Day 297 - 08 Nov 96 - Page 41
1 complaint about it when it was produced. That was referred
2 to on day 33, page 43.
3
4 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I remember the evidence. Did he say
5 anything about what happened to the complaint?
6
7 MS. STEEL: I don't think he did. I don't think it had been --
8 it was 1994 when he gave evidence was it not?
9
10 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
11
12 MS. STEEL: I don't remember whether or not there had been a
13 result by then. Dr. Barnard was of the opinion that if
14 McDonald's are going to provide any information to children
15 then they should be providing the genuine effects of the
16 food, including the connections to heart disease and
17 cancer. That was on day 33, page 46.
18
19 Coming on, this is really a bit of a section as an example
20 of how it is just ridiculous for McDonald's to suggest that
21 the leaflet was lies, and that we knew it was lies. In
22 relation to the counterclaim, this is obviously... (Pause)
23
24 Professor Wheelock accepted that Doll and Peto were top of
25 the profession and that their views were well respected and
26 if they made an association between diet and cancer, et
27 cetera. Day 16, pages 20 to 21. Dr. Barnard agreed that
28 Doll was very important and respected. That was day 35,
29 page 34. In cross-examination, Professor Wheelock quoted
30 the statistics of Doll and Peto when he was asked whether
31 what you eat is related causally to cancer. Day 21, page
32 46. Professor Wheelock agreed that bodies such as NACNE
33 and the Health Education Authority were well respected,
34 responsible bodies who would not be making wild statements
35 which were out of sync with the general belief and thought
36 of the time. That was day 21, page 24, and obviously, they
37 were all making statements about the links between high
38 fat, low fibre diet and heart disease and cancer. That was
39 day 21, page 24.
40
41 I had already said that, sorry.
42
43 MR. JUSTICE BELL: 24.
44
45 MS. STEEL: Yes. In cross-examination, Dr. Arnott agreed that
46 if a body such as the National Academy of Sciences in
47 America produces a report linking diet to cancer that is
48 bound to suggest to scientists that the content of the
49 report are correct. That would have obvious implications
50 for the food industry. That was day 22, page 26. And it
51 would obviously have implications for ordinary members of
52 the public such as ourselves believing that there was a
53 link between diet as set out in the London Greenpeace fact
54 sheet and degenerative diseases as referred to in the
55 London Greenpeace fact sheet.
56
57 There was the World Health Organisation report which we
58 have been into, obviously, connecting dietary factors to
59 the development of a number of chronic diseases, Dr. Arnott
60 agreed that the World Health Organisation is probably the
