Day 040 - 21 Oct 94 - Page 07

     
     1        A.  To the best of my recollection, that is correct, yes.
     2
     3   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  For the purpose of reference, it was 54(c).
     4        You need not look at it now.
     5        A.  I have no particular -----
     6
     7   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Table 12.
     8        A.  That is certainly consistent with my recollection.
     9
    10   MR. RAMPTON:  Do you regard Dr. Michaelsson's study, so far as
    11        Sunset Yellow is concerned, as a satisfactory basis for an
    12        assertion that, as a general proposition, Sunset Yellow is
    13        apt to provoke hypersensitive reactions in mankind?
    14        A.  Not in and of itself I would not consider that to be
    15        sufficient.  At this point in the document I was merely
    16        drawing attention to the paper which the Committee on
    17        Toxicity had itself chosen to cite in support of its
    18        statement.
    19
    20   Q.   May I turn now to Amaranth, please?  Can you turn, please,
         to page 14 of your revised statement?
    22        A.  Yes.
    23
    24   Q.   As I understood your evidence yesterday, your principal
    25        concern about Amaranth is its, in your view, supposed
    26        potential for carcinogenicity; is that right?
    27        A.  Its possible potential for long term chronic effects,
    28        of which carcinogenicity is one example.  I would include,
    29        for instance, I take no less seriously the other effect
    30        that I have listed there, which was the fetal reabsorption.
    31
    32   Q.   What about renal calcification, or is that the same thing?
    33        A.  No, renal calcification is very different.  That is a
    34        kidney effect.
    35
    36   Q.   Is that one of the long term effects, supposed effects,
    37        about which you are concerned?
    38        A.  It is an effect which has emerged in some tests and,
    39        therefore, I treat that as prima facie evidence of a
    40        possible risk which should not be disregarded without
         further investigation.
    42
    43   Q.   Do you see the paragraph on this page 14 beginning "In
    44        1983"?  It is the last paragraph.
    45        A.  Yes, indeed.
    46
    47   Q.   May I read it:  "In 1983 the SCF eventually returned to
    48        Amaranth and provided something approaching a proper
    49        discussion of some of the toxicological issues.  They
    50        indicated that 'Several long-term studies in mice and 
    51        numerous studies in rats were available, but the apparent 
    52        tumourigenic potential reported in two of the studies could 
    53        not be evaluated in the absence of the specification of the
    54        material then tested'."   That includes the Russian study,
    55        does it not?
    56        A.  To the best of my understanding, it does, yes.
    57
    58   Q.   "'A recently completed long-term study showed no effect on
    59        tumour incidence, but'" -- this is in italics -- "'a clear
    60        no-effect level could not be established for the renal