Day 040 - 21 Oct 94 - Page 36

     
     1        anything else?
     2        A.  I think we should assess alternative chemical
     3        preservatives and seek to use the safest amongst them and
     4        compare chemical preservatives with other methods of
     5        preservation, including freezing, and make a judgment about
     6        what is the safest way of protecting public health in
     7        respect of particular kinds of foods for particular uses.
     8
     9   Q.   Finally this, Dr. Millstone: This document as we can see,
    10        is published by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food &
    11        Fisheries -- MAFF for short.  Are we right to assume that
    12        it will have been written or prepared by Civil Servants?
    13        A.  I have no information on that.  In this day and age the
    14        government seems quite keen to contract services out, so I
    15        do not know who wrote it.
    16
    17   Q.   Are we even entitled to assume hat it is based on what
    18        I might call scientific advice and opinion?
    19        A.  From what I have seen of this document, the opinions it
    20        embodies and the advice it provides, are consistent with
         that which I would expect to come from the Food Advisory
    22        Committee and these government departments.
    23
    24   Q.   So, if you are right, this is an extremely dangerous
    25        document, is it not?
    26        A.  Those are your words -- not mine, Mr. Rampton.
    27
    28   Q.   I am asking you whether you agree with the proposition,
    29        Dr. Millstone?
    30        A.  I would say that this document reproduces the kind of
    31        advice which I have seen in many other places, and is less
    32        prudent and less cautious than I think it ought to be.
    33
    34   Q.   It is much worse than that, if you are right,
    35        Dr. Millstone:  We are all running the risk of maybe even
    36        acute life-threatening allergies such as you assert
    37        happened in the case of Michael Beddows?
    38        A.  I did not say we are all at risk of that, Mr. Rampton.
    39        I have said that I would be surprised if the true incidence
    40        of intolerance to food additives was greater than 5 per
         cent in the population.
    42
    43   Q.   I am sorry, I did not finish my question.  If you are right
    44        we are all running a risk endorsed by the government,
    45        indeed, perhaps you might say even encouraged by the
    46        government of getting long-term life-threatening chronic
    47        diseases, are we not, by ingestion of these food additives?
    48        A.  That is a proposition that I might dissent to, but it
    49        is not one embodied in this document.
    50 
    51   Q.   This seeks to allay people's fears about food additives? 
    52        A.  Yes, indeed, the government does go to considerable 
    53        lengths to try to allay public's fears.  But, in respect of
    54        allergy which is acute intolerance, your question now just
    55        refers to long-term chronic problems which this document
    56        does not address and does not purport to address.
    57
    58   Q.   This is apt to allay people's fears about -- there is a
    59        document about food additives, you are quite right to that
    60        extent.