Day 016 - 22 Jul 94 - Page 37


     
     1   MR. MORRIS:  Name an example for colouring.  Rather than go
              into detail, we will accept colouring is there to make
     2        food attractive?
              A.  Yes.
     3
         Q.   Can you just explain to me what difference the EC position
     4        on need formally is, not the actual content of it, but
              compared to the FDAC?  Is the EC a different body from the
     5        FDAC?
              A.  Well, in this country we have the two committees that
     6        consider the legislative controls on additives, the
              Committee on Toxicology and the Food Advisory Committee.
     7
         Q.   That is that one, yes?
     8        A.  The Committee on Toxicology will look at the
              toxicology.  The Food Advisory Committee will consider the
     9        question of need, and they will forward recommendations to
              the government which invariably are accepted from them and
    10        then incorporated in the statutory instruments.  We are
              actually moving to a position now where gradually all
    11        legislative controls are being taken over by Europe.
 
    12   Q.   Say, for example, the EC position on need which you have
              quoted is, say, you would agree with that position, but it
    13        is not necessarily the legal position in this country yet,
              it may or may not be?
    14        A.  As far as possible, the two systems of legislation are
              being brought together.
    15
         Q.   Right.  That is a good thing, as far as you are concerned?
    16        A.  It is a fact of life.
 
    17   Q.   If you look at the EC position on need, yes?  "The use of
              food additives is justified only where they serve one or
    18        more purpose set out from (a) to (d) and only where these
              purposes cannot be achieved by other means which are
    19        economically and technologically practicable and do not
              present a hazard to the health of the consumer".  Leaving
    20        aside the hazards, within that position, the second part
              is: "... only where these purposes cannot be achieved by
    21        other means which are economically and technologically
              practicable".  Would you say that means that additives in
    22        general could be open to criticism even within that
              statement; that if there are were alternatives, generally,
    23        it would be a fair comment to criticise the use of
              additives per se if someone believed in an alternative
    24        diet from processed food, for example?
              A.  No, I would not accept that.  I do not think that is
    25        what is meant here.  I think this is in relation to
              particular foods. 
    26 
         Q.   Right. 
    27        A.  I know that you can preserve pig meat in various ways,
              but you need the nitrite in order to make -- for the
    28        curing process.  I mean, clearly, you could have a
              different way of preserving it where you are relying much
    29        more on refrigeration, but then you would have a very
              different product.  So I do not think that is what is
    30        intended here.
 

Prev Next Index