Day 016 - 22 Jul 94 - Page 44


     
     1        possibility that some evidence will emerge to suggest that
              additives which are currently in use may have some toxic
     2        effect that up to now has not been detected.
 
     3        What I am saying there is if we continue to narrow down
              the range of permitted additives, you know, on the ground
     4        that it would be better to put this out so that we, say,
              in a particular category we move from 20 to, say, five,
     5        then it would mean that the amounts we are using of the
              five that were left were higher than would be the case if
     6        we had 20.
 
     7   Q.   But, effectively, what is being said here, is it not, is
              that some of these additives are basically being tested on
     8        people; we do not know whether they are hazardous or not?
              A.  If I can repeat myself, there is always a possibility
     9        that something new will emerge.  Nobody can ever be a 100
              per cent certain that that will not occur.  What we can be
    10        pretty certain about is that in relation to the hazards
              that we know about that may originate from food, that
    11        there is a very strong consensus, in my view, that any
              hazards linked to additives are very, very low indeed or,
    12        I should say, any hazards likely to be linked to additives
              are very low indeed, and I really cannot see, in my own
    13        view, that from a public health or a public policy point
              of view that there is really any need to be even more
    14        stringent than we are with additives.
 
    15        I mean, what you have to understand is that over the last
              40 years or so the controls on the use of additives have
    16        become progressively more stringent.
 
    17   Q.   Do you not think that where there is a doubt about an
              additive or concern about the effects it may have on
    18        people's health that the benefit of that doubt ought to be
              given to the consumer?
    19        A.  No, I think that is really a very dangerous argument
              because, quite honestly, we could take any food -- one
    20        could take any food constituent and somewhere we could
              find an expert, or we could find a scientific paper, which
    21        would cast doubt on the safety of that food or of that
              component.
    22
              So, what it means is that when we are trying to develop
    23        policies for the regulation of food safety, we have to
              accept that there are going to be some risks out there.
    24        I mean, life is full of risks, whatever way you look at
              it, and the idea that we could achieve absolute safety in
    25        relation to our food is just nonsensical.
  
    26   Q.   Yes, but does that mean that we should not do everything 
              we can to cut down on risks? 
    27        A.  We have to put it into some kind of order of priority
              which, in my view, means that we have to start with the
    28        more serious ones and, in my view, these are heart
              disease, in particular, where, you know, there is a fairly
    29        genuine consensus, in my view, that the risks associated
              with having too much fat and too much saturated fat in the
    30        diet outweigh any risk there may be with additives by a
              factor of, maybe, 100,000 to 1.

Prev Next Index