Day 039 - 20 Oct 94 - Page 34


     
     1
     2   MS. STEEL:   That is not 46; that should be the Scientific
     3        Committee.
     4        A.  Not in the text in front of me that I have here.  It is
     5         -- sorry, 56 at the bottom of page 21.
     6
     7   MR. MORRIS:  What may be particularly helpful is if we look at
     8        56, if it is particularly helpful.  Can we just refer to
     9        the most significant section of that?
    10        A.  Well, what I would say about it is, notwithstanding
    11        some adverse comments to the contrary, it was in its day
    12        (and still is) recognised by most people as a very well
    13        conducted study.
    14
    15   Q.   Can you just refer us to a particular paragraph which sums
    16        up the conclusions?
    17        A.  In respect of that study or BHA as a whole?
    18
    19   Q.   The thing is, if we are going to rely on a reference we
    20        have to quote some conclusion from it and then it stands as
    21        evidence; if we do not, it will not.
    22        A.  From the paper or from my text?
    23
    24   Q.   No, from the paper.
    25        A.  Well, I have here the paper by Ito and his colleagues
    26        in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, February
    27        1983.  This is reference 56, and the abstract summarises
    28        the position very straightforwardly.
    29
    30   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I will just read that.
    31        A.  May I draw attention on an aspect of it though?
    32
    33   Q.   Yes, but after I have read it.  Yes?
    34        A.  In some of the official reports by the Committee on
    35        Toxicity, the Scientific Committee for Food and the World
    36        Health Organisation, UN FAO, Joint Expert Committee, this
    37        study is characterised as having provided evidence that BHA
    38        causes tumours when fed at two per cent.  Indeed, it does,
    39        as if there were not also evidence of adverse effects at
    40        0.5 per cent, as Professor Ito and his colleagues say:
    41        "Even the lower doses increased the incidence of
    42        hyperplasia in the forestomach which is considered
    43        associated with neoplasia", which I take to mean that signs
    44        of early development ----.
    45
    46   Q.   Where are you looking at now?
    47        A.  This is in the abstract, the third sentence of the
    48        abstract, starting four lines down.
    49
    50   Q.   There are no words "even the lower doses"; it is both "the 
    51        higher and the lower doses". 
    52        A.  Yes, but often this study is reported as if effects 
    53        were found only at the higher dose, but not at the lower
    54        dose.  What I am trying to emphasise is that early signs of
    55        development of tumours were found even at the lower dose.
    56
    57   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    58
    59   MR. MORRIS:  I do not think there is any need to look at similar
    60        studies.  Shall we move on to hyperactivity of these

Prev Next Index