Day 036 - 13 Oct 94 - Page 10
1 high-fat consumption and some cancers that needs looking
2 at because that association may be causal, but that no
3 respectable scientist, whether in 1990 or 1994, is going
4 to assert that it is causal?
5 A. I interpreted that as a declarative sentence rather
6 than a question, which is why I did not respond.
7
8 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That is fair enough.
9
10 MR. RAMPTON: That is perfectly fair, but it is a proposition.
11
12 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Treat it as a question.
13 A. OK.
14
15 MR. RAMPTON: Treat it as a proposition on which I invite you
16 to comment.
17 A. Thank you. Without question, I think all sides would
18 agree that there is an association, a link, if you will,
19 between fat as well as other components of the diet,
20 fibre, a diet high-in-fat, high-in-sugar, high-in-salt,
21 low-in-fibre; there is a link, an association, with cancer
22 of the breast and colon. I guess we would all agree on
23 that.
24
25 Q. We would all agree; I am not so sure about the sugar so
26 far as obesity, and the salt too, but stick with fat and
27 fibre; total fat and low fibre.
28 A. If we are all agreed that there is this link between a
29 diet high-in-fat, high-in-salt, high-in-sugar and
30 low-in-fibre with cancers of the breast and colon as well
31 as heart disease, there certainly is ongoing discussion as
32 to the evidence that that link is causal.
33
34 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Can I put it another way, Mr. Rampton?
35 Dr. Barnard, if what that paragraph meant to me was that
36 there is evidence to support a suggestion that a high
37 intake of total fat may also promote the development of a
38 number of cancers, but that evidence cannot be considered
39 sufficiently strong to say that it is a causative factor,
40 nevertheless, in the light of the evidence we do have most
41 expert groups now consider it prudent to reduce fat intake
42 etc., if that is what the paragraph meant, if that is what
43 it meant to me, would you agree with that or not?
44 A. My understanding of what they are saying is that when
45 they say -----
46
47 Q. No, I am sorry. I have asked you to deal with my
48 understanding and say, if that was my understanding, would
49 you agree with what they are saying?
50 A. If by "is causal" means "definitively causal", then
51 I would agree. What I am trying to say is that I agree
52 that definitive causality has not been established and
53 that most experts would not feel that it had been.
54 However, the links and associations that we are all agreed
55 on are believed to be causal which is suggested also in
56 their first sentence in my reading, but I agree that
57 definitive proof has not been adduced.
58
59 MR. RAMPTON: One more short passage, Dr. Barnard, in this
60 document and then we will move on to something else.
