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

Prev Next Index