Day 038 - 19 Oct 94 - Page 11
1 animals, and there was no apparent evidence of adverse
2 effect, those model systems were reported and treated as if
3 they were unproblematically reliable as providing
4 indicators for the effects on human health; whereas when
5 there appeared to be evidence of adverse effects, they were
6 scrutinised and criticised and all kinds of reasons were
7 invoked for deeming them unreliable or irrelevant to
8 evaluating the effects on humans and were being disregarded
9 and dismissed.
10
11 I felt that the evidence was not being handled
12 consistently, because evidence of adverse effects was being
13 criticised in ways that were not being applied to evidence
14 -- tests in which no evidence of adverse effects emerged.
15
16 Moreover, insofar as there was selective interpretation of
17 the evidence, that selection seemed to be being made
18 consistently in a manner which did not favour protection of
19 the public health.
20
21 So, my approach differs from the official approach which
22 you will find in the actions and reports of the British
23 Committee on Toxicity, the European Unions, Scientific
24 Committee for Food and the Joint Expert Committee of the
25 World Health Organisation, the UN Food and Agriculture
26 Organisation. I believe their judgment systematically
27 failed to give the benefit of the doubt to consumers;
28 whereas in my approach it is characterised by, firstly,
29 seeking to identify and acknowledge both the strengths and
30 the limitations of the scientific evidence in ways that I
31 do not think is adequately being done by these official
32 bodies, and make explicit the need to assign the benefit of
33 the doubt and assign the benefit of those doubts
34 consistently in favour of the protection of public health.
35
36 That is, in summary, the principles of analyses and
37 interpretation by which I have reached my conclusions, why
38 my conclusions differ from those of the official bodies.
39
40 Q. Right. I think Professor Walker acknowledged that some
41 exercise of judgment is required in the interpretation of
42 toxicological data. I think he claimed that he and his
43 colleagues in the policy making process do give the benefit
44 of the doubt to the consumers. What would be your comment
45 on that and how do you feel that your position differs from
46 his?
47 A. Yes, indeed. Professor Walker and many of his
48 colleagues on these official committees will, from time to
49 time, acknowledge that there are some uncertainties and
50 there is a need to exercise judgment, though, I must say,
51 I have found them more willing to acknowledge that in, as
52 it were, close professional meetings than in publicly
53 accessible contexts.
54
55 But, they typically represent the exercise of judgment
56 involved as being one of purely scientific judgment, not
57 one of a social judgment, as between the interests of
58 different groups, such as producers and consumers. But
59 even insofar as they acknowledge that is the kind of
60 judgment being made, I have reluctantly come to the
