Day 016 - 22 Jul 94 - Page 61


     
     1        misrepresenting him.  When we are talking about concern,
              we are not just talking about concern of members of the
     2        public; we are talking about scientific concern.
 
     3   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Just pause -- starting at page 13, you have
              what you allege each of these additives does or can do.
     4        That is nub of your case.  If you are saying that the
              regulatory authorities have a balance wrong and you want
     5        to address any comment or argument to me in relation to
              that, you can do so at the end of the day.  I will
     6        consider it and  we will see whether it is relevant or
              not.
     7
              I do not want to anticipate argument about it.  You have a
     8        witness in the box who has been put there as an expert on
              certain matters.  Really what you ought to be grappling
     9        with, or deciding it would be better to take it up with
              Professor Walker, are the matters you have on page 13;
    10        that sunset yellow carries with it a risk of allergy, that
              it can cause skin rashes, swelling blood vessels, gastric
    11        upsets and vomiting.
 
    12        That is what you ought to be putting to this witness.  If
              you are going to continue to contend for that, or
    13        say: "Since we know Professor Walker is going to be called
              and he is the plaintiffs' particular expert on additives,
    14        we will put it to him".
 
    15   MS. STEEL:   With respect, that is what we were doing.  I am
              specifically not going into the nitty-gritty of what
    16        scientific tests have shown this, that and the other,
              because we want to leave it to Mr. Walker.  We want to
    17        make things short.
 
    18   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What are you arguing at the moment is that
              the regulatory bodies should start from another aspect, it
    19        seems to me.  That I think you ought to be aiming at me if
              you think it is relevant, so I can consider it at the end
    20        of the day.  If you are saying it is no exculpatory
              feature that they are not banned by this regulatory body
    21        or that regular body because they approach it from the
              wrong line, then address that to me.
    22
         MS. STEEL:  I accept this was not gone through in detail with
    23        Mr. Rampton, but that was because he has put this
              statement in as evidence on its own.  We have to deal with
    24        what has been said and we are only dealing with it in
              passing.  I mean, I am in difficulty now because we have
    25        gone so far off what we were talking about, I do not know
              if I can remember my train of thought, but I am trying to 
    26        cut things short.  I am just trying to put things based on 
              what our case is, but our case is not just what is in the 
    27        pleadings.  It is what agreed it would incorporate things
              that were in our witnesses' statements.  There is concern,
    28        scientific concern, there has been scientific concern,
              about monosodium glutamate, and I really cannot remember
    29         -- I know I was asking about concern about monosodium
              glutamate, but beyond that .....
    30
         MR. JUSTICE BELL:  If you are going to put in relation to --

Prev Next Index