Day 038 - 19 Oct 94 - Page 28
1 MR. JUSTICE BELL: He did. I can see that you may be only able
2 to show, if you can show anything at all, acute reactions,
3 because if someone is said to have an acute reaction you
4 can search around for what may have caused it. If you
5 think you have identified it, you can try to make sure they
6 do not have it again. If they do not have it again, they
7 do not have the acute reaction, you may be able to say, "It
8 was due to that after all"; whereas, if you have a chronic
9 reaction -- I do not know -- there may or may not be the
10 greatest difficulty in showing what that was due to. I am
11 not with laboratory rats now -- I am with men and women.
12 A. The remarks you made in respect of acute reactions,
13 reactions that occur shortly after consumption; yes, it is
14 far more straightforward to identify a reliable causal link
15 for acute reactions, not merely if the symptoms go away
16 when consumption ceases. But if you subsequently challenge
17 people with that compound, then the reactions recur or they
18 inadvertently consume it.
19
20 Q. I understand that. But what about chronic reactions? Can
21 we usefully talk about them at all?
22 A. Well, it is important to talk about them when making an
23 evaluation of compounds and determining policy.
24
25 Q. Can we usefully talk about them in the context of the
26 particular targets, in this case, in human beings?
27 A. My understanding of the way the term "tolerance" is
28 normally used, and the way I am using it, is that it is
29 typically confined to short-term reactions, and long-term
30 chronic reactions are normally characterised in different
31 terms and the word "intolerance" is not usually applied to
32 them. Does that clarify it at all?
33
34 Q. Just one more question then. What sort of word would
35 be -----
36 A. Well, I think "toxic" is the word I customarily use to
37 refer to long-term adverse effects.
38
39 MS. STEEL: So if additives were not considered
40 life-threatening, could they still be properly considered
41 as toxic?
42 A. I would consider them to be toxic, certainly.
43
44 Q. Just going back to hyperactivity, is that something that
45 you feel should be taken seriously?
46 A. Most certainly I think it should be taken seriously.
47 The disruption to the lives -- sorry, I will start that
48 sentence again. Hyperactivity is most commonly a problem
49 which afflicts children. The disruption to the lives of
50 those children and the lives of their families and their
51 schools, the people caring for them, can be so severe and
52 it can undermine their development, their achievements and
53 the development and achievements of people they are close
54 to. I think it can be very serious.
55
56 Q. Right. So, if the hyperactivity is provoked by additives,
57 that is not something you feel is trivial and can be
58 ignored?
59 A. I certainly think it is not trivial. On the scale of
60 triviality, I would place it far higher -- sorry, it is far
