Day 014 - 20 Jul 94 - Page 40


     
     1        the problem as a whole and at the various other factors
              that are involved, as well as the one under consideration.
     2
         Q.   Are you familiar ---- I mean I assume you keep your eye on
     3        nutritional matters both within what I might call
               'specialist publications' and in the larger public forum?
     4        A.  I try to.
 
     5   Q.   You try to.  What are your feelings about those newspaper
              articles one sees from time to time in which there is a
     6        sudden alarmist trumpeting about this, that or the other
              substance?  Do you know the sort of thing I am talking
     7        about?
              A.  Yes, I do indeed.  Very often they are actually
     8        unhelpful because they can focus on issues where the risks
              are blown up out of all proportion to what they are based
     9        on our current knowledge, and the result is that this can
              actually get to such a stage where it influences
    10        politicians and policymakers. So, in terms of trying to
              address the really serious issues of which I would regard
    11        cardiovascular disease; heart disease in particular as
              really the No. 1 public health problem in this country at
    12        the present time, by focusing on these issues they can
              divert attention from the real ones.
    13
         Q.   Then it goes on on page 154 at 25.3.3 -- "The
    14        determination of a potentially toxic threshold for Na
              intake is also difficult. The possibility of a genetic
    15        susceptibility to Na related hypertension in perhaps 10
              per cent of the population is of some concern.  This
    16        association with elevated diastolic and systolic blood
              pressures may be apparent at intakes of 3.2- 4.7 g/d.
    17
               "25.3.4 Adults. On these bases it is not possible to
    18        derive an EAR for NA but the Panel suggests that the LRNI
               - Low Reference Nutrient Intake- is set at 575 mg/d ----"
    19          That is the minimum needed for the maintenance of good
              health?
    20        A.  Yes, that is what I understand to be the case.
 
    21   Q.  " --- with an RNI of 1600 mg (Table 25.1)"  One can see
              that table at the bottom of the page which is broken down
    22        into LRNI and RNI according to age group, yes?
              A.  Yes.
    23
         Q.   So that by the time one has reached 11 years of age until
    24        one is well over 50, one's RNI as an average for good
              health and well- being is 1600 mg per day, is it not?
    25        A.   Yes.
  
    26   Q.   Have I got that right? 
              A.  Yes. 
    27
         Q.   Then if you go over to the other side of the page 25.4,
    28        Intakes.  "Daily Na intakes are 2- 10 g.  In the UK mean
              daily urinary Na extretion has been estimated as 4.3g and
    29        3.0g in men and women respectively with a urinary Na/K
              ration of more than two.  In the Dietary and Nutritional
    30        Survey of British Adults mean Na intakes, excluding
              discretionary salt, were 3,376 and 2,351 mg/d in men and

Prev Next Index