Day 021 - 29 Jul 94 - Page 14

     
     1        the relationship is one of the law of diminishing
              returns.  I mean, at the moment what you have to bear in
     2        mind is that it is of the order of 15 per cent of
              calories, so what the recommendation means is a reduction
     3        of something like 35 per cent in the average for this
              country.
     4
              Now, I accept I do not think there is any question that if
     5        we can get it down from 15 to 10 or 11, the chances are
              that there will be a substantial improvement in the
     6        incidence of cardiovascular disease in this country.
              Whether one would get a big improvement by going beyond
     7        that is difficult to say, because it could well be that by
              the time you get down to 10, then all the other factors
     8        that have an influence on heart disease come to play a
              much more important role.  So, it might actually make
     9        better sense to shift the emphasis once we got it down to
              about 10 or 11.
    10
         Q.   If we look at page 11, 1.6, "DRVs for fat and
         carbohydrates"; carbohydrates here, are they meaning
              fibres broadly?
    12        A.  Well, they would also include sugars and polysaturates
              such as starch.
    13
         Q.   If we look at the sentence on that page, I believe the
    14        first sentence -- it would just waste time to go through
              it, it has no material influence:  "Both coronary heart
    15        disease and some forms of cancer have been associated with
              high intakes of fat, but their occurrence is not related
    16        to dietary fat alone.  The Panel has endeavoured to define
              specific roles for fatty acids in terms of optimal health,
    17        taking account of the prevailing diet and changes which it
              considered practicable and likely".
    18
              Does that indicate to you they are making pragmatic
    19        decisions, not just on the effect of their
              recommendations, known effect, but also in terms of
    20        setting targets which are practicable and likely, in other
              words, to be achievable?
         A.  Yes, I think that is fair comment.
 
    22   Q.   If we look at 1.6.6. on page 13.
              A.  Yes.
    23
         Q.   The second sentence says:  "The average figures presented
    24        in Table 1.2" -- I am not sure what that is.  If we look
              at the first sentence:  "The DRVs in this section are
    25        therefore not defined in the same way as those in the
              other sections of this Report.  Apart from the essential 
    26        fatty acids, none of the other nutrients in this section 
              has been shown to be essential, so there can be no 
    27        Estimated Average Requirement (EAR).  The average figures
              presented in Table 1.2 are therefore proposals for
    28        population average intakes, and not for individuals, that
              are consistent with good health, given the prevailing
    29        socio-cultural environment".  Does that underline the
              previous point about cultural norms?
    30        A.  Yes, and, of course, the difficulty of reaching a
              conclusion on what the most appropriate level would be for