witness statement



name: Geoffrey Cannon
section: Nutrition
for: The Defence
expertise: Food Expert

summary:
The witness in his capacity as a food and nutrient expert, gives substance and lends validity to the relevant section of the factsheet concerning the foods available in McDonald's.
"The United Kingdom diet is unhealthy largely because it contains too much fat, saturated fats, sugar & salt and is correspondingly inadequate in bread and cereal foods (preferably wholegrain), vegetables and fruit. lnsofar as the Defendants are making this point in their criticism of the foods available at Mc Donalds, what they say is valid and now generally accepted not only by the scientific comunity but also by government.

cv:


I am the chairman of the National Food Alliance and as such, a member of the official Government Nutrition Task Force set up to find ways and means to achieve the goals set out in the White Paper "The Health of the Nation". I am also an advisor to the World Health Organisation (European Region). From time to time, I have addressed international conferences on the subject hereinunder.

I have written several publications one of which is 'Food and Health - The Experts Agree', which is referred to below.

Full cv:
(not available for this witness)



full statement:


In my book `Food & Health - The Experts Agree' published by the Consumers' Association in 1992, I demonstrate that there is an established consensus among the scientific community worldwide to the effect that the diet typically eaten in industrialised countries (such as the United Kingdom and the United States of America) is an important case of major diseases including cardiovascular diseases.

The book demonstrates this by reviewing and analysing one hundred expert reports commissioned by governments or authoritive scientific bodies all over the world. These include recent reports commissioned by the United Kingdom government which now form the basis of the White Paper - "The Health of the Nation".

The United Kingdom diet is unhealthy largely because it contains too much fat, saturated fats, sugar & salt and is correspondingly inadequate in bread and cereal foods (preferably wholegrain), vegetables and fruit. lnsofar as the Defendants are making this point in their criticism of the foods available at Mc Donalds, what they say is valid and now generally accepted not only by the scientific comunity but also by government.



supplementary statement:
date signed: September 27th 1994


My special knowledge is of diet, nutrition and health, including diet, nutrition and cancer. I do not wish to make any statement on other aspects of the case. I am:

Relevant documents under these headings are:
  1. Copies of `Food and Health: the Experts Agree' (1992) with relevant pages on diet and cancer and also diet and chronic diseases identified.
  2. Copies of the National Academy of Sciences report `Diet, Nutrition and Cancer' (1982) with recommendations identified.
  3. A copy of the World Health Organisation (WHO) report `Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases (1990) with relevant pages identified.
  4. Copies of `Eat Well...Live Well' produced with support from the Health Education Authority, to accompany the 1990 WHO report above.
  5. A copy of the final report of the ICN endorsed by all nations of the UN present in December 1992, with the relevant passage identified.
  6. The current annual report of WCRF; its current scientific research grant announcement; and a WCRF quarterly, `science News'.
  7. The US government position on diet and cancer as summarised in the DHHS report Nutrition and Health in 1988. Relevant tables also shown.
  8. The European Code Against Cancer as promulgated throughout the EU. October 10th -16th this year is Europe Against Cancer week, its theme diet and cancer.

Some comments, based on these qualifications and documents:

Current State of knowledge on diet and chronic diseases

What follows is a summary of what is now accepted by authoritative scientific bodies, international organisations like WHO, and by governments. It is not a personal opinion. It is generally accepted by authoritative scientific bodies that a diet high in fatty meat, dairy products, fat, saturated fat, sugar and/or salt, and correspondingly low in vegetables, fruit, starchy foods, and fibre, such as that typically eaten in the UK, is an important cause of disorders and diseases that are disagreeable (eg tooth decay, constipation), debilitating (obesity, diseases of the bones and gut), and also deadlv (stroke, heart attacks, and various cancers induding - those of the breast and colon).

This judgement is based on strong scientific evidence of all types (epidemiological, experimental, biological). Some individual scientists have doubts or disagree. Current state of knowledge on diet and cancer The evidence on diet and cancer specifically is also voluminous, and has been judged as a sufficiently reliable basis for recommendations addressed both to health professionals and the general public by the


This evidence is also incorporated in broader statements made by the US government (since 1988) and WHO (Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases (1990).

Recommendations made by all these bodies are harmonious and consistent with those on heart disease and other diseases. There are differences in emphasis. and it is also evidently true that different cancers have somewhat different dietarv causes. For example, the evidence that a diet high in meat as typically eaten in the UK is an important cause of colon cancer, is agreed to be very strong, and with cancer a diet high in fat generally, not saturated fat in particular, evidently increases the risk of various cancers.

