Day 030 - 03 Oct 94 - Page 70
1 epidemiology, on page 51 breast cancer, colon cancer,
2 cancer and serum cholesterol, static cancer, dietary fat
3 and aetiology of cancer. Then the conclusion at 356. You
4 say this is state of the art; is that right?
5 A. Given the nature of the document, as I have described
6 it, yes. I would not leave government out, as you
7 suggest.
8
9 Q. I will give you a chance to explain what you mean by that
10 in a moment. Just read the conclusion to yourself.
11 A. "The panel concluded that there is currently
12 insufficient evidence on which to base a recommendation
13 for decrease in fat intake to prevent cancer, although an
14 increase in consumption of any fatty acids should not be
15 encouraged. The panel agreed that the DRVs based on other
16 considerations and presented in paragraph 3.8 were
17 consistent with a prudent view of the current data
18 relating dietary fat and the occurrence of cancer".
19
20 Q. Just insert "government" into that which I left out, then
21 I will ask you another question.
22 A. Why did I make the point about government, do you
23 mean?
24
25 Q. Yes.
26 A. Because of the peculiar status of the COMA Reports in
27 this country. As I say, they are the instruments on which
28 the government bases policy, and when they are at the time
29 of their publication welcomed by government, they
30 effectively become the government's position. The
31 distinction I am drawing is between a document like this
32 which, therefore, is officially sanctioned and a document
33 which short of that would represent medical and scientific
34 opinion which might or might not, which government might
35 or might not be ready to take on board. As I have
36 mentioned, government in Scotland has taken the view on
37 cancer on board, and as I think I mentioned this morning
38 and as you are now pointing out, the government in the UK
39 outside of Scotland has not yet taken the evidence on
40 board.
41
42 Q. I hesitate to contradict you, Mr. Cannon, that conclusion
43 is not the conclusion of the government. It is the
44 conclusion of the Panel that wrote that section. It may
45 be that the government has accepted it.
46 A. Indeed.
47
48 Q. But that is the fact? It is the conclusion of the panel
49 of experts?
50 A. As endorsed by the government, yes.
51
52 Q. Never mind the endorsement of the government. The
53 government did not write that conclusion?
54 A. No, to help you on this point, it is perfectly true
55 that there is no official document in this country which
56 accepts there is a causal relationship between diet and
57 cancer strong enough on which to base recommendations to
58 the general public. Again, as I mentioned this morning,
59 it is in that context the government have set up a panel
60 on diet and cancer, which is now sitting.
