16 Sep 2011

Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley

Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley

To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 14 July (WA 202), how the ethical requirement for individual informed consent as set out by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in "Consent to medical treatment" applies to water fluoridation schemes. [HL11654]

Earl Howe: The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency considers that fluoridated water falls outside the definition of a medicinal product. Moreover, in our view, any infringement of human rights arising out of water fluoridation is justified by the benefits to oral health.

Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley

To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Earl Howe on 7 February (WA 17-18) and 17 May (WA 300), whether the website of the former National Fluoride Information Centre is still in existence; and, if so, whether the incorrect statements about the York systematic review in 2000 having expressed no health concerns about fluoridation, and having provided a figure of 3 per cent for the extent of fluorosis of aesthetic concern, have now been corrected.[HL11655]

To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 26 April (WA 46-7), whether it is a proper function of a

15 Sep 2011 : Column WA88

body set up for the purpose of providing public information about the health evidence surrounding water fluoridation to provide balanced information on any given aspect, rather than to rely on the public being aware of and accessing original reports to discover any caveats by researchers.[HL11656]

Earl Howe: We can confirm that the website of the former National Fluoride Information Centre has now been closed. We agree that bodies dedicated to providing information to the public should endeavour to do so as objectively as possible.

1 comment:

Doug Cross said...

Whilst Earl Howe and the MHRA may hold the politically convenient belief that fluoridated water is not a medicine, they might like to consider the superior authority of Lord Jauncey, who in 1983 ruled emphatically that it is. As for the supposed 'benefits' justifying any breach of human rights legislation, such arrogance is the hallmark of fascism, and has no place in Parliament. Is Earl Howe prepared to disclose the legal authority on which he bases his decision to abolish the Human Rights legislation - he may like to recall that the HR Act makes it quite clear that, once a right is established, it may not be taken away!