Day 032 - 06 Oct 94 - Page 23
1 A. Not exactly. I was seeing if there was anything to do
2 with social status, for example, unemployed or student.
3 It is limited; back on table 17 again, the first part of
4 table 17 on page 16 gives a little on social class. Here,
5 they have merged classes and analysed them differently,
6 which does not help our case very well, but class A and B
7 have been merged. Those tend to be the higher income
8 groups. C1 is normally a lower income, but white collar;
9 C2 lower income manual; D and E tend towards the
10 unemployed and pension levels, but that is not clear from
11 here.
12
13 MR. JUSTICE BELL: We can possibly take out -----
14 A. I do not think the data is particularly strong to
15 support the HOTAG figures.
16
17 MR. JUSTICE BELL: The point is, Mr. Morris, that those figures
18 might have been significant to your case but, with
19 absolutely no disrespect to Dr. Lobstein, it is going to
20 be difficult for me to attach any weight to them unless we
21 have seen the source.
22
23 MR. MORRIS: This is the HOTAG figures?
24 A. Yes, I agree with you; I regret the passing into
25 history of that particular source.
26
27 MR. MORRIS: Maybe we can track it down. It is possible it is
28 in some library. If we come on to Grazing in Peckham,
29 I think Helen will deal with this.
30
31 MS. STEEL: If you look in the blue -- we have a copy of it
32 anyway -- it is in the kingfisher blue files; it is
33 No. 75.
34
35 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Do you see the bright blue folders?
36
37 THE WITNESS: I have my own.
38
39 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What number again?
40
41 MS. STEEL: 75. Were you involved with this survey? Did you
42 have any role in it?
43 A. Yes, indeed. I supervised, along with a colleague of
44 mine, a qualified dietician, I supervised the collection
45 of data and analysis of data for this which was undertaken
46 by a student called Fiona Carruthers, whose name appears
47 on the cover sheet.
48
49 Q. Was there any special reason why Peckham was chosen?
50 A. Well, following on from the arguments we have already
51 heard this morning, we were interested in whether there
52 were pockets of high consumption of fastfoods that would
53 be against the average, that would be quite different to
54 the stated averages for the country which we were being
55 led to believe were not particularly serious or
56 significant; that is to say, if (as we have found) younger
57 people and those in lower social income were consuming
58 more fastfoods, exactly how much more and were there some
59 who might be consuming really quite high quantities
60 sufficient for us to consider it a public health concern.
