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