The scientific consensus on diet and cardiovascular disease was accepted by government in the UK in 1984. The consensus on diet and cancer was accepted by government in the US in 1988. In the UK, government has now commissioned its official advisory COMA committee to review the evidence on diet and cancer and to make recommendations.

As with cardiovascular diseases, the scientific consensus on diet and cancer (or rather cancers) is now based on literally thousands of epidemiological and experimental studies. Some individual scientists have doubts or disagree. All expert consensus statements issued by authoritive scientific and research bodies, by governments, and by international bodies in the last twelve years on diet and cancer, have basically come to the same conclusion, which is that a diet rich in vegetables, fruit and cereals (preferably wholegrain) protects against cancers, and that a diet high in meat, fatty foods, fat and salty fbods, and also alcohol, increases the risk of cancers. All these aspects of the diet evidently increase the risk of cancer (or some cancers) independently of each other.

No authoritative statement issued in the last twelve years on diet and cancer comes to a substantially different conclusion.


Having read transcripts of some of the court proceedings I have some other comments.

Complexity:


The science of diet and cancer, and of diet and other diseases, is very complex. However, the state of scientific judgment based on the evidence, is straighforward, and is summarised above.

Genetics


All diseases have a genetic aspect; what this means, is that we are all born more or less vulnerable to different diseases. This does not mean that we are bound to suffer those diseases to which we are born susceptible. Geographical and historical comparisons show that cancers have a comparatively small genetic aspect. If you are genetically vulnerable to colon cancer (say) but eat an appropriate diet (and do other prudent things) you are almost always unlikely to get the disease.

Diet


With smoking, diet is now generally agreed to be the major factor influencing risk of most cancers. As stated, the diet generally agreed to protect against most cancers is plant-based: rich in vegetables, fruit, and cereals (preferably wholegrain) with foods of animal origin (meat, meat products, milk, dairv products) enjoyed only occasionaily.

Proof


There is some confusion about what constitutes proof, in the life sciences, such as nutrition. There is no such thing as absolute, total, final, 100 per cent proof in this field. The best standard of proof is the same as that accepted in criminal proceedings: proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is always likely to be some unclear or contradictory evidence. When scientific bodies and governments issue dietary guidelines designed to reduce the risk of diseases, what this generally means is that based on the evidence, they believe the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Expert committees set up by authoritative bodies and by governments thus have a judicial function. They review the evidence and make a judgement based on this evidence. Thus in the case of diet and cancer it could be said that every time a diet high in meat, meat products, fatty food generally, dairy products, and salty food, such as that typically eaten in the UK, has been brought to trial in the last dozen years, the verdict has always been Guilty.

Cause


There is also some confusion about what constitutes cause, in the biological sciences. It is rather misleading to say that fatty meat and meat products (etc) cause cancer, just as it is misleading to say that smoking causes cancer. Nobody believes that smoking one cigarette is a death sentence. It is more accurate to say that regular smoking increases risk of cancer and that the more you smoke the greater the risk likewise, it is more accurate to say that a diet high in fat, fatty meat and meat products (etc) increases the risk of cancer, and the fattier (etc) the diet, the greater the risk.

Nourishing


What `nourishing' means, is nutritious or health-giving, which is to say, relatively rich in nutrients. Any diet and meal and indeed any food by definition contains nutrients (if energy is defined as a nutrient). This does not mean that it is nutritious.

The published statement made by London Greenpeace complained of by McDonalds is:

A diet high in fat, sugar, animal products and salt (sodium) and low in fibre - which describes a typical McDonald's meal - is linked with cancers of the breast and bowel, and heart disease. This is accepted medical fact.

Compare this with the statement issued by the International Conference on Nutrition in Rome, agreed by all UN member states:

With greater affluence and urbanisatlon, diets tend to become richer on average in energy and fat, especially saturated fat, have less fibre and complex carbohydrates with more alcohol, refined carbohydrates and salt. In urban settings exercise and energy expenditure frequently decrease, while levels of smoking and stress tend to increase. These and other risk factors, as well as increased life expectancy, are associated with the increased prevalence of obesity, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, osteoporosis and some cancers with immense social and health care costs.


The UN-approved statement does not mention McDonalds, includes reference to some non-dietary risk factors, and is rather more comprehensive, referring to obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes and osteoporosis as well as cardiovascular disease and cancers.

Otherwise these two statements seem to me and may seem to the Court to be similar.

references: Not applicable/ available

exhibits: Not applicable/ available

date signed: July 21 1993
status: Appeared in court

transcripts of court appearances:

related links:

McSpotlight