Day 053 - 22 Nov 94 - Page 06


     
     1   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You say -- this is why I corrected myself
     2        yesterday -- that where you have an association between, at
     3        the bottom of page 2 and the top of page 3 of tab 3, that
     4        is really taken from papers like Doll and Peto.
     5
     6   MS. STEEL:  Yes.  I think the pleadings actually refer to that
     7        anyway.
     8
     9   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  They do.  The phrase "an association between"
    10        is used twice in the paragraph of your pleading which
    11        refers to Doll and Peto, and Draser & Irving 1972 and
    12        Kolonel & Others 1981.
    13
    14   MS. STEEL:   When we amended the pleading, we added the
    15        passage:
    16
    17        "There is a considerable amount of evidence of a
    18        relationship between a diet high in fat, sugar and sodium
    19        and low in fibre, and diseases such as obesity, high blood
    20        pressure, heart disease and some forms of cancer."
    21
    22        As referred to directly underneath that, that was taken
    23        from the Plaintiffs' own booklet, and the word used in the
    24        Plaintiffs' own booklet was "relationship" or "related", or
    25        something -- "related to".
    26
    27        Given that it was from their booklet, we did find it
    28        strange, and we were perplexed by the fact that they only
    29        admitted the heart disease, high blood pressure and
    30        obesity, and left out the cancer or some forms of cancer.
    31
    32        It appeared to us as though they were trying to deny the
    33        obvious, i.e. that there was a relationship between diet
    34        and cancer, as stated in their own booklet; and later on in
    35        hearings, when the word "cause" was used, we felt it was
    36        just them trying to hype up what was in the leaflet, to
    37        confuse the issues, because they were in a sticky situation
    38        and they wanted to confuse the court and say: "There is no
    39        proven cause and effect; therefore, there is no link."
    40
    41        In terms of the context of the rest of the leaflet, we
    42        completely reject the interpretation that the Plaintiffs
    43        are putting on the leaflet.
    44
    45        Maybe I will just say what we feel you might find that the
    46        various parts of the leaflet did mean?
    47
    48   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I have to take it as a whole.  If I just
    49        looked at the cartoon, for instance, since the
    50        slaughterhouses are places of death, if it says, "If the 
    51        slaughterhouse doesn't get you, the junk food will", if 
    52        I just looked at that cartoon, and since on the same page 
    53        there is reference to McDonald's junk food, I might think
    54        that that simply means "McDonald's food will kill you"; and
    55        because animals, obviously, are not eating it, it must
    56        refer to men and women.  But I have to look at it all.
    57        Obviously, it might be more sophisticated than that.  What
    58        has been said against you is that, by the same token, you
    59        do not just read the text while ignoring the cartoon.
    60

Prev Next Index