Day 031 - 05 Oct 94 - Page 52
1 contains a variety of nutrients and association with each
2 other; that these highly unsaturated fatty acids which you
3 find in fish and sea foods, are usually associated with
4 vitamins which are concerned with their protection. So I
5 would be surprised if somebody made a comment like that.
6
7 Q. May I ask you, as it were, to pocket your good manners for
8 a moment and ask you whether you agree with this
9 proposition, that the assertion or proposition which I
10 have just postulated is bunk, scientific bunk?
11 A. There is an element of truth in it.
12
13 Q. In what sense?
14 A. In the sense that we have done and published
15 experiments which have shown that if you take marmosets
16 and feed them on a diet such as you describe, you can get
17 alopecia anaemia as a consequence of it, so there is an
18 element of truth; it is not entirely bunk.
19
20 Q. I was talking about carcinogenesis?
21 A. In terms of carcinogenesis, one of the theories of the
22 origin of carcinogenesis is indeed the peroxidated theory,
23 that the DNA is attacked by free radicals and damage
24 results in the particular twist in the molecule which
25 results in a tumour. This is a theory which is put about
26 by several people.
27
28 I would have to say that the epidemiological evidence in
29 relation to the foods which are rich in these omega 3
30 fatty acids, and by that I mean the long-chain omega 3
31 fatty acids that are found in fish and sea foods, the
32 epidemiological evidence and the experimental evidence is
33 that they are protective.
34
35 Q. So can I perhaps finish this short series of questions
36 with this proposition, Professor Crawford, and see if you
37 agree with it: Somebody who asserted in unvarnished,
38 unqualified terms the sort of proposition which I put to
39 you, I hope, in similar unvarnished terms a moment ago,
40 would not have much credence: avoid fish oils because they
41 will give you cancer?
42 A. Yes, I would not wish to choose the adjective to
43 describe that person, but I think that person would not be
44 talking from a good base of knowledge.
45
46 Q. Only a couple more questions and then, if I may, a request
47 for some assistance. Professor Crawford, may one in your
48 mind -- this is a general question and I will come back to
49 it in more detail when you return to court -- may one
50 properly in your mind distinguish between recommendations
51 made by governments, World Health Organisation, or
52 whatever, bodies which are responsible for the health of
53 the human race in some sense or another, recommendations
54 made by such bodies on the basis of an assessment of risk,
55 that on the one hand and, on the other hand, assertions
56 about the aetiology of a particular degenerative disease?
57 Is that a distinction which one may properly make?
58 A. I am not sure you can make that distinction for this
59 reason, that the basis of risk is dependent on some
60 evidence regarding aetiology. I think that probably --
