Day 298 - 11 Nov 96 - Page 10


     
     1        sort of consensus of opinion, that virtually everyone could
     2        agree to, and bearing in mind that there would be, I think,
     3        food industry people, or connections between food industry,
     4        that that might water it down.  That is not Professor
     5        Campbell's words.  That is my kind of summing up of what he
     6        was saying.
     7
     8        On page 84, Professor Campbell says, and this is clearly
     9        stated, that there is a direct relationship which is a
    10        causal relationship between fat and breast cancer and
    11        between fat and colon cancer, and that that was especially
    12        true for animal products, that there was a direct causal
    13        relationship.  I think he gave some figures that the
    14        chances of a high fat diet including animal products not
    15        being causal of cancer of the breast or bowel is one in
    16        1,000.  That was the same page, page 84 at the bottom from
    17        line 55.
    18
    19        He explained that that was not -- he gave further
    20        explanation about that, that he was not saying that it was
    21        high fat as the sole cause, and he went on to say that the
    22        "high intake of the fat coming from animal products tends
    23        to displace the consumption of foods of plant origin, so
    24        those kinds of food being displaced are going to allow for
    25        an increased risk as well."
    26
    27        Then on to the point which we were on last week, he said
    28        that he was absolutely convinced that there was going to be
    29        a cluster of genes for every single disease known to human
    30        kind.  In his view, everybody had genetic susceptibility.
    31
    32   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Just let me make a note of this.
    33
    34   MS. STEEL:   Page 85, as well, line 27.  He said it is not the
    35        genes that actually establish the risk; it is really the
    36        factors that actually allow the expression of these genes
    37        that lead to the disease and that those factors were
    38        largely dietary in origin.
    39
    40        He referred to a couple of studies, one by Doll and Peto,
    41        which came to a conclusion that not more than two to three
    42        percent of all cancers were genetically based.  A second
    43        study, which was carried out in America on twins, where you
    44        would have expected the second member of the identical
    45        twins to get the same cancers as the first member, because
    46        they had the same genes, but that that turned out not to be
    47        the case.  He said that so even though we have a genetic
    48        susceptibility for getting these diseases, and that was
    49        everybody for some disease, the fact of the matter is that
    50        that is not what really leads to the disease.  It was
    51        basically diet, that was where diet came into play, and
    52        that he considered that the role of diet in the disease
    53        process was substantial.
    54
    55        At the bottom of page 86, he went on to -- well, you asked
    56        him about whether he was saying that we all had a genetic
    57        propensity to develop cancer, and he said, "and other kinds
    58        of diseases as well".
    59
    60        I think that is it for Campbell.

Prev Next Index