Day 038 - 19 Oct 94 - Page 22


     
     1        them the secrecy was so comprehensive that you could not do
     2        an evaluation.  You said that was from December 1992.  So,
     3        I just wanted to clarify the situation on that?
     4        A.  Yes.  The European wide list was finalised in the run
     5        up to the completion of a single European market at the end
     6        of 1992, but some of the compounds on that list had not
     7        been evaluated by the British authorities, or had been
     8        evaluated by the British authorities prior to the change in
     9        the arrangements and, therefore, I was not able to obtain
    10        the evidence on those.
    11
    12        The changed arrangements only apply in the UK to compounds
    13        evaluated since 1988 and to that fraction of the data
    14        submitted since 1988, if that is the date when the change
    15        was made, and moreover to that fraction of the data deemed
    16        not to be commercially sensitive.
    17
    18   Q.   So does that mean that commercially sensitive data is still
    19        not available?
    20        A.  I understand that some fraction of the dossiers being
    21        submitted do not reach the British library.  It is not
    22        easy, therefore, for me to know exactly what has been
    23        excluded.  But I believe it often includes data on methods
    24        of production and sometimes on levels of purity;
    25        information which might be of use to a competing
    26        manufacturer.
    27
    28   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What might be called "a trade secret" in
    29        ordinary language, not in legal language?  Something that
    30        the supplier or manufacturer would much rather that
    31        competitors did not have knowledge of; is that right?
    32        A.  That is correct, though I would simply add that prior
    33        to 1988 the food industry and food manufacturers claimed
    34        that all the toxicological data should be characterised as
    35        a trade secret.  So, the same term is used but used more
    36        narrowly now.
    37
    38   MS. STEEL:   Could the data that is being withheld be relevant
    39        to the safety of the compounds?
    40        A.  Oh, the data -- sorry, you are talking about data not
    41        being deposited in the British library that has been
    42        submitted and evaluated by British authorities since 1988?
    43        Could it be -- without being able to see it, I am not in a
    44        position to be certain, but my assumption is that most of
    45        it is unlikely to be relevant to the evaluation of safety.
    46
    47   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Presumably, I mean, if they are seeking to do
    48        their job in good faith, if the committee who is looking at
    49        it feels that they ought to have more information before
    50        they can reach a view then they can ask for it? 
    51        A.  They can indeed. 
    52 
    53   Q.   What you are saying is you do not know what they have in
    54        some circumstances and whether they have asked for more,
    55        among other things?
    56        A.  Yes.  Typically in this country the Committee on
    57        Toxicity (which is the key body located in the Department
    58        of Health which gives advice on chemical safety) only
    59        publish reports once they have reached a decision.  So,
    60        while they are in the process of reviewing something, and

Prev Next Index