Day 014 - 20 Jul 94 - Page 26


     
     1        down 3 to 19-50 years, and go across to the sodium column,
              you see that his RNI or that group's RNI is expressed to
     2        be 70 MMOL?
              A.  That is right.
     3
         Q.   If we express that in milligrams we get a figure of 1,610,
     4        is that right?
              A.  Yes, round about that.
     5
         Q.   Can I ask you a preliminary question about these figures,
     6        these recommendations, DRV's or whatever:  Are they to be
              regarded as hard and fast rules, as it were?
     7        A.  Good heavens, no.  Given the difficulties there are in
              reaching them (and this is explained later on in the
     8        report), we have to realise that in some cases they may be
              no better than guesstimates.
     9
         Q.   Is there an element, so far as DVR's ---
    10        A.  DRV's.
 
    11   Q.   -- sorry, DRV's are concerned, is there an extent to which
              the DRV errs on the side of caution?
    12        A.  There probably is, but I think one would need to be on
              the inside in reaching those conclusions to be able to say
    13        that definitively.
 
    14   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  There is not a percentage safety allowance
              allowed, or anything like that?  If they err on the side
    15        of safety it is because of the personality of the
              committee and their general attitude, is it?
    16        A.  To the best of my knowledge, it would depend on that
              and it would depend on the kind of evidence there was
    17        available on the individual nutrient.
 
    18   MR. RAMPTON:  Might it depend on, as his Lordship suggests,
              first the personality of the members of the committee, or
    19        the approach?  Second, might it depend upon the evidence,
              either acquitting or condemning?
    20        A.  Yes, I would imagine there would be certain guidelines
              laid down by the main panel and these would be taken into
    21        account by the groups looking at the individual nutrients
              themselves.
    22
         Q.   Might it also depend on the extent to which a particular
    23        substance was thought to have or was under suspicion of
              potential effect of having an adverse effect on health?
    24        A.  Oh, yes.  That would have to be taken into account.
              I would give an example with vitamin A:  It has been
    25        established that as little as THREE times the recommended
              daily intake or, perhaps, the DRV might actually be toxic, 
    26        so there is a need to be careful in certain cases if there 
              is a possibility of a risk. 
    27
         Q.   Can we turn to a more detailed consideration of physical
    28        activity level which, as I have understood this report, is
              an important ingredient in estimating the average
    29        requirement for energy?
              A.  Yes.
    30
         Q.   Is that straightforward science?

Prev Next Index