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
