Day 265 - 19 Jun 96 - Page 12


     
     1        has changed dramatically in industrialised societies since
     2        societies have become industrialised and consistently have
     3        so done, vary mostly as a factor of the type of diet eaten,
     4        and specifically that would be to do with the amount, how
     5        energy-dense the diet was, and also on its protein content,
     6        particularly animal protein content.  I would say that that
     7        would be regarded as established scientific fact.  I am not
     8        aware that there is any controversy on that issue whatever.
     9
    10   Q.   (Continuing to read): "Emerging evidence:  meat and
    11        cancer.  Some evidence has notably strengthened.  Again, I
    12        am aware of one example relevant in this case, which is the
    13        relationship of meat to cancer risk.  An increasing amount
    14        of data from epidemiological studies suggests that diets
    15        containing substantial amounts of meat defined as red meat,
    16        which is to say beef, lamb and pork, such as typically
    17        eaten in industrialised societies increases the risk of
    18        cancers of a number of sites.  Evidence is strongest for
    19        colo-rectal cancer."
    20        A.   That is not new, the emphasis, but it is worth
    21        mentioning because of the emphasis.  The issue here is
    22        partly that one of the standard problems that
    23        epidemiologists have working with free-living populations
    24        is that you cannot be immediately sure, if you are dealing
    25        with a diet that has substantial amounts of fat and also
    26        substantial amounts of meat in it, which is, if you wish,
    27        the guilty party.
    28
    29             As I have indicated, studies that have been carried
    30        out within populations such as the States, where a great
    31        deal of this research is done, is tending to suggest in as
    32        much as you can allow for these so-called compounding
    33        factors that the issue may be rather less fat and rather
    34        more meat.
    35
    36             And, of course, when I say earlier -- you quote me as
    37        saying earlier -- that evidence is strengthening, this is
    38        not just a matter of the sheer weight of similar types the
    39        evidence simply being repeated again and again but
    40        different types of evidence.  So that animal experiments,
    41        for example, or identification of plausible mechanisms,
    42        would tend to strengthen scientific judgment on the
    43        subject.
    44
    45             The other point I want to make -- and again I am
    46        making this point as a layperson purely with the intention
    47        of being helpful -- is that I am, as you see, drawing a
    48        distinction between scientific opinion.   What I mean by
    49        that is the opinion of an individual and scientific
    50        judgment.  What I mean is the opinion of a body of experts 
    51        in the field who have been asked to make a judgement based 
    52        on the evidence.  I think these are two different 
    53        processes.
    54
    55   Q.  "5, The relevance of McDonald's food.  I have been asked to
    56        give my opinion about the relevance of McDonald's food to
    57        the incidence of epidemic killer diseases and in particular
    58        to coronary heart disease, breast cancer and colo-rectal
    59        cancer?
    60        A.   Can I interject?  What I mean by killer diseases, are

Prev Next Index