Day 256 - 04 Jun 96 - Page 57


     
     1   Q.   Perhaps the reason, Professor, and you will correct me if
     2        I am wrong, is this, is it not: Governments make
     3        recommendations nowadays about diet, they never used to but
     4        they do nowadays, and one of the things they have been
     5        impelled to focus on is the percentage of energy intake
     6        which we should derive from fat, both total fat and
     7        saturated fat, do they not?
     8        A.  Yes.
     9
    10   Q.   It is not really very surprising, is it, if people who are
    11        doing research in this field should feel it useful perhaps
    12        to find out whether those recommendations are sensible or
    13        not?
    14        A.  Sure.
    15
    16   Q.   It is not a worthless exercise, this kind of study, is it?
    17        A.  Up until this point in time, it has not been generally
    18         -- most studies have been worthwhile doing.
    19
    20   Q.   If this study's, and it is only one of many, as we all
    21        know, it is a fairly recent one, conclusions are broadly
    22        correct, there would be no reason why women should
    23        seriously consider reducing their fat intake much below
    24        about 35 per cent from the point of view of risk of breast
    25        cancer derived from fat, would they?  Is that a bad
    26        question?  Shall I say it again?
    27        A.  Please.
    28
    29   Q.   If you take this study in relation to the question of how
    30        much fat you should have in your diet, no woman need bother
    31        about having 35 per cent of her energy from fat need she?
    32        A.  Why do you say that?  I am not clear why you would say
    33        that.
    34
    35   Q.   Because there is no significant relationship between the
    36        consumption of 35 per cent fat in the diet to breast
    37        cancer?
    38        A.  Because they separated out some of major effects of fat
    39        and therefore attenuated the real relationship.
    40
    41   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Is that at the end of the day the difference
    42        between someone who holds your point of view and someone
    43        who would put the point of view which Mr. Rampton is
    44        putting to you now, that which view you prefer depends upon
    45        whether you think it is a valid exercise to take out these
    46        confounding factors, as one body of opinion would describe
    47        them, or whether you say, as you appear to me to be
    48        saying: "Well, no, that is not a realistic exercise because
    49        some of the factors and the ones you think would be the
    50        most significant risk factors are themselves diet related 
    51        to some extent anyway".  Is that the watershed between the 
    52        two points of view, or is that too simple an approach? 
    53        A.  No, it is correct what you said.  That certainly
    54        distinguishes to some extent the difference of opinion that
    55        I have with my colleagues, this question concerning
    56        adjustment and adjusting ways, some of the effect.
    57
    58        Another distinction that we have in the field, and actually
    59        this distinction now seems to be melting to some extent,
    60        and that is the fact that when we talk about low fat diets,

Prev Next Index