Day 014 - 20 Jul 94 - Page 45


     
     1        A.  Yes.
 
     2   Q.   Non-starch polysaccharides; cellulose is one of those,
              yes?
     3        A.  That is right.
 
     4   Q.   We see that it is insoluble?
              A.  Yes.
     5
         Q.   We see also that it is very widely distributed especially
     6        in leafy, vegetable, peas, beans and rhubarb?
              A.  Yes.
     7
         Q.   Then we get non-cellulosic polysaccharides:  Pectines
     8        which are soluble, namely, fruit and vegetables; Glucans
              which are soluble, oats, barley and rye; Arabinogalactans
     9        and arabinoxylans which are partly soluble and you find
              those in wheat, rye and barley. I will not go on with that
    10        table for the moment, at least.
 
    11        So far as any dietary or nutritional or health benefit is
              perceived to be derived from the ingestion of NSPs -- can
    12        I call them "fibre" from now on the understanding that you
              have you said that the committee is right to concentrate
    13        on non-starch polysaccharides, it is easier to call it
              fibre?
    14        A.  Yes.
 
    15   Q.   In so far as any benefit, or whatever, is to be observed
              from the ingestion of fibre as part of the diet, is there
    16        a distinction to be noticed between what is soluble or
              partly soluble in the digestive system and what is not --
    17        I mean, sorry, what is soluble?
              A.  Yes, there would be.
    18
         Q.   Yes.  Is there work which suggests that so far as there is
    19        an observable benefit, the insoluble or partly soluble
              fibres are more beneficial than the soluble ones, or may
    20        be, I should say?
              A.  Possibly.
    21
         Q.   Can I take you then, please, to -----
    22
         MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It is only "possibly", why is the
    23        distinction to be made?
              A.  Well, the main distinction is to try and make some
    24        sense from a chemical point of view because,
              traditionally, the fibre really did not make any sense at
    25        all from a chemical point of view.  It was actually
              referred to as crude fibre which I think aptly represented 
    26        what it was.  The attempts now are being made to try and 
              understand the chemistry in greater detail with a view to 
    27        achieving a greater understanding of the role of the
              different components in relation to health.
    28
         Q.   Does that mean that one can forget the distinction so far
    29        as nutrition is concerned?
              A.  Except in the sense that there are different types in
    30        different foods.
 

Prev Next Index