Day 254 - 22 May 96 - Page 59
1 effect. This is not 1968, this is 1991, a very view of
2 previous studies.
3 A. Yes, you do remember ----
4
5 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It is reviewing studies going back how far;
6 do you know?
7 A. I would not know, but certainly going back a number of
8 years and we have certainly already discussed the
9 limitations of case control studies with their
10 inaccuracies. This was something we discussed the last
11 time I appeared here.
12
13 MR. MORRIS: Yes, so you are happy to rely on case control
14 studies when they do not show correlation as evidence that
15 there is no correlation?
16 A. No.
17
18 Q. But when they do show a correlation, then they should be
19 discounted?
20 A. I am sorry, I have never said that.
21
22 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I see nothing which indicates that in the
23 evidence of the witness. There is a certain superficial at
24 least attraction in diet, and any kind of pathology of the
25 digestive tract from the oesophagus right down to the
26 rectum?
27 A. Indeed yes.
28
29 Q. For obvious reasons.
30 A. Yes. I think that all of us would feel that it would
31 seem logical to relate things that are passing through the
32 digestive track to what happens to the track.
33
34 Q. As potential suspects?
35 A. Yes. But the argument that I am making is that we do
36 not know what the exact relationship is, and that when we
37 have tried to investigate it, what has happened actually is
38 that the position has become much more complex than we
39 thought when we originally started.
40
41 MR. MORRIS: How many decades would you like to wait to find out
42 what the answer what the exact cause is before you would
43 positively make recommendations with confidence to the tens
44 of millions of people around the world who are at risk from
45 dietary diseases
46
47 MR. RAMPTON: I find that purely offensive considering who Dr.
48 Arnott is.
49
50 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes it is and it is not helpful because if
51 you look at the meaning I attributed to the leaflet, at the
52 end of the day it is not a question of what you advise
53 people who might eat at McDonald's to do with regard to how
54 often they eat. That might be a very interesting topic but
55 it is not actually what I have got to decide. What I have
56 got to decide at the end of the day is whether there is a
57 risk and, if so, what if they do this, that or the other,
58 put in very lay terms. It is not an inquiry into what you
59 would recommend people to do with regard to McDonald's
60 food.
