Day 038 - 19 Oct 94 - Page 28


     
     1   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  He did.  I can see that you may be only able
     2        to show, if you can show anything at all, acute reactions,
     3        because if someone is said to have an acute reaction you
     4        can search around for what may have caused it.  If you
     5        think you have identified it, you can try to make sure they
     6        do not have it again.  If they do not have it again, they
     7        do not have the acute reaction, you may be able to say, "It
     8        was due to that after all"; whereas, if you have a chronic
     9        reaction -- I do not know -- there may or may not be the
    10        greatest difficulty in showing what that was due to.  I am
    11        not with laboratory rats now -- I am with men and women.
    12        A.  The remarks you made in respect of acute reactions,
    13        reactions that occur shortly after consumption; yes, it is
    14        far more straightforward to identify a reliable causal link
    15        for acute reactions, not merely if the symptoms go away
    16        when consumption ceases.  But if you subsequently challenge
    17        people with that compound, then the reactions recur or they
    18        inadvertently consume it.
    19
    20   Q.   I understand that.  But what about chronic reactions?  Can
    21        we usefully talk about them at all?
    22        A.  Well, it is important to talk about them when making an
    23        evaluation of compounds and determining policy.
    24
    25   Q.   Can we usefully talk about them in the context of the
    26        particular targets, in this case, in human beings?
    27        A.  My understanding of the way the term "tolerance" is
    28        normally used, and the way I am using it, is that it is
    29        typically confined to short-term reactions, and long-term
    30        chronic reactions are normally characterised in different
    31        terms and the word "intolerance" is not usually applied to
    32        them.  Does that clarify it at all?
    33
    34   Q.   Just one more question then.  What sort of word would
    35        be -----
    36        A.  Well, I think "toxic" is the word I customarily use to
    37        refer to long-term adverse effects.
    38
    39   MS. STEEL:   So if additives were not considered
    40        life-threatening, could they still be properly considered
    41        as toxic?
    42        A.  I would consider them to be toxic, certainly.
    43
    44   Q.   Just going back to hyperactivity, is that something that
    45        you feel should be taken seriously?
    46        A.  Most certainly I think it should be taken seriously.
    47        The disruption to the lives -- sorry, I will start that
    48        sentence again.  Hyperactivity is most commonly a problem
    49        which afflicts children.  The disruption to the lives of
    50        those children and the lives of their families and their 
    51        schools, the people caring for them, can be so severe and 
    52        it can undermine their development, their achievements and 
    53        the development and achievements of people they are close
    54        to.  I think it can be very serious.
    55
    56   Q.   Right.  So, if the hyperactivity is provoked by additives,
    57        that is not something you feel is trivial and can be
    58        ignored?
    59        A.  I certainly think it is not trivial.  On the scale of
    60        triviality, I would place it far higher -- sorry, it is far

Prev Next Index