Day 040 - 21 Oct 94 - Page 28
1 ordinary diet.
2
3 MR. RAMPTON: Yes. In fact, Professor Wheelock was in court
4 yesterday. I asked him if he could see to that and I think
5 he will. May I read on, please, Dr. Millstone: "Degraded
6 Carrageenan administered in dose above one per cent,
7 whether in a water or food, vehicle, causes ulceration and
8 metaplasia of colorectal region of the intestinal tract in
9 rats. The ulcerative effects reported for the low
10 molecular weight degraded Carrageenan appear dependent upon
11 the animal species and the method of oral administration.
12 In fact, guinea pigs and rats are the most susceptible
13 species to ulcerative changes in the large bowel."
14 A. The most sensitive species of those tested, of course,
15 that means.
16
17 Q. Yes, but do you agree with that qualification? Do you
18 agree with that statement?
19 A. I have not checked it through the text, but I have no
20 particular reason to question it.
21
22 Q. Then it summarises what we saw earlier on the previous
23 page: "There were no signs of an ulceration in samples of
24 gut, nor was degraded Carrageenan detected by either the
25 histochemical or the analytical method when six patients
26 were given five grammes of degraded Carrageenan"?
27 A. Yes, just on that last paragraph, I think you have to
28 appreciate that these six patients have tumours of their
29 colon of such an advanced stage and severity they are just
30 about to have surgery, from which one might conclude --
31 must conclude, I think -- that a large portion of their gut
32 is covered in aggressive malignant lesions and, whatever
33 that may provide, it is not an appropriate model for
34 ordinary human gut.
35
36 Q. In the light of what I have just read you, Dr. Millstone,
37 from what JECFA had to say about Carrageenan in 1984, do
38 you still adhere to your indictment of the use of native
39 Carrageenan as a food additive?
40 A. I do for the reasons I gave, which are that at the time
41 this evaluation was written food grade Carrageenan was
42 being characterised purely in terms of its average
43 molecular weight, and the variation within the samples was
44 not taken into consideration. The evidence from -----
45
46 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What was the variation?
47 A. The variation was not then given.
48
49 Q. Yes, but do you not have any idea?
50 A. My understanding from the separate literature, not on
51 the toxicology but on the identity and purity of these
52 materials, is that food grade Carrageenan of that kind
53 would have a relatively broad spread of molecules of
54 different molecular weight and they would include some low
55 molecular weight materials. There was very considerable
56 variation from sample to sample and particularly in
57 Carrageenans derived from different countries.
58
59 Q. They gave a figure under Comments and it was 800,000 to
60 100,000. Are you doubting that?
