Day 001 - 28 Jun 94 - Page 39


     
     1        the conclusions to be drawn from these studies are
              uncertain and controversial.
     2
              Specifically, the plaintiffs expert say, first, that the
     3        methodology and reasoning of many of these studies is
              flawed; second, that the results they have produced are
     4        generally inconclusive and often contradictory and, third,
              that in consequence (and this is what matters) it is both
     5        unscientific and irresponsible to propose a causal
              relationship between any of those diseases and the type of
     6        diet in question.
 
     7        My Lord, under nutrition there is one final matter which
              I ought to deal with, though quite a peripheral thing, it
     8        does feature in the case.  The question is this:  Does the
              plaintiffs' use of additives, which are used to preserve,
     9        stabilize and colour their food, and also on occasions to
              give a taste, does that use constitute any significance
    10        risk to human health?
 
    11        Again the answer is, no.  The plaintiffs' expert on this
              topic are Professor Wheelock, who can explain why
    12        additives are both necessary and desirable, and Professor
              Walker who is Professor of Food Science at Surrey
    13        University and, as a distinguished toxicologist, has
              served and still serves on numerous national and
    14        international committees on food safety, including most
              obviously those which regulate the types and quantity of
    15        chemical additives which are allowed to be used in the
              food we eat.
    16
              Professor Walker will say that none of the additives used
    17        by the plaintiffs in the quantities in which they are used
              in the plaintiffs' food constitute any hazard to human
    18        health whatsoever.  He will say that the defendants' case
              on this topic displays a basic ignorance of the principles
    19        of toxicology and a critical misunderstanding of the roles
              of the various committees which exist to ensure that human
    20        health is not endangered by the use of food additives.
 
    21        I turn next to the topic of advertising.  I express the
              issue in this way:  Do the plaintiffs aim and I quote
    22        "nearly all" their advertising at children with the
              object of "seducing" them into eating food which is, at
    23        best, lacking in any positive value and, at worst,
              unhealthy and even "poisonous"?"
    24
              I break this question down in this way:  First, what
    25        proportion of the plaintiffs' advertising is directed
              specifically at children?  My Lord, the available figures 
    26         -- those which we have been able to find -- are as 
              follows:  In the United Kingdom in 1990, for three 
    27        regions, London:  Children's advertising was 11.8 per cent
              of budget; Manchester, 17.87 per cent; Central Scotland,
    28        17.9 per cent.
 
    29        In the United States for the following years:  1989.  My
              Lord, I should mention here, in the United States,
    30        national and local advertising budgets are separate, so
              I give the figures separately.  Nationally, children's

Prev Next Index