Day 052 - 21 Nov 94 - Page 35


     
     1   MR. RAMPTON:  Line, it must be, 24 and a half.
     2
     3   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, thank you.
     4
     5   MR. RAMPTON:  It is fair to read on particularly since the
     6        Defendants do not have their transcripts here.  Mr. Morris
     7        said at the top of page 19:  "Could I come in?  Let us just
     8        say statistically associated, yes?  You have quote a number
     9        of those in your statement.  Is it true that in your
    10        statement you have criticised scientific studies that have
    11        linked statistically associated", that was a qualification
    12        of "linked", I think, "a diet high in saturated fats and
    13        various cancers?"  Answer by Professor Wheelock:  "What
    14        I have said is that it is extremely difficult to establish
    15        the cause, at least, what the role of diet is in the
    16        developed of different cancers for a whole variety of
    17        reasons which I explained the other day."  Mr. Morris:
    18         "But a number of people have done that, and you have
    19        criticised them?"  Answer:  "People have looked at
    20        different aspects at the end of the day."
    21
    22        Your Lordship:  "Can we just pause because, do you really
    23        mean that people have established" ---  Mr. Morris:  "No",
    24        interrupting your Lordship.  Your Lordship continues:
    25         "  -- the cause, because when the witness said:   'It is
    26        extremely difficult to establish the cause', you said:
    27         'Well, a lot of people have done that.' I am not sure what
    28        your case is."
    29
    30        My Lord, there is quite a lot to the same effect at that
    31        stage of the case.  Plainly, at this stage of the case,
    32        Professor Wheelock is saying (and has said repeatedly)
    33        first, you have to distinguish between a meal, a food, on
    34        the one hand, and a diet on the other; secondly, he has
    35        said there is no established causal relationship between
    36        diet and cancer.
    37
    38        The Defendants at this stage do not seem to be able to say
    39        what their case actually is.  What is absolutely clear is
    40        that they have been notified that that is the issue:  Is it
    41        a cause of cancer, diet, that is to say?  Or is it simply
    42        sufficient for them to establish a population related
    43        association?  They cannot be in any doubt, even if they
    44        were before (which I certainly do not accept), they cannot
    45        be in any doubt at all what it is, not only I, but that
    46        your Lordship sees as being the important question in the
    47        case.
    48
    49        For this very good reason, I guess -- I use the word
    50        "guess" properly because I do not know what is in your 
    51        Lordship's mind  -- that if the Defendants' case should 
    52        have turned out to be simply that there is, as Mr. Morris 
    53        puts it, a statistical association between diet and cancer,
    54        and if it should turn out at the end of the day your
    55        Lordship should find that the words complained of meant not
    56        only that diet was a cause of cancer, but that McDonald's
    57        food caused cancer, why, then, the Defendants would have no
    58        defence; and that your Lordship had that in mind may well
    59        emerge from this passage on page 24, amongst many others,
    60        I recall, though I cannot give your Lordship the reference,

Prev Next Index