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
