Day 031 - 05 Oct 94 - Page 52


     
     1        contains a variety of nutrients and association with each
     2        other; that these highly unsaturated fatty acids which you
     3        find in fish and sea foods, are usually associated with
     4        vitamins which are concerned with their protection.  So I
     5        would be surprised if somebody made a comment like that.
     6
     7   Q.   May I ask you, as it were, to pocket your good manners for
     8        a moment and ask you whether you agree with this
     9        proposition, that the assertion or proposition which I
    10        have just postulated is bunk, scientific bunk?
    11        A.  There is an element of truth in it.
    12
    13   Q.   In what sense?
    14        A.  In the sense that we have done and published
    15        experiments which have shown that if you take marmosets
    16        and feed them on a diet such as you describe, you can get
    17        alopecia anaemia as a consequence of it, so there is an
    18        element of truth; it is not entirely bunk.
    19
    20   Q.   I was talking about carcinogenesis?
    21        A.  In terms of carcinogenesis, one of the theories of the
    22        origin of carcinogenesis is indeed the peroxidated theory,
    23        that the DNA is attacked by free radicals and damage
    24        results in the particular twist in the molecule which
    25        results in a tumour.  This is a theory which is put about
    26        by several people.
    27
    28        I would have to say that the epidemiological evidence in
    29        relation to the foods which are rich in these omega 3
    30        fatty acids, and by that I mean the long-chain omega 3
    31        fatty acids that are found in fish and sea foods, the
    32        epidemiological evidence and the experimental evidence is
    33        that they are protective.
    34
    35   Q.   So can I perhaps finish this short series of questions
    36        with this proposition, Professor Crawford, and see if you
    37        agree with it:  Somebody who asserted in unvarnished,
    38        unqualified terms the sort of proposition which I put to
    39        you, I hope, in similar unvarnished terms a moment ago,
    40        would not have much credence: avoid fish oils because they
    41        will give you cancer?
    42        A.  Yes, I would not wish to choose the adjective to
    43        describe that person, but I think that person would not be
    44        talking from a good base of knowledge.
    45
    46   Q.   Only a couple more questions and then, if I may, a request
    47        for some assistance.  Professor Crawford, may one in your
    48        mind -- this is a general question and I will come back to
    49        it in more detail when you return to court -- may one
    50        properly in your mind distinguish between recommendations 
    51        made by governments, World Health Organisation, or 
    52        whatever, bodies which are responsible for the health of 
    53        the human race in some sense or another, recommendations
    54        made by such bodies on the basis of an assessment of risk,
    55        that on the one hand and, on the other hand, assertions
    56        about the aetiology of a particular degenerative disease?
    57        Is that a distinction which one may properly make?
    58        A.  I am not sure you can make that distinction for this
    59        reason, that the basis of risk is dependent on some
    60        evidence regarding aetiology.  I think that probably --

Prev Next Index