>We had an employee that had tooth decay during their employment
>with us.  On going to their detist, this employee was informed that
>the tooth decay was related to their job! And was put on Accident
>Compensation, a program funded by employers (mostly) and taxes.
>
>We disputed the tooth decay being a work related "injury" citing the
>employees part time bar work and poor family history of tooth decay
>as being more likely causes of tooth decay plus the lack of hard
>evidence linking honey consumption and tooth decay.  We have now been
>ruled against on this issue meaning we have to apply for a review
>process and hence will put in an inordinate amount of time preparing
>a defense to this.
>
>This case will have the potential to set a dangerous precedent plus
>bad publicity spin off for honey.  Does anyone have any information
>relating to a link between tooth decay and honey?  Positive or
>negative.
 
 
Aaaargh - is there no end to the stupidity?  If your employee has eaten
sufficient honey to contribute to tooth decay perhaps you should be charging
him with theft.  I am sure your advisor has already considered that honey
would have to be eaten not merely picked up and put down again to contribute
to tooth decay.  I would think dentist literature is the only place you will
find surveys of tooth decay causes.  Know a friendly dentist?
 
I would suggest writing to your Member of Parliament pointing out that the
drafting of the laws is at fault if anybody working in an environment which
contains sugars can then claim for dental work - irrespective of whether the
product is consumed - chocolate factories?  biscuit makers?  bakeries?  Ask
whether this is what was intended when the laws were promulgated.
 
Betty McAdam
 
HOG BAY APIARY
Penneshaw, Kangaroo Island
j.h. & e. mcadam<[log in to unmask]
http://kigateway.eastend.com.au/hogbay/hogbay1.htm