Day 039 - 20 Oct 94 - Page 56
1 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, I am anxious to save time. Before the
2 witness responds, I remind Mr. Morris that it is the
3 evidence of Plaintiffs through Professor Walker that
4 Potassium Bromate was withdrawn whenever that was, I think
5 in 1990, because it was perceived to be carcinogenic in
6 animals and genotoxic what is more and, therefore, could
7 not be used for humans. So, if the witness is going to add
8 to it, that is fine, but he need not go into that.
9
10 MR. MORRIS: All right, I will ask you a direct question. How
11 long has it been known that Potassium Bromate, how long
12 have there been these concerns about the carcinogenicity of
13 Potassium Bromate?
14 A. I cannot give you a precise figure in the number of
15 years, but it was known for quite a while before it was
16 banned that Potassium Bromate was an animal carcinogen.
17 The only reason why it continued to be permitted was
18 because it was not possible, given the then available
19 techniques of analytical chemistry, to detect residues of
20 Potassium Bromate in baked products.
21
22 The major change arose not immediately after, but I think
23 more like a couple of years after, evidence started to
24 emerge as analytical techniques developed that, indeed,
25 residues of Potassium Bromate could be found in baked
26 products. There was some technical dispute about the
27 precise reliability of the tests and the measurements and
28 that partly accounts for the delay.
29
30 MR. JUSTICE BELL: They were a very small quantity but it was
31 not an area in which anyone was prepared to be other than
32 totally circumspect and prudent by the time it was banned;
33 is that really the position?
34 A. Almost. I would think that prudence might have
35 dictated action as early as '83.
36
37 Q. That is what you are being asked by Mr. Morris.
38
39 MR. MORRIS: So why do you say that?
40 A. Simply because it was known to be an animal carcinogen
41 even before analytical techniques developed at the point at
42 which it was possible to detect the residues.
43
44 Q. So, as from 1983, are you saying it should have been
45 withdrawn from use at that time?
46 A. If I had been in position of giving advice or making
47 the decision I would have advised or decided to withdraw it
48 from use then, yes.
49
50 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Can you give me because I have forgotten if I
51 ever was given it, when did the technology allow it to be
52 perceived that there were quantities, however small, of
53 Bromate which had not been broken down into Bromide in the
54 baking process?
55 A. It is difficult for me to be precise because the
56 evidence has not been published. The technology to detect
57 it was, I believe, developed at the Flour Millers Baking
58 Research Association under contract to the Ministry of
59 Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
60
