Day 039 - 20 Oct 94 - Page 65


     
     1        nominated me as a member of JECFA, you will have to ask
     2        them.
     3
     4   Q.   I did not ask whether they should nominate you.  I wanted
     5        to know why you thought it was that, apparently, they do
     6        not pay attention to what you say.  I can assume you have
     7        said it often enough and loud enough.
     8        A.  Clearly they and I are operating with a different set
     9        of assumptions.  They are the kinds of assumptions
    10        I endeavoured to spell out in answers to questions
    11        yesterday.
    12
    13   Q.   Do you know Professor Ronald Walker?
    14        A.  I do, indeed.
    15
    16   Q.   He is a distinguished scientist in his field?
    17        A.  Yes, he is.
    18
    19   Q.   He is and has been a member of JECFA and of the SCF and of
    20        the COT, has he not?
    21        A.  Yes, he has.
    22
    23   Q.   Do you say that he is in some sense compromised in his
    24        judgment by a connection with industry?
    25        A.  I am not saying, and I have not said, that because from
    26        time to time he has worked as a consultant for particular
    27        companies that that has coloured his judgment.  On the
    28        other hand, I have come to the conclusion that the kinds of
    29        people who are chosen to be recipients of government
    30        funding -- sorry, of industrial funding, and have chosen to
    31        be invited to be members of government committees and
    32        committees such as the Scientific Committee for Food or
    33        JECFA, have been chosen because of the kinds of things they
    34        say and, therefore, there is a coupling there, but the
    35        direction of causation is working in the opposite sense
    36        from that which you tried to suggest.
    37
    38   Q.   There is another possibility, is there not?  I preface it
    39        with this question:  Do you agree that there are on these
    40        various committees or acting as advisers to these various
    41        committees a large number of scientists every bit as
    42        distinguished as Professor Walker from all over the Western
    43        world?
    44        A.  Well, some of them are perhaps a little more
    45        distinguished than Professor Walker, and others are perhaps
    46        a little less distinguished.
    47
    48   Q.   Do not let us mince words.  They are served by a body of
    49        very distinguished scientific opinion?
    50        A.  They are distinguished, but that they are distinguished 
    51        does not make them ipso facto correct and I do not feel 
    52        compelled to assent to their judgments by virtue of their 
    53        being distinguished.
    54
    55   Q.   That leads to this, does it not, Dr. Millstone: If they do
    56        not take on board and give effect to what I might call the
    57        Millstone thesis of food additive safety, there are only
    58        three possible explanations, are there not?  One, is that
    59        these distinguished gentlemen are all stupid; another is
    60        they do not listen to what you say and the other is, if you

Prev Next Index