Day 052 - 21 Nov 94 - Page 26


     
     1        the relationship between diet and heart disease.  There has
     2        been no counterpart on the Plaintiffs' side to Dr. Arnott.
     3        The reason is -- it is perfectly obvious as I have made
     4        clearly on several occasions during the course of this
     5        trial
     6         -- to borrow, perhaps, the words of Professor Crawford, it
     7        is universally recognised by medical people and by
     8        scientists that there is or probably is an association,
     9        causal association, between diet and heart disease.  Your
    10        Lordship may remember that mental chart which I asked
    11        Dr. Arnott to draw for your Lordship.  It was a sort of
    12        league table.  I cannot remember whether he specifically
    13        mentioned heart disease, but he put, for example, smoking
    14        and lung cancer at the top of that particular chart.
    15
    16        My Lord, if we had been going to dispute that there was a
    17        causal relationship between diet and heart disease, we had
    18        gone about doing it in a very peculiar way; we have not
    19        even had a witness to deal with the question.
    20
    21        So, my Lord, if the Defendants have not understood that the
    22        absence of such an expert witness, and what I am here
    23        saying, for example, meant that the association between
    24        diet and heart disease was recognised to be a causal one,
    25        and conceded to be such by the Plaintiffs, first, I would
    26        not accept it if they said it and, secondly, it has no
    27        consequences since neither side has called or has needed to
    28        call any evidence on that issue.
    29
    30        So far as heart disease is concerned, the sole question is
    31        whether it could ever be right to say that McDonald's food
    32        gives people heart disease, which is not the same thing as
    33        accepting that there is a causal association between heart
    34        disease and diet.
    35
    36        My Lord, I will read there paragraph again and I apologise
    37        for digressing like that:  "The plaintiffs accept (and have
    38        always accepted) that there is a recognised association
    39        between a diet which is high in fact and salt and heart
    40        disease. That is why in their leaflet they are at pains to
    41        advise their customers to eat McDonald's food as part of a
    42        balanced diet, but the plaintiffs do not accept that there
    43        is any respectable body of scientific opinion or evidence
    44        to suggest a causal relationship between such a diet and
    45        any form of cancer or diabetes.
    46
    47        It is true that there is a body of epidemiological and
    48        clinical work which has from time to time appeared to
    49        suggest a relationship or association -- your Lordship will
    50        notice that I omit the word "causal" -- between a diet -- 
    51        again I emphasise the word "diet" -- which is high in 
    52        animal fat and low in fibre and certain forms of cancer and 
    53        diabetes on the other hand".
    54
    55        My Lord, then on the next page I make the submission at
    56        line 5 that "it is both unscientific and irresponsible to
    57        propose a causal relationship between any of these diseases
    58        and the type of diet in question".
    59
    60   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Is it clear that your concession was of a

Prev Next Index