Day 052 - 21 Nov 94 - Page 31
1
2 Dr. Barnard was much more specific than Mr. Cannon.
3
4 MR. JUSTICE BELL: As you pointed out -- I mean, I will check
5 through all the references which I have not actually done
6 yet -- the first statement did refer to the cardiovascular
7 diseases.
8
9 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, it did. So, of course did the first
10 statement of Professor Crawford.
11
12 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
13
14 MR. RAMPTON: There can be little doubt that if anybody came to
15 court unprepared to deal with the question of
16 cardiovascular disease and diet, it was the Plaintiffs, not
17 the Defendants, because the Plaintiffs have recognised that
18 it is not an issue which could be established in their
19 favour, or in favour of, as it were, diet, which is not the
20 same thing.
21
22 My Lord, Dr. Barnard's first statement, again in July 1993,
23 as clear as could be, really: "As a result of their high
24 content of fat and cholesterol, McDonald's products
25 contribute to heart disease, certain forms of cancer and
26 other diseases". Then in his second statement he comes
27 back to it again when he talks about causation. He
28 compares fatty food and certain kinds of cancer with
29 cigarette smoking and lung cancer as though there was no
30 distinction to be drawn. Then half way down page 16 of
31 this extract: "Foods at McDonald's are precisely the types
32 of food that cause heart disease and encourage its
33 progression", that is heart disease. "These are not simply
34 statistical associations" and so on. "There are well-known
35 biological effects of meat-consumption that offer plausible
36 mechanisms for the causation of cancer and encourage its
37 progression", and so on and so forth.
38
39 Then over the page, page 17: "The issue at hand is whether
40 the products sold at McDonald's pose potential risks.
41 Overwhelming evidence shows that they do. Ignoring the
42 factors that contribute to these epidemics does not serve
43 the public well".
44
45 Then Professor Crawford's second statement which, I believe
46 I am right in saying, though more forceful than his first,
47 still confines itself to what I call the wider or
48 subsidiary question, is there a causal link between diet
49 and cancer? It does not address the question addressed
50 here by Dr. Barnard, whether McDonald's food causes cancer
51 and heart disease.
52
53 MR. JUSTICE BELL: He had the theory that the mechanism might be
54 linked -- I should not use that word -- that the mechanism
55 to cancer might be by the same route, in part at least, as
56 to cardiovascular disease.
57
58 MR. RAMPTON: I think he accepted that is what I call the bath
59 tub theory in the sense that -----
60
