Day 052 - 21 Nov 94 - Page 26
1 the relationship between diet and heart disease. There has
2 been no counterpart on the Plaintiffs' side to Dr. Arnott.
3 The reason is -- it is perfectly obvious as I have made
4 clearly on several occasions during the course of this
5 trial
6 -- to borrow, perhaps, the words of Professor Crawford, it
7 is universally recognised by medical people and by
8 scientists that there is or probably is an association,
9 causal association, between diet and heart disease. Your
10 Lordship may remember that mental chart which I asked
11 Dr. Arnott to draw for your Lordship. It was a sort of
12 league table. I cannot remember whether he specifically
13 mentioned heart disease, but he put, for example, smoking
14 and lung cancer at the top of that particular chart.
15
16 My Lord, if we had been going to dispute that there was a
17 causal relationship between diet and heart disease, we had
18 gone about doing it in a very peculiar way; we have not
19 even had a witness to deal with the question.
20
21 So, my Lord, if the Defendants have not understood that the
22 absence of such an expert witness, and what I am here
23 saying, for example, meant that the association between
24 diet and heart disease was recognised to be a causal one,
25 and conceded to be such by the Plaintiffs, first, I would
26 not accept it if they said it and, secondly, it has no
27 consequences since neither side has called or has needed to
28 call any evidence on that issue.
29
30 So far as heart disease is concerned, the sole question is
31 whether it could ever be right to say that McDonald's food
32 gives people heart disease, which is not the same thing as
33 accepting that there is a causal association between heart
34 disease and diet.
35
36 My Lord, I will read there paragraph again and I apologise
37 for digressing like that: "The plaintiffs accept (and have
38 always accepted) that there is a recognised association
39 between a diet which is high in fact and salt and heart
40 disease. That is why in their leaflet they are at pains to
41 advise their customers to eat McDonald's food as part of a
42 balanced diet, but the plaintiffs do not accept that there
43 is any respectable body of scientific opinion or evidence
44 to suggest a causal relationship between such a diet and
45 any form of cancer or diabetes.
46
47 It is true that there is a body of epidemiological and
48 clinical work which has from time to time appeared to
49 suggest a relationship or association -- your Lordship will
50 notice that I omit the word "causal" -- between a diet --
51 again I emphasise the word "diet" -- which is high in
52 animal fat and low in fibre and certain forms of cancer and
53 diabetes on the other hand".
54
55 My Lord, then on the next page I make the submission at
56 line 5 that "it is both unscientific and irresponsible to
57 propose a causal relationship between any of these diseases
58 and the type of diet in question".
59
60 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Is it clear that your concession was of a
