Day 038 - 19 Oct 94 - Page 36


     
     1        utility.
     2
     3   Q.   Are these judgments, if you like, subjective judgments --
     4        countries can vary, people can have different positions --
     5        based upon the scientific evidence and valuation of need?
     6        A.  Certainly, there are differences of opinion between
     7        individuals.  The objective element in the judgment and the
     8        evaluation is, I believe, provided by the results of the
     9        tests, what was found in the animals, in the tissues, in
    10        the bacteria, and the non-objective element arises in the
    11        interpretation, the evaluation and the significance
    12        ascribed to those objective results.  So, I believe there
    13        is an objective element and a great deal of subjective
    14        judgment in the formation of policy.
    15
    16   Q.   So that when, say, for example, the government has a
    17        position, somebody judging the same evidence, such as
    18        yourself, can quite legitimately come to a different
    19        position based upon that evidence?
    20        A.  Oh, indeed they can and, moreover, there are
    21        differences between government and between countries, so
    22        that compounds may be permitted in the UK or the European
    23        Union and not be deemed acceptable in the USA by the Food
    24        and Drug Administration.
    25
    26        So, there are both differences between individuals and
    27        between institutions and between countries.  Those are
    28        legitimate disagreements and disagreements which cannot be
    29        settled solely by reference to the available scientific
    30        evidence.
    31
    32   Q.   The JECFA and the Committee on Toxicity, do you feel they
    33        may be unduly influenced from any particular direction?
    34        A.  I have expressed concern on this matter on several
    35        occasions, and compared the arrangements of the World
    36        Health Organisation and the European Commission and the UK
    37        levels unfavourably with that in the USA.  The position of
    38        the Food and Drug Administration is that it is deemed
    39        unacceptable for people to participate in decision-making
    40        on additives if they have any commercial interest in
    41        companies manufacturing and utilizing the compound being
    42        evaluated.  That is not the case in either Britain at the
    43        European Commission level or at the World Health
    44        Organisation level.  In the UK until  -----
    45
    46   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Where are we going now?  Are you criticising
    47        their impartiality?
    48
    49   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.  (To the witness):  Maybe it would be helpful
    50        not to compare them with other bodies, but just to say 
    51        whether you feel that their decisions are the best possible 
    52        decisions or whether they are being influenced in one 
    53        direction or the other, the ones relevant to the UK?
    54        A.  OK.  It is singularly difficult to know the extent to
    55        which their judgments may be being influenced by industrial
    56        or commercial considerations because there is a problem of
    57        inadequate declaration of interests.  Until 1991 in the UK
    58        there was no requirement for commercial interest, the
    59        members of the Committee on Toxicity or the subcommittees,
    60        to be declared.

Prev Next Index