Day 047 - 07 Nov 94 - Page 34

     
     1        throughout the day?
     2        A.  Indeed.
     3
     4   Q.   If people eat a lot of sweet foods, then there is a problem
     5        with dental hygiene?
     6        A.  Yes.
     7
     8   Q.   So that is an extension, really, not just near bedtime.
     9        But it is an important consideration?
    10        A.  Yes.
    11
    12   Q.   Point (d), I think this is the same, is it not, exactly as
    13        point (c) in the original code?
    14        A.  Yes.
    15
    16   MR. MORRIS:   I will just read it out.
    17
    18   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Well, we can see it is just the same.
    19
    20   MR. MORRIS:  Okay.  Can I ask you a question about this,
         that: "Snack foods must not suggest that such products may
    22        be substituted for balanced meals. " Is that open to
    23        interpretation, as well?
    24        A.  Everything is open to interpretation, one of the
    25        questions: is an apple a snack food?  There are many other
    26        questions of interpretation.  I think what it is saying,
    27        what it is referring to is the deplorable habit one has
    28        sometimes seen -- I apologise, I think it is deplorable,
    29        but others may not -- of saying, "I won't have breakfast.
    30        A bag of crisps will do."  I would say that would be
    31        substituting snack food for a balanced meal.  I would say
    32        that it was unwise, but others may think that it suits
    33        them.  It depends what else they eat during the day.
    34
    35        What a commercial cannot do is to say: "You don't need
    36        breakfast.  A bag of crisps will do."  That is
    37        substituting.
    38
    39   Q.   Could it also be interpreted, whether rightly or wrongly,
    40        as that some products which are in fact snacks are being
         promoted as balanced meals?  Could it be interpreted that
    42        way?
    43        A.  I do not think so.  I do not think they are.  I do not
    44        think that would have got through the existing code.  If
    45        you look at the existing code, I think you will find that
    46        the wording would quite clearly prevent that today.  So I
    47        do not think the new proposed draft says anything different
    48        in that respect from what was said before.
    49
    50   Q.   The next point: "Generalised claims for goodness or 
    51        wholesomeness."  I have got here a note saying it is the 
    52        same, but I cannot find it anywhere else. 
    53        A.  It is an amended version of existing rule 20, in
    54        appendix 3, which is on page 19 of the May 1993 code.
    55
    56   Q.   Right.  We do not have page 19.
    57        A.  Well, the ITC says, and I agree with them, that this is
    58        an amended version of rule 20.
    59
    60   Q.   If I can just read that.  There is an additional point, is