Day 052 - 21 Nov 94 - Page 35
1 MR. RAMPTON: Line, it must be, 24 and a half.
2
3 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes, thank you.
4
5 MR. RAMPTON: It is fair to read on particularly since the
6 Defendants do not have their transcripts here. Mr. Morris
7 said at the top of page 19: "Could I come in? Let us just
8 say statistically associated, yes? You have quote a number
9 of those in your statement. Is it true that in your
10 statement you have criticised scientific studies that have
11 linked statistically associated", that was a qualification
12 of "linked", I think, "a diet high in saturated fats and
13 various cancers?" Answer by Professor Wheelock: "What
14 I have said is that it is extremely difficult to establish
15 the cause, at least, what the role of diet is in the
16 developed of different cancers for a whole variety of
17 reasons which I explained the other day." Mr. Morris:
18 "But a number of people have done that, and you have
19 criticised them?" Answer: "People have looked at
20 different aspects at the end of the day."
21
22 Your Lordship: "Can we just pause because, do you really
23 mean that people have established" --- Mr. Morris: "No",
24 interrupting your Lordship. Your Lordship continues:
25 " -- the cause, because when the witness said: 'It is
26 extremely difficult to establish the cause', you said:
27 'Well, a lot of people have done that.' I am not sure what
28 your case is."
29
30 My Lord, there is quite a lot to the same effect at that
31 stage of the case. Plainly, at this stage of the case,
32 Professor Wheelock is saying (and has said repeatedly)
33 first, you have to distinguish between a meal, a food, on
34 the one hand, and a diet on the other; secondly, he has
35 said there is no established causal relationship between
36 diet and cancer.
37
38 The Defendants at this stage do not seem to be able to say
39 what their case actually is. What is absolutely clear is
40 that they have been notified that that is the issue: Is it
41 a cause of cancer, diet, that is to say? Or is it simply
42 sufficient for them to establish a population related
43 association? They cannot be in any doubt, even if they
44 were before (which I certainly do not accept), they cannot
45 be in any doubt at all what it is, not only I, but that
46 your Lordship sees as being the important question in the
47 case.
48
49 For this very good reason, I guess -- I use the word
50 "guess" properly because I do not know what is in your
51 Lordship's mind -- that if the Defendants' case should
52 have turned out to be simply that there is, as Mr. Morris
53 puts it, a statistical association between diet and cancer,
54 and if it should turn out at the end of the day your
55 Lordship should find that the words complained of meant not
56 only that diet was a cause of cancer, but that McDonald's
57 food caused cancer, why, then, the Defendants would have no
58 defence; and that your Lordship had that in mind may well
59 emerge from this passage on page 24, amongst many others,
60 I recall, though I cannot give your Lordship the reference,
