Day 206 - 22 Jan 96 - Page 16

     
     1        The second point -- and perhaps the more important one --
     2        is on page 2, where he says:  As to their potential for
     3        harm, available evidence on the risks of long term low
     4        level pesticide exposure is inconclusive.  No specific
     5        links between the consumption of pesticide residues and the
     6        levels which can be found in McDonald's can harm the public
     7        health have been proved."
     8
     9        It is interesting enough to argue that the reason for that
    10        may be that the methodology is, in the view of Dr. North,
    11        the wrong methodology, so that it does not show the results
    12        which he thinks it otherwise might show.  I use the word
    13        "might", because he does.
    14
    15        My Lord, as a purported justification of a libel on
    16        McDonald's, it is pretty feeble, if indeed it gets across
    17        the line at all.  As a proposed piece of additional
    18        evidence at this stage in the case, it really is, we would
    19        submit, an almost complete waste of the court's time.
    20
         If it is allowed in, then we will have to go, no doubt, and
    22        get a statement, and call him again, from
    23        Professor Walker.  I can see another two or three, or maybe
    24        even four, days used up on an interesting academic argument
    25        about the size (if there is one) of the conceivable
    26        theoretical risk, which is all that Dr. North seems to say
    27        that it is.
    28
    29   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, thank you.
    30
    31   MR. RAMPTON:  As to campylobacter, again, I am not terribly
    32        worried about that, because it is in the same case as
    33        E.coli and salmonella, that is destructible by proper
    34        cooking.  If I am willing to accept -- as I certainly am --
    35        that if cooking procedures are not observed, there is a
    36        risk -- how great is another matter -- of food poisoning,
    37        why then, to add something about campylobacter adds nothing
    38        whatever to what has already been said about E.coli.
    39        E.coli -- I mention that particularly, because it seems the
    40        size of the colony is important in distinguishing E.coli
         and campylobacter on the one hand and salmonella on the
    42        other.  But beyond that, it really adds nothing at all.
    43
    44   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.  Has Dr. North seen the Preston report?
    45
    46   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.  I mean, we had the Preston report, and
    47        Dr. North had made comments which he wanted to refer to
    48        when he was here before and he was not allowed to, and was
    49        asked, basically, to go away.
    50 
    51   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It was a short cut, was it not, because 
    52        instead of going through saying, "Will you look at this? 
    53        Will you look at that?  What conclusion do you draw from
    54        that?" he was given the opportunity to go away and look at
    55        parts which, I think, were -- I have some recollection they
    56        were going to be marked for him, or parts were going to be
    57        marked.
    58
    59   MR. MORRIS:  He had marked himself, and he does have a marked
    60        copy of the report which he wished to refer to, to point