Day 052 - 21 Nov 94 - Page 30
1 I emphasise the words "both sides" -- were plainly
2 addressing this very issue; not just the Plaintiffs'
3 witnesses, though that, in my submission, would be quite
4 sufficient to put the Defendants on notice, but it is clear
5 that the notice was received and understood because the
6 Defendants' own witnesses have addressed the very same
7 issue.
8
9 My Lord, we have extracted -- it saves an awful time if we
10 have done it correctly -- from the expert witness
11 statements from page 12, to use the Americanism, through
12 page 17 the relevant passages in which this issue, does the
13 Plaintiffs' or can the Plaintiffs' food convincingly be
14 said to cause these degenerative diseases? We have
15 extracted those passages which deal with that issue. We
16 have underlined within those passages the parts where the
17 experts focus on that very question.
18
19 They are dealing, most of them, with two questions: Can it
20 be said that the Plaintiffs' food causes these diseases?
21 That is common to both sets of expert witnesses. So, is
22 the second question: Can it responsibly or credibly be
23 said that diet is a cause of cancer?
24
25 One sees, first of, all Professor Wheelock and then
26 Professor Keen. Professor Wheelock having been served in
27 July 1993; Professor Keen in January 1994 when the
28 Defendants added diabetes to their defence. One sees that
29 he says, "no scientific justification for suggesting that
30 any of the foods provided by McDonald's restaurants is
31 involved, that is to say, in the provocation of the
32 diabetes. No assertions about a diabetogenic effect of any
33 single specific foodstuff" etc.
34
35 "In evidence for a role of specific dietary components the
36 aetiology of NIDDM is inconsistent." Again to the same
37 effect, Dr. Arnott and, particularly, his conclusion which
38 is set out on page 14. All through he talks about
39 causation as, indeed, when he came to give evidence in this
40 court. He concludes: "Taking into account all the
41 evidence currently available, it is, therefore, difficult
42 to draw the conclusion that there is a causal relationship
43 between fat intake and the development of breast cancer".
44 That is what I call the subsidiary question.
45
46 He then goes on: "From all this it can be concluded that
47 it is impossible to state that there is a specific causal
48 relationship between eating McDonald's food and the
49 development of either breast or bowel cancer."
50
51 My Lord, then there is the Defendants' witnesses.
52 Mr. Cannon's first statement said that diet was an
53 important cause of major diseases including, though it is
54 not an exhaustive account, cardiovascular diseases. Then,
55 of course, in his second statement, as your Lordship will
56 remember, he came out of the bushes much more strongly and
57 said that he thought that diet or that the authorities had
58 said that diet was a cause of cancer. For all that he may
59 be wrong about it, that is what he said. So, he was
60 plainly addressing the question.
