Day 039 - 20 Oct 94 - Page 44


     
     1        A.  Yes, this is the most comprehensive review I have been
     2        able to find of the range of adverse effects that have been
     3        found in animals where Carrageenan has been introduced into
     4        their diets.
     5
     6   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Is that degraded Carrageenan or not?
     7        A.  Both.  As is clear in the abstract, both harmful
     8        effects of degraded and undegraded Carrageenan.
     9
    10   Q.   Harmful effects?
    11        A.  Yes.  The second line of the abstract talks about
    12        harmful effects of degraded and undegraded Carrageenan.
    13
    14   MR. MORRIS:  Would it be helpful if the judge could read the
    15        abstract?
    16
    17   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You see, what JECFA said -- this is 81,
    18        Ekstrom was 83 and 85 -- as related in the WHO report, as
    19        I understand it, which was 1984, apart from other things:
    20         "Since food grade Carrageenan does not have the same
    21        effects as degraded Carrageenan, it is either not degraded
    22        or not degraded to the same molecular weight (see refer to
    23        Ekstrom in relation to that) or not degraded in the same
    24        way".
    25
    26        So, are you saying that this paper, if I look a bit more
    27        closely, will show that JECFA was wrong in saying since
    28        food grade Carrageenan does not have the same effects as
    29        degraded Carrageenan?
    30        A.  Well, I read Watt Marcus as implying, that there is
    31        some overlap between the adverse effects of the two kinds
    32        of Carrageenan, but my reading of the literature is that
    33        the evidence of adverse effects is far greater for degraded
    34        Carrageenan than for non-degraded Carrageenan.  But, in
    35        respect of JECFA's comments, I am juxtaposing the more
    36        recent -- well, more recent to me -- work by Ekstrom to
    37        which JECFA have made no reference which provides -----
    38
    39   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, I make two points.  I intervene now
    40        because it will save time.  The Earlier Ekstrom report is
    41        referred to in the JECFA report, so is, of course, Watt and
    42        Marcus; the later Ekstrom is not because, of course, it is
    43        a year after.
    44
    45   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It is 1985.  You see, JECFA say:  "If native
    46        Carrageenan was sufficiently degraded in the gut to cause
    47        ulceration or tumour growth then feeding studies would have
    48        shown it", which seems to imply that they do not think the
    49        feeding study up to the time of their report did show it?
    50        A.  Yes, and I have provided a comment in my most recently 
    51        revised text that I was responding to that. 
    52 
    53   Q.   I have read your response but I am just on the question of
    54        whether feeding studies in animals, of course, have shown
    55        ulceration or tumour growth ---
    56        A.  The ulceration or tumour growth ------
    57
    58   Q.   -- in food grade Carrageenan?
    59        A.  My understanding of the literature is that the symptoms
    60        of ulceration and tumour growth have arisen primarily from

Prev Next Index