Day 039 - 20 Oct 94 - Page 56


     
     1   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, I am anxious to save time.  Before the
     2        witness responds, I remind Mr. Morris that it is the
     3        evidence of Plaintiffs through Professor Walker that
     4        Potassium Bromate was withdrawn whenever that was, I think
     5        in 1990, because it was perceived to be carcinogenic in
     6        animals and genotoxic what is more and, therefore, could
     7        not be used for humans.  So, if the witness is going to add
     8        to it, that is fine, but he need not go into that.
     9
    10   MR. MORRIS:  All right, I will ask you a direct question.  How
    11        long has it been known that Potassium Bromate, how long
    12        have there been these concerns about the carcinogenicity of
    13        Potassium Bromate?
    14        A.  I cannot give you a precise figure in the number of
    15        years, but it was known for quite a while before it was
    16        banned that Potassium Bromate was an animal carcinogen.
    17        The only reason why it continued to be permitted was
    18        because it was not possible, given the then available
    19        techniques of analytical chemistry, to detect residues of
    20        Potassium Bromate in baked products.
    21
    22        The major change arose not immediately after, but I think
    23        more like a couple of years after, evidence started to
    24        emerge as analytical techniques developed that, indeed,
    25        residues of Potassium Bromate could be found in baked
    26        products.  There was some technical dispute about the
    27        precise reliability of the tests and the measurements and
    28        that partly accounts for the delay.
    29
    30   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  They were a very small quantity but it was
    31        not an area in which anyone was prepared to be other than
    32        totally circumspect and prudent by the time it was banned;
    33        is that really the position?
    34        A.  Almost.  I would think that prudence might have
    35        dictated action as early as '83.
    36
    37   Q.   That is what you are being asked by Mr. Morris.
    38
    39   MR. MORRIS:  So why do you say that?
    40        A.  Simply because it was known to be an animal carcinogen
    41        even before analytical techniques developed at the point at
    42        which it was possible to detect the residues.
    43
    44   Q.   So, as from 1983, are you saying it should have been
    45        withdrawn from use at that time?
    46        A.  If I had been in position of giving advice or making
    47        the decision I would have advised or decided to withdraw it
    48        from use then, yes.
    49
    50   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Can you give me because I have forgotten if I 
    51        ever was given it, when did the technology allow it to be 
    52        perceived that there were quantities, however small, of 
    53        Bromate which had not been broken down into Bromide in the
    54        baking process?
    55        A.  It is difficult for me to be precise because the
    56        evidence has not been published.  The technology to detect
    57        it was, I believe, developed at the Flour Millers Baking
    58        Research Association under contract to the Ministry of
    59        Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
    60

Prev Next Index