Day 298 - 11 Nov 96 - Page 42


     
     1        is that:  "In conclusion" (this is the World Health
     2        Organisation still) "although several lines of evidence
     3        indicate that dietary factors are important in the
     4        causation" -- and there is emphasise on "causation" -- "of
     5        cancer at many sites, and that dietary modification may
     6        reduce cancer risk, the contribution of diet to total
     7        cancer incidence and mortality cannot be quantified on the
     8        basis of present knowledge.  Nevertheless, evidence
     9        indicates that a diet which is low in total saturated fat
    10        and high in plant foods, especially green and yellow
    11        vegetables and citrus fruits, and low in alcohol, salt,
    12        pickled and smoked, salt-preserved food, is consistent with
    13        a low risk of the many of the current major cancers,
    14        including cancer of the colon, prostate, breast, stomach,
    15        lung and oesophagus."
    16
    17        Obviously -- well, it is just the point that it does not
    18        really matter whether or not people can prove individual
    19        cause and effect for individual dietary components and
    20        individual cancers.  What matters is the view on a
    21        high fat/low fibre diet overall and its effects on various
    22        types of cancers, and that it is clear that there is a
    23        consensus view that that type of diet is causally related
    24        to cancer.  So, obviously, with the Plaintiffs' admission
    25        that that type of diet is causally related to heart
    26        disease, the case is just overwhelmingly against
    27        McDonald's.
    28
    29        Just a final point which I meant to make before, which is
    30        that, bearing in mind that heart disease is the number one
    31        killer above the number of deaths from cancer, you may
    32        think that, in the eyes of the general public, since
    33        McDonald's have admitted the causal relationship between a
    34        high fat, high sodium, low fibre diet and heart disease,
    35        that, really, whether or not cancer was proven would not
    36        really add anything in terms of whether it would deter the
    37        public from eating McDonald's food or lessen their view of
    38        McDonald's and its products.  I cannot remember which
    39        section of the Defamation Act that is -- I am too tired --
    40        I do not know whether it was section 5 or section 6, about
    41        whether or not if you have proved one thing, that whatever
    42        was left was not -- yes, that it was not necessary to prove
    43        the whole lot, even though we do consider that we have
    44        proved the whole lot.
    45
    46   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Yes.
    47
    48   MS. STEEL:   That is really as far as I have got.
    49
    50   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Yes.  We will adjourn till 10.30 on
    51        Wednesday morning.  Have you decided who is going to do
    52        what then?
    53
    54   MS. STEEL:   I am doing the advertising.
    55
    56   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    57
    58        (The Court adjourned to Wednesday, 13th November)
    59
    60

Prev Next Index