Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, , 43:47 to 48:49
NHMRC discusses plans to review water fluoridation guidelines following international studies on neurodevelopmental risks and IQ in children.
Topics: Health, Water management
Speakers: Speaker 11, Prue Torrance, Unknown Speaker
Good morning. That's fine. Good morning. Um I want to ask some questions about the uh fluoridation of water across the country. I know that each states have different uh requirements and different levels. Um but the NHMRC has fluoridation guidelines, I think, and they substantially rely on reviews that go back to 2016-17. Now, since then there have been multiple prospective cohort studies that indicate that that fluoride crosses the placenta and that prenatal fluoride exposure is associated with adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes, including reduced IQ in children. Does the NHMRC plan to review Australia's fluoridation guidelines and associated health advice any time in the future?
Thank you. Thank you for your question. Yes, we are have commenced planning for a review of the statement.
Right, thank you. Um what evidence would you require for reconsidering the safety assumptions underpinning uh Australian fluoridation policy, particularly for pregnant women infants and and formula fed babies?
We will undertake a comprehensive review of the available evidence at this time and look to see what um has emerged since this since the statement.
Um in September of 2024, the United States District Court heard a case called Food and Water Watch and the EPA. It found that fluoridation at 0.7 milligrams per litre posed, and and this was their words, an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children. Um with that being the case, what steps are being taken to assure Australian public health guidance reflects the most current evidence regarding potential neurodevelopmental risks associated with fluoride exposure during pregnancy and early childhood?
So that sounds like a question for the regulators who actually decide on the state fluoridisation levels. Um the current statement uh that NHMRC has supports fluoridisation within the range of 0.6 to 1.1 milligrams per litre. That remains our current advice. We will be reviewing that.
Right. So no current steps are being taken given that that evidence?
That's not uh role of NHMRC. We we review the evidence and provide advice on the evidence that are then taken up by others in the system.
Okay. Well, what consideration has been given to, and this might be something policy related to non-systemic alternatives that perhaps preserve the dental health benefits while reducing whole of population exposure?
Um the dental health benefits are taken into account during our reviews of evidence and is one of the reasons for the the current recommendation for fluoridation of water within those those limits that I referred to.
Right, but that of course requires everybody to be drinking the water, if it is the case that there are some concerns about the effects on particularly pregnant women and and children, then uh there may be other alternatives to simply giving fluoride to every single Australian citizen rather than just those who uh who perhaps need it. Is that something that's been considered or a different alternative to just mass fluoridation of the water?
Once we've um established an advisory committee to help us with the review, um they'll be looking at what to prioritise, including whether to prioritize particular population advice or whether to have a uh nationally consistent advice. So it is one of the things that's taken into consideration as we develop our advice.
That's probably it for in HMRC for me. I've got some questions for ARPRA as well if we've got a bit of time.