Day 040 - 21 Oct 94 - Page 40

     
     1        is better than, say, 27 per cent of 15?
     2        A.  Certainly.
     3
     4   Q.   On the subject of Carrageenan, well, on the general subject
     5        on high dose which has been looked at, the significance of
     6        high dose studies.  Mr. Rampton concluded that the monkeys
     7        which I think there were only three or possibly three male,
     8        three female, that were tested for Carrageenan; they were
     9        eating the equivalent of 40 grammes per day for humans.  He
    10        asked you, did you know if that was possible for humans to
    11        ingest that amount.  Does it seem to you that he has
    12        completely misunderstood the high dose significance and the
    13        transference of that dose significance to humans?
    14        A.  I think this was primarily in our discussion yesterday
    15        afternoon, but to a lesser extent today.  I did not feel
    16        that Mr. Rampton was willing to give a similar
    17        interpretation to high dose data that I would give to it.
    18
    19   Q.   The point I am making is that doses that animals take have
    20        to be, do they not, multiplied by sample factors of 100 or
         500, if the significance of that dose fed to the animal is
    22        going to be relayed to a massive human population, a
    23        diverse population?
    24        A.  Certainly, the nominal rationale for using high doses
    25        has to do with, amongst other things, compensating for the
    26        relatively small size of the samples of animals being used,
    27        and three monkeys or even six monkeys is a very slight
    28        sample, vanishing statistical significance.
    29
    30   Q.   So, for example, if we divided 40 grammes by a 100 which is
    31        often a figure that has been used, or more, we are talking
    32        about .4 grammes?
    33        A.  I thought that comes to 4 grammes but -----
    34
    35   Q.   No, if it is divided by 10, but if it is divided but by 100
    36        it would be .4 of a gramme?
    37        A.  40 grammes?
    38
    39   Q.   40 grammes is what the equivalent is worked out for a
    40        human.
         A.  Yes.
    42
    43   Q.   So somebody may actually ingest .4 of a gramme of
    44        Carrageenan?
    45        A.  It would be much easier for you to calculate that once
    46        you know, say, the amounts of Carrageenan in a McDonald's
    47        shake.
    48
    49   Q.   And in other foods?
    50        A.  In other foods, indeed, certainly. 
    51 
    52   Q.   For the people most at risk in the population? 
    53        A.  Yes, at the high end of the distribution.
    54
    55   Q.   The highest ingestion of Carrageenan?
    56        A.  Yes, that would not be at all difficult.
    57
    58   Q.   If we are going to protect the whole public, that is
    59        correct.  So, on the government document that we had last,
    60        the section that Mr. Rampton left out indicated that it is