Day 107 - 24 Mar 95 - Page 61


     
     1   Q.   Did it hold good in 1989?
     2        A.  Yes.
     3
     4   Q.   Do you think, in fact, that the number of food poisoning --
     5        and I know this is not suspectable of a precise instance,
     6        but do you think that in fact since 1988 or 1989 the number
     7        of food poisoning cases in this country has increased or
     8        decreased on an annual basis?
     9        A.  I think it has increased, but I do not actually know.
    10        I said earlier over the past five years they have changed
    11        the database and the way of collecting figures, so that we
    12        are absolutely totally in the dark as to what is
    13        happening.  It certainly -- well, I need not elaborate.
    14        I really do not know.  It is an enormous debate within the
    15        discipline as to what actually is happening.
    16
    17   Q.   So it would be your opinion that whether it is an increase
    18        or whether it is not as between 1995 and 1989, even if it
    19        is an increase, it is still statistically insignificant as
    20        a cause of human illness, is that right?
    21        A.  Statistically, yes.
    22
    23   Q.   I am not suggesting that somebody is seriously ill or worst
    24        still dies of food poisoning does not matter; nobody in
    25        this court has suggested that so far.
    26        A.  Mr. Rampton, may I say one thing?
    27
    28   Q.   Yes, of course.
    29        A.  The perspective I am referring to is, and this book has
    30        to be read in context, at the time the Government was
    31        systematically destroying the egg industry.  That is what
    32        I mean by "perspective".
    33
    34   Q.   Do you want to go on with that because I quite accept that?
    35        A.  Therefore, I was saying, look, here is an illness and
    36        the egg related illness was barely proven, was almost
    37        certainly a lot less than was claimed to be on which
    38        slender evidence and slender basis the Government was
    39        proposing and then implementing a series of Draconian
    40        controls which were doing very serious damage to the
    41        industry for no proven effect.
    42
    43   Q.   I understand that.  You in fact have been a persistent
    44        advocate -- sorry, perhaps critic of over-regulation, have
    45        you not?
    46        A.  Indeed, sir.
    47
    48   Q.   In the food industry and that extends to slaughterhouses,
    49        does it not?
    50        A.  Very much so.  The reason is because the regulations, 
    51        as I see, actually increase the problem, not increase it. 
    52        It is my thesis, as you know, the sledgehammer to miss the 
    53        nut.
    54
    55   Q.   For all that, Mr. North, you have told us that this
    56        sentence or two sentences is a general application and does
    57        not simply apply to salmonella in eggs?
    58        A.  The book is about salmonella.
    59
    60   Q.   But I asked you the question moment or two ago

Prev Next Index