Day 039 - 20 Oct 94 - Page 77
1 administration of BHA to other species, one is entitled to
2 propose, is one not, that there is something peculiar about
3 rats and that the rest of the Animal Kingdom, at any rate,
4 as represented in this document, does not suffer from the
5 same susceptibility?
6 A. But I have drawn the court's attention to other
7 subsequent documents in which it has emerged that in at
8 least two other species, namely, that musk shrew and the
9 fish, that BHA appeared to produce tumours.
10
11 Now, I am not saying that the musk shrew or the fish or the
12 rat or the dog or the monkey is a better -- that any of
13 these species provide better models than others. What I am
14 saying now is that BHA has been shown to produce tumours in
15 relatively small groups of at least three different
16 species.
17
18 Q. At very high doses?
19 A. Not very high doses by the standards of these
20 tests -----
21
22 Q. No, by comparison with what one must predict a human being
23 is going to eat as a food additive?
24 A. Yes, but BHA is not merely fed to 400 human beings in
25 this country but to 55 million. And it is not appropriate
26 simply to say: "We will invoke a high dose when it is
27 convenient and we will dismiss a high dose when it is
28 convenient". I endeavour, on the contrary, to be
29 consistent and think that if we are going to use this
30 protocol to attempt to identify adverse effects, then when
31 these effects emerge they need to be taken at face value
32 and not simply be disregarded because the dose was high.
33 If given that, the absence effects of those doses is deemed
34 sufficient evidence of safety.
35
36 Q. I fear, Dr. Millstone, we shall have to leave it until
37 tomorrow now.
38
39 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes, I think we had better break off now. We
40 will resume at 10.30 in the morning.
41
42 (The court adjourned until the following day)
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
