Day 038 - 19 Oct 94 - Page 22
1 them the secrecy was so comprehensive that you could not do
2 an evaluation. You said that was from December 1992. So,
3 I just wanted to clarify the situation on that?
4 A. Yes. The European wide list was finalised in the run
5 up to the completion of a single European market at the end
6 of 1992, but some of the compounds on that list had not
7 been evaluated by the British authorities, or had been
8 evaluated by the British authorities prior to the change in
9 the arrangements and, therefore, I was not able to obtain
10 the evidence on those.
11
12 The changed arrangements only apply in the UK to compounds
13 evaluated since 1988 and to that fraction of the data
14 submitted since 1988, if that is the date when the change
15 was made, and moreover to that fraction of the data deemed
16 not to be commercially sensitive.
17
18 Q. So does that mean that commercially sensitive data is still
19 not available?
20 A. I understand that some fraction of the dossiers being
21 submitted do not reach the British library. It is not
22 easy, therefore, for me to know exactly what has been
23 excluded. But I believe it often includes data on methods
24 of production and sometimes on levels of purity;
25 information which might be of use to a competing
26 manufacturer.
27
28 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What might be called "a trade secret" in
29 ordinary language, not in legal language? Something that
30 the supplier or manufacturer would much rather that
31 competitors did not have knowledge of; is that right?
32 A. That is correct, though I would simply add that prior
33 to 1988 the food industry and food manufacturers claimed
34 that all the toxicological data should be characterised as
35 a trade secret. So, the same term is used but used more
36 narrowly now.
37
38 MS. STEEL: Could the data that is being withheld be relevant
39 to the safety of the compounds?
40 A. Oh, the data -- sorry, you are talking about data not
41 being deposited in the British library that has been
42 submitted and evaluated by British authorities since 1988?
43 Could it be -- without being able to see it, I am not in a
44 position to be certain, but my assumption is that most of
45 it is unlikely to be relevant to the evaluation of safety.
46
47 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Presumably, I mean, if they are seeking to do
48 their job in good faith, if the committee who is looking at
49 it feels that they ought to have more information before
50 they can reach a view then they can ask for it?
51 A. They can indeed.
52
53 Q. What you are saying is you do not know what they have in
54 some circumstances and whether they have asked for more,
55 among other things?
56 A. Yes. Typically in this country the Committee on
57 Toxicity (which is the key body located in the Department
58 of Health which gives advice on chemical safety) only
59 publish reports once they have reached a decision. So,
60 while they are in the process of reviewing something, and
