Day 256 - 04 Jun 96 - Page 33
1 cancer, and that is the reason I said that, but there is no
2 good empirical data to my knowledge.
3
4 Q. Then if we move away from cancer in general and look
5 briefly at risk factors for breast cancer. Early age at
6 menarche, we agree, has been identified as a risk factor?
7 A. Yes.
8
9 Q. And that is, at least in part, diet related. We can agree
10 about that?
11 A. Probably in large part,.
12
13 Q. It may be. It may also be determined to some extent
14 genetically; may it not?
15 A. I doubt it.
16
17 Q. Age at first pregnancy is another factor, is it not? If
18 I may put it positively, the earlier the better?
19 A. Yes.
20
21 Q. That is not diet related; is it?
22 A. Probably not, although one cannot rule out some
23 interaction.
24
25 Q. Next, parity, number of children. Again, putting it in the
26 positive way, the more the better?
27 A. Up to a point.
28
29 Q. Again, that is not diet related either except in the most
30 indirect way that the balance of food may allow you no more
31 children?
32 A. Right.
33
34 Q. But it is not otherwise; is it?
35 A. Right.
36
37 Q. What about age at menopause? Again, putting it positively,
38 the earlier the better from a risk point of view; is that
39 right?
40 A. Yes.
41
42 Q. Is that diet related?
43 A. Yes.
44
45 Q. In what sense?
46 A. High fat low fibre diets tend to lengthen the total
47 reproductive period and by lengthening I mean causing an
48 earlier age of onset of menarche in addition to delaying
49 menopause, so it is very definitely related to diet.
50
51 Q. It may also have a genetic derivation; may it not?
52 A. I doubt it.
53
54 Q. What about breast feeding, nursing?
55 A. Yes?
56
57 Q. Is that a factor?
58 A. Yes.
59
60 Q. And again, it is better from the risk point of view to
