Day 106 - 23 Mar 95 - Page 25

     
     1        It is becoming increasingly evident (and also acknowledged
     2        by the scientific community) that the safety levels set for
     3        residues of OPs, as they are called, are not entirely
     4        appropriate in that they concern themselves mainly with
     5        single dose what is called acute exposure; whereas a
     6        different group of symptoms arise from multiple low dose
     7        exposure, i.e. chronic exposure, and that these OPs are
     8        capable of causing damage at extremely low levels, and that
     9        damage is cumulative to the extent that prolonged exposure,
    10        whether from single source or multiple sources, can and
    11        does lead to a variety of extremely debilitating diseases.
    12
    13        In that sense, the levels set by currently the Veterinary
    14        Medicines Directorate and the Pesticides Safety, I think it
    15        is, Directorate, are by a wide group of people, including
    16        myself, not regarded as an accurate or acceptable
    17        reflection of the safety of the product in which they may
    18        be found.  We tend to think that the tolerance level for
    19        these residues should be very, very, very much lower, if
    20        not nil.
    21
    22   Q.   What is the presence of pesticide residues, of some level
    23        of pesticide residues in, say, for example, cattle, UK
    24        cattle stock, what do you think, in your experience?
    25        A.  Well, the official statistics would suggest -----
    26
    27   Q.   I do not mean above a certain level.  I mean, just
    28        some existence of pesticide residues.
    29
    30   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You said in your original statement -- it is
    31        not one of the paragraphs which was read in -- "There is no
    32        evidence in respect of UK stock that either antibiotic
    33        hormone or pesticide residues have accumulated to
    34        significant levels", but then you went on "or even
    35        measurable levels"?
    36        A.  That was my view at the time.  It is fair to say that
    37        I have changed my view quite remarkably since.
    38
    39   Q.   Is there evidence?
    40        A.  Yes, there is.
    41
    42   Q.   Where is it because it is a very fundamental change from
    43        your previous statement?
    44        A.  Indeed.
    45
    46   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, I have a very grave reservation about
    47        this.  I have said several times, before Mr. North was
    48        called as a witness, that if he was going to depart in any
    49        fundamental way from his script then I wanted prior notice
    50        so that I could deal with it.  I have now noticed really a 
    51        volte-face 180 degrees.  We have had no prior notice of 
    52        this.  It has been a total of, I think, six days since we 
    53        were last in court and I want to know why it is that I have
    54        not been given notice of this.
    55
    56   MS. STEEL:  We only found out last night.
    57
    58   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I dare say, but I mean you -----
    59
    60   MS. STEEL:  The other thing is that there have been several