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.
