Day 298 - 11 Nov 96 - Page 41


     
     1        Her view was that that statement could mislead people.  She
     2        went on to say that she thought that in promoting healthy
     3        eating there were lots of factors which prevent the
     4        information getting through to people clearly.  One of
     5        those factors was that it was difficult to get people to
     6        change habits and, also, that there were a number of people
     7        saying the opposite thing, and people saying the opposite
     8        thing tended to be the food industry and companies which
     9        wanted to promote particular foods -- which obviously would
    10        apply to McDonald's.  That was on page 24.
    11
    12        She went on it say that when a diet that is obviously high
    13        in fat, high in salt and low in fibre, and low in vitamins
    14        and minerals, then it misleads people to say it is a
    15        nutritious part of the diet, because it gives people the
    16        impression that it is OK to have a McDonald's meal every
    17        day, and that that would be misleading the public.  That
    18        was on page 24, as well.
    19
    20        On page 36, she said that the consensus on salt and blood
    21        pressure had existed for about 20 to 25 years, and her view
    22        was not going to be changed by one paper which was put by
    23        Mr. Rampton.  That was line 22.
    24
    25        When she was questioned about whether or not there was a
    26        consensus about diet and cancer, she said that there was no
    27        disagreement that reducing fat will prevent certain
    28        cancers; nobody is saying all cancers.  Then she referred
    29        to the Government report -- well, nobody is saying all
    30        cancers, as the government report said, that Mr. Rampton
    31        had alluded to.  The paragraph in that report was talking
    32        about cancers in general.  She said that, yes, it was true
    33        that there is not a consensus about cancers in general, but
    34        in relation to specific cancers, the diet-related cancers,
    35        i.e., colon cancer, breast cancer and others, were
    36        considered to be diet-related; and that is, without a
    37        doubt, the case or the view of anybody working in the
    38        field.  That was on page 42, line 32.
    39
    40        This was kind of explained a bit better later on, on page
    41        56.  With reference to the World Health Organisation
    42        report, she agreed with the conclusions -- which I think
    43        are particularly important, bearing in mind that the
    44        Plaintiffs are trying to deny the causal relationship
    45        between diet and cancer on the basis that you cannot show
    46        which individual components have which effect; that the
    47        World Health Organisation report says that high fat intake
    48        is associated with cancer at several sites; certainty about
    49        the optimum intake of fat in relation to cancer must await
    50        future research such as control trials, but, in the
    51        meantime, international correlation analysis and other
    52        epidemiological data indicates that fat intakes of less
    53        than 30 percent of total energy will be needed to attain a
    54        low risk of fat-related cancers, and that a reduction in
    55        risk is also likely when fat intake is reduced towards
    56        30 percent, especially if its dietary changes is combined
    57        with the change of other dietary components.  That was page
    58        56, line 30.
    59
    60        The final point -- and this is all I have to say today --

Prev Next Index