Day 052 - 21 Nov 94 - Page 30


     
     1        I emphasise the words "both sides" -- were plainly
     2        addressing this very issue; not just the Plaintiffs'
     3        witnesses, though that, in my submission, would be quite
     4        sufficient to put the Defendants on notice, but it is clear
     5        that the notice was received and understood because the
     6        Defendants' own witnesses have addressed the very same
     7        issue.
     8
     9        My Lord, we have extracted -- it saves an awful time if we
    10        have done it correctly -- from the expert witness
    11        statements from page 12, to use the Americanism, through
    12        page 17 the relevant passages in which this issue, does the
    13        Plaintiffs' or can the Plaintiffs' food convincingly be
    14        said to cause these degenerative diseases?  We have
    15        extracted those passages which deal with that issue.  We
    16        have underlined within those passages the parts where the
    17        experts focus on that very question.
    18
    19        They are dealing, most of them, with two questions:  Can it
    20        be said that the Plaintiffs' food causes these diseases?
    21        That is common to both sets of expert witnesses.  So, is
    22        the second question:  Can it responsibly or credibly be
    23        said that diet is a cause of cancer?
    24
    25        One sees, first of, all Professor Wheelock and then
    26        Professor Keen.  Professor Wheelock having been served in
    27        July 1993; Professor Keen in January 1994 when the
    28        Defendants added diabetes to their defence.  One sees that
    29        he says, "no scientific justification for suggesting that
    30        any of the foods provided by McDonald's restaurants is
    31        involved, that is to say, in the provocation of the
    32        diabetes.  No assertions about a diabetogenic effect of any
    33        single specific foodstuff" etc.
    34
    35         "In evidence for a role of specific dietary components the
    36        aetiology of NIDDM is inconsistent."   Again to the same
    37        effect, Dr. Arnott and, particularly, his conclusion which
    38        is set out on page 14.  All through he talks about
    39        causation as, indeed, when he came to give evidence in this
    40        court.  He concludes:  "Taking into account all the
    41        evidence currently available, it is, therefore, difficult
    42        to draw the conclusion that there is a causal relationship
    43        between fat intake and the development of breast cancer".
    44        That is what I call the subsidiary question.
    45
    46        He then goes on:  "From all this it can be concluded that
    47        it is impossible to state that there is a specific causal
    48        relationship between eating McDonald's food and the
    49        development of either breast or bowel cancer."
    50 
    51        My Lord, then there is the Defendants' witnesses. 
    52        Mr. Cannon's first statement said that diet was an 
    53        important cause of major diseases including, though it is
    54        not an exhaustive account, cardiovascular diseases.  Then,
    55        of course, in his second statement, as your Lordship will
    56        remember, he came out of the bushes much more strongly and
    57        said that he thought that diet or that the authorities had
    58        said that diet was a cause of cancer.  For all that he may
    59        be wrong about it, that is what he said.  So, he was
    60        plainly addressing the question.

Prev Next Index