004 vol 666 cc36-8WA
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Warner on 7 September (WA 138):

  1. (a) for what reasons they consider the greater bioavailability of artificially fluoridated water, which was statistically significant in the Newcastle study at 35.22 per cent for 20 subjects, and remained a clear trend when one subject was removed from the calculations, to be small and of no important influence; and
  2. (b) whether the results of the study were also compatible with the conclusion that artificially fluoridated water was more bioavailable than naturally fluoridated water; and [HL4226]

Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Warner on 7 September (WA 138), why they have made no reference to the warning by the authors of the Newcastle study in their section 6 conclusions, that "based on the power of the study to detect differences, some caution is necessary when interpreting the results"; and [HL4227]

Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Warner on 28 June (WA 6), whether they will make available the report by the Chief Medical and Dental Officers on the implications of the York review and the Medical Research Council report for policy on fluoridation, including their recommedations on the public consultation process. [HL4228]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner)

The report by the School of Dental Sciences at the University of NewcastleBioavailability of fluoride in drinking-water—a human experimental study concluded that, after considering all analyses of the data, there was no evidence for any differences between the absorption of fluoride ingested in artificially fluoridated drinking water, and in drinking water in which the fluoride is present naturally. The size of this study was such that it would be unlikely to conclude incorrectly that there was no difference in absorption if in fact there were a substantial difference.

The Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Dental Officers did not submit a report on the implications of the York review, but gave advice to Ministers. We do not publish advice.