Day 039 - 20 Oct 94 - Page 62


     
     1   Q.   So an academic whose department had received a grant, for
     2        example, to fund a research student, the head of the
     3        department would be in your category of those who are
     4        funded by industry, would he?
     5        A.  I think he would, yes.  That is how I intended to use
     6        the expression.
     7
     8   Q.   So, do I follow what you are trying to tell us, namely,
     9        this, that, in your view, the objectivity, the scientific
    10        objectivity, of all those groups of persons is so heavily
    11        compromised that one cannot rely upon what they tell you;
    12        is that right?
    13        A.  I would not quite put it in those terms, no.  I would
    14        not say we cannot rely on anything they say, but I think it
    15        is always incumbent upon us just to check to see whether
    16        there is any evidence indicating that the funding source
    17        has in any way coloured the way their work is conducted and
    18        analysed, interpreted or reported.
    19
    20   Q.   Before you came to give evidence in this court,
    21        Dr. Millstone, did you read the report which Professor
    22        Ronald Walker of Guildford University had prepared for this
    23        trial?
    24        A.  Yes, I did.
    25
    26   Q.   Have you read a transcript of his evidence?
    27        A.  I have a copy of it.  I have not -- I have skimmed it.
    28        I have not read it very -- I have not had an opportunity to
    29        read it word for word.
    30
    31   Q.   Leaving the evidence on one side, taking only the report,
    32        would you agree that, so far as it matters, your evidence
    33        to this court and what he says in his report are in direct
    34        conflict with each other?
    35        A.  There are points upon which Professor Walker and I are
    36        in agreement in respect of particular fragments of
    37        toxicological evidence but, more commonly, we disagree
    38        about the ways in which those data are most appropriately
    39        interpreted.  We often disagree in our conclusions, though
    40        from time to time we would cite the same data.
    41
    42   Q.   In the world at large, Dr. Millstone, the use of additives
    43        in food is governed by government regulations, is it not?
    44        A.  I think it is important to qualify that.  It is
    45        important to say that there are detailed specific
    46        regulations governing the use of many categories of food
    47        additives, but by no means all additives, and in particular
    48        the larger single category of additives by value and
    49        quantity, namely, flavourings, are not covered by specific
    50        regulations, but the others, for the most part, are 
    51        including the ones at issue here, such as colours, 
    52        preservatives, thickening agents, antioxidants and 
    53        preservatives.
    54
    55   Q.   The eight compounds -- I leave out Potassium Bromate
    56        because it is no longer used in this country and it is no
    57        longer used by McDonald's suppliers -- with which we are
    58        concerned in this case are the subject for use as additives
    59        in food, they are the subject of regulation, are they not?
    60        A.  They are indeed.

Prev Next Index