Day 256 - 04 Jun 96 - Page 69
1 you were asked about -- I think what Mr. Rampton is asking
2 about what you would say about the evidence cannot be
3 considered sufficiently strong to be termed causal.
4
5 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, that is right, my Lord.
6
7 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I was trying to help you by pointing out that
8 there is not necessarily a contradiction from that in the
9 second part of that sentence.
10 A. I appreciate, your Honour, the explanation and
11 I understand what you are saying, but even if we were to
12 take the narrow view ----
13
14 Q. Start afresh. What do you say about the statement: "The
15 evidence cannot be considered sufficiently strong to be
16 termed causal"?
17 A. First off, what I would say there is of course this is
18 a statement of a committee. As you probably are well
19 aware, committees tend to take at least a common
20 denominator, a sort of consensus of opinion that most
21 everyone can agree to.
22
23 It says:"The evidence cannot be considered sufficiently
24 strong to be termed causal". Well, the words are carefully
25 chosen there to indicate that there is a possibility that
26 there is causality, but that not everyone on that
27 particular committee would have agreed that that evidence
28 was sufficiently strong. I have not functioned on these
29 kind of committees for a number of different times and
30 years. These words are chosen fairly carefully just to
31 make sure that everyone is on board, so to speak. In
32 science, I am sure you are aware, to use that word
33 causality with a great deal of confidence is quite a
34 statement to make, but cigarettes do not cause lung cancer
35 either.
36
37 MR. RAMPTON: My packet of cigarettes says that it does. It
38 says that smoking causes cancer. Cigarettes do not, no.
39 You have got to smoke them?
40 A. But my point is that in that particular case, the
41 entire society in regulators and others, as suggested, the
42 evidence is sufficiently persuasive to tell the public that
43 statement.
44
45 Q. That is a sensible statement, is it not?
46 A. I am using that a as an extreme example but the point
47 is that if you really want to insist on causality, we have
48 to make certain kinds of observation that generally are not
49 possible. We have to take this stuff, give it to someone
50 and see if it does, and to see if it works in a certain way
51 and all the rest, so everybody is happy.
52
53 Q. The difference is this, is it not, Professor. You talked
54 about consensus, which is why I am showing you these
55 documents. There is a consensus amongst scientists that
56 with a high degree of probability at least, smoking
57 cigarettes in any numbers causes cancer, is there not?
58 A. Yes.
59
60 Q. There is no such consensus for the role of fat in the diet
