Day 030 - 03 Oct 94 - Page 70


     
     1        epidemiology, on page 51 breast cancer, colon cancer,
     2        cancer and serum cholesterol, static cancer, dietary fat
     3        and aetiology of cancer.  Then the conclusion at 356.  You
     4        say this is state of the art; is that right?
     5        A.  Given the nature of the document, as I have described
     6        it, yes.  I would not leave government out, as you
     7        suggest.
     8
     9   Q.   I will give you a chance to explain what you mean by that
    10        in a moment.  Just read the conclusion to yourself.
    11        A.  "The panel concluded that there is currently
    12        insufficient evidence on which to base a recommendation
    13        for decrease in fat intake to prevent cancer, although an
    14        increase in consumption of any fatty acids should not be
    15        encouraged. The panel agreed that the DRVs based on other
    16        considerations and presented in paragraph 3.8 were
    17        consistent with a prudent view of the current data
    18        relating dietary fat and the occurrence of cancer".
    19
    20   Q.   Just insert "government" into that which I left out, then
    21        I will ask you another question.
    22        A.  Why did I make the point about government, do you
    23        mean?
    24
    25   Q.   Yes.
    26        A.  Because of the peculiar status of the COMA Reports in
    27        this country.  As I say, they are the instruments on which
    28        the government bases policy, and when they are at the time
    29        of their publication welcomed by government, they
    30        effectively become the government's position.  The
    31        distinction I am drawing is between a document like this
    32        which, therefore, is officially sanctioned and a document
    33        which short of that would represent medical and scientific
    34        opinion which might or might not, which government might
    35        or might not be ready to take on board.  As I have
    36        mentioned, government in Scotland has taken the view on
    37        cancer on board, and as I think I mentioned this morning
    38        and as you are now pointing out, the government in the UK
    39        outside of Scotland has not yet taken the evidence on
    40        board.
    41
    42   Q.   I hesitate to contradict you, Mr. Cannon, that conclusion
    43        is not the conclusion of the government.  It is the
    44        conclusion of the Panel that wrote that section.  It may
    45        be that the government has accepted it.
    46        A.  Indeed.
    47
    48   Q.   But that is the fact?  It is the conclusion of the panel
    49        of experts?
    50        A.  As endorsed by the government, yes. 
    51 
    52   Q.   Never mind the endorsement of the government.  The 
    53        government did not write that conclusion?
    54        A.  No, to help you on this point, it is perfectly true
    55        that there is no official document in this country which
    56        accepts there is a causal relationship between diet and
    57        cancer strong enough on which to base recommendations to
    58        the general public.  Again, as I mentioned this morning,
    59        it is in that context the government have set up a panel
    60        on diet and cancer, which is now sitting.

Prev Next Index