Day 038 - 19 Oct 94 - Page 20


     
     1        European Act.  Prior to that Britain permitted 299
     2        additives on its positive lists.
     3
     4   Q.   What date again was your survey of the 299?
     5        A.  1988.  But from 31st December 1992 we were covered by
     6        European legislation and the European wide positive list
     7        consisted of 419 compounds, and of those I estimated that
     8        for 283 there was a reasonable presumption of safety.  For
     9        185, doubts about them because they had not been fully
    10        tested -- even by today's limited standards.
    11
    12        For 70 there were doubts because those tests that had been
    13        conducted were very out of date.  For 56 compounds there
    14        were grounds for thinking that they could pose a toxic----
    15
    16   Q.   Just pause a moment.  We have got to 56?
    17        A.  56 compounds.  As I say, in respect of those 56,
    18        grounds for thinking that they may pose a toxic hazard for
    19        some subgroups of the population.  For 21 compounds there
    20        was then evidence they might be hazardous to all
    21        consumers.  For 74 compounds there was evidence that they
    22        were capable of provoking allergies or symptoms of
    23        intolerance.  For 45 out of the 419 the secrecy was so
    24        comprehensive that I could not do an evaluation.
    25
    26        Just looking at those figures in summary, it means,
    27        I think, that over half of the permitted additives are
    28        almost certainly perfectly acceptable and safe, but the
    29        compounds whose safety is in dispute in this case, I think
    30        there are grounds for doubting their acceptability.  But
    31        I am certainly not suggesting that all additives are unsafe
    32        or that all additives should be banned.
    33
    34   MS. STEEL:   Just to clarify something:  When you mention the
    35        secrecy of data, can you explain what you mean by that?
    36        A.  OK.  Until the late 80s in the UK (and that remains the
    37        case in other European countries) the Expert Committees,
    38        the Food Advisory Committee and its predecessor and the
    39        Committee on Toxicity, would review dossiers of data
    40        submitted by firms wishing to market or use food
    41        additives.  The position then was that it was the
    42        responsibility of the people who generated the data to
    43        decide whether or not to publish it.  The information data
    44        which was not in the public domain would remain secret.
    45        I mean, the British Government would not reveal it.
    46
    47   Q.   Can I clarify?  Are you saying that was data produced by
    48        the companies that were manufacturing the compounds?
    49        A.  It would be data submitted by the companies
    50        manufacturing the compounds or using the compounds.  It 
    51        might be produced by those companies or might be produced 
    52        by other people on their behalf, contract laboratories, or 
    53        whatever.
    54
    55        The British Government, the Committee on Toxicity and the
    56        Department of Health were willing to treat information
    57        submitted as confidential, and there was no public access
    58        to that data.  The position changed marginally in the late
    59        80s.  Many of us were unhappy with this arrangement whereby
    60        the scientific basis of policy making was frequently

Prev Next Index