Day 047 - 07 Nov 94 - Page 35

     
     1        there, about the seventh line down:
     2
     3        "....unless supported by sound medical evidence and will,
     4        where appropriate, be assessed by reference to the concept
     5        of a balanced diet"?
     6        A.  Yes.  That is the amendment.  That line is added.
     7
     8   Q.   Right.  So does that mean that a product that is promoted
     9        as healthy would need to be seen in reference to its
    10        contribution to a balanced diet, whether it is a positive
    11        or negative contribution?
    12        A.  Well, if there is a generalised claim for properties
    13        such as goodness or wholesomeness, that is the context in
    14        which this sentence has been added.
    15
    16   Q.   The question is whether it helps to have a balanced diet --
    17        like, for example, obviously a packet of sweets would not
    18        help a balanced diet?
    19        A.  I do not think I could comment on how that might be
    20        interpreted by the people doing the interpreting.
    21
    22   Q.   So it is open to interpretation?
    23        A.  Yes.
    24
    25   Q.   It says here, if I may read from near the middle:
    26
    27        "The ITC has received representations suggesting that
    28        generalised claims of this kind be disallowed altogether on
    29        the grounds of no single food can on its own claim to be
    30        beneficial for health.  The AAC considered this suggestion,
    31        saying that it would be more conducive to the objection of
    32        the Health in the Nation programme for those advertising
    33        and in a position to do so to be able to draw attention to
    34        the contribution their products could make to a healthy
    35        diet."
    36
    37        So could that be interpreted to mean that the product's
    38        contribution to a healthy diet, whether it is positive a
    39        negative contribution, should be----
    40        A.  Sorry.  I did not catch that.
    41
    42   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You dropped your voice.
    43
    44   MR. MORRIS:  Sorry.  Does it mean, therefore, that a product's
    45        contribution to a healthy diet, whether it is pro, or
    46        negative contribution, would be something that would be
    47        considered or could be considered under these new codes?
    48        A.  Yes, to some extent it means that.  But, effectively,
    49        what this is saying is that if "the representations
    50        suggesting generalised claims should be disallowed" had 
    51        been accepted, then nobody would be able to make a claim 
    52        about any benefit at all, and the AAC did not feel that 
    53        this was a sensible suggestion.  As it says here, they
    54        decided it would be more conducive to the objection of the
    55        Health of the Nation for those advertisers who are in a
    56        position to do so to be able to draw attention to the
    57        contribution that their product can make.  In other words,
    58        a criticism of all generalised claims would eliminate many
    59        valuable ones.  That is what that note, effectively, is
    60        saying.