Examination of Witness (Questions 259 - 279)
TUESDAY 19 MAY 1998
MR JEFF ROOKER
Chairman
259. Minister, can I say what a great pleasure it is to welcome
you to this Committee. We have seen you sitting behind your Minister
giving him moral support on I think three separate occasions,
and here you are doing the real thing at last.
(Mr Rooker) You have never asked me before!
260. If I express a choice between two ministers, that would
be a very difficult decision from the chair, as you understand,
but it would have been a great pleasure to have seen you on food
safety, but we had the Minister instead and he did very well.
Thank you. You have obviously been sitting behind Professor Woods
and hearing what was said in the last session, and you know something
about the scientific issues we have been examining today, but
we would like to look at the whole way in which this matter has
been handled. Obviously we understand the matter was already under
way before you came to office. We would appreciate some clarification
of a factual nature, particularly on what is going to happen when
the current round of consultation ends on 26th June, what procedures
will you then put in place? Will the responses to the consultation
go back to COT, or will it be a decision taken by you and your
officials in the Ministry?
(Mr Rooker) We will certainly genuinely, and I mean
that sincerely, review all the responses, obviously including
the report of this Committee. We will certainly place all the
results of our consultation in the Library, because that is what
we would normally do. We will have to take a judgment on, if you
like, the range of expert opinion as well as industry opinion—I
do not claim they are not experts—as to whether we proceed
in the way we planned at the beginning of the consultation, otherwise
the consultation would not be genuine and it is a genuine consultation.
We cannot consult unless we have draft regulations and we have
gone through that process—we have a laid down process. The
matter has been around, as you have heard and as you are aware,
for a considerable period of time, this is not something which
has been an instant knee-jerk reaction, either by this Government
or indeed the independent scientists. When we come to the end
of June, I cannot say how quickly we will arrive at a decision,
or whether or not we look at the range of opinion we have received,
and in my case go back to the Food Advisory Committee—because
you have to appreciate that is where the recommendation to MAFF
comes from, there is a chain of events here which, with all due
respect, I do not think has been fully explored, maybe because
of the problem of time—whether we go back to the Food Advisory
Committee on the basis of what we have taken on board with the
consultation. We have no fixed timetable, by the way, we are not
running to any timetable in a drawer, ie "Get these regs
in by a certain date", there is no hidden agenda, if I can
put it that way. I cannot be more precise than that, but we are
operating as openly as possible and we are conducting a genuine
consultation on the proposals.
261. Exactly what will happen, what mechanisms will be followed,
when the consultation closes? At this stage, I am not entirely
clear on that.
(Mr Rooker) No, simply because the consultation is
genuine. By definition, we are consulting on a set of proposals
on draft regulations. In the past, governments have, and this
Government is no different, either changed the draft or there
has been a change in the proposals, say, on the borders or on
the margin which has not required to go back to a consultation.
Frankly, I am consulting all the while in MAFF, believe it or
not, on a whole range of issues. Sometimes we make changes to
an original proposal, but they are on the margin, to meet legitimate
demands of practicality and cost-effectiveness, which we would
not need to consult about again. I cannot say that about this.
It just is not possible for me to sit here now and say what is
going to happen in six weeks' time. If I could say that, to be
honest, the consultation would be a sham.
262. For example, the authoritative study by the US National
Academy of Science and the Institute of Medicine, which we have
discussed this afternoon and this morning, is an important new
document, who will you turn to for assessment of the validity
of that particular report?
(Mr Rooker) First of all, I do not think the full
report has been published at the present time. We have only seen
part of it. The report goes much, much wider than what we are
considering in MAFF. That is why there are different figures bandied
around about the number of papers they have looked at. They have
looked at the reference levels, which of course is not an issue
before us. COMA did the reference levels many years ago. They
agreed with the same figures that COMA gave, broadly speaking,
1.3, 1.4 mg for an adult male, which is more or less what the
Europeans have come up with having looked at it quite separately.
They have looked across the whole range of supplements and dietary
foods. There is more than one organisation involved, as you have
indicated. NAS is a respected scientific body, but there were
not that many representatives of NAS on the sub-group which was
looking at the particular area of the safety levels. So there
is some further information for the scientists that advise MAFF
to explore. We do not fully know, but we simply cannot say, "Yes,
it is accepted, no, it is not." I know Professor Woods has
placed a paper on the table this afternoon, which I had the opportunity
of reading this morning, and I have no doubt the scientists involved
throughout the process here in Britain—which is not just
COT, although COT did the original work, there are no less than
four advisory committees, some statutory, which are involved here—we
will look at the American report, but do not expect them all to
agree. I know it is a cliche«, that the scientists will not
agree, but the fact of the matter is there can be genuine differences.
It is our job as politicians, as guardians of the public interest
in looking at public health, to weigh up and make a judgment.
The judgment is not for ever more, it is a judgment based on the
best evidence we have available at the time we make it. We will
have a serious look at the American report in detail, but I am
not sure at this stage in the game whether the degree of openness
that takes place in this country, which has enabled some of the
questioning today for example of Professor Woods about the interests
of COT members, could take place in America. One of the persons
whose name has been mentioned by members of this Committee, I
might add, if he were a member of COT he would have been sent
out of the room when COT was discussing B6. I am referring to
Dr Munro. His interest is so specific, he would not have fulfilled
the criteria laid down for declarations of interests to discuss
matters like this under the UK system. Our system is somewhat
more open. I would also say in respect of the Americans, there
is quite clearly a difference of opinion about the safety factor
involved. They have only used a safety factor of 2, here in the
UK and I think in Europe we use a safety factor of 5. In addition
to that, there is some doubt, although my legal advisers are having
a look at this, whether the American regulatory authorities are
able within their law to take account of the precautionary principle
in the way we are able to in this country. That of course is an
important factor when you are looking at levels of a substance
which in this case is food sold as a chemical dose and this is
the distinction we have to make.
263. Thank you for that. But the answer to my question is
you are not really sure—this is not a criticism in any sense—how
you will analyse the results of the consultation exercise and
you will take the decision in the light of what those consultations
actually are.
(Mr Rooker) That is right. We have got a process for
the use of advice in policy-making set down in a published document
by the Office of Science and Technology which is DTI, the latest
version of which was March 1997, in which there is a process for
making sure that we the United Kingdom make the best possible
use of scientific advice in policy-making so that, if you like,
we do not go off and set our own agenda in different Ministries
for a particular issue. I have checked on this one simply because
of the interest and the spotlight that has been thrown on it.
You will appreciate from your inquiry on food safety that there
are about a dozen advisory committees that service MAFF. Some
are statutory and some are non-statutory and most of them are
science-based. Food is a highly scientific issue as you will appreciate
from your own report on food safety. I have gone through what
paperwork I can, not as a scientist because clearly I am not qualified,
to make sure that first of all—if I can elaborate on this
because it is important to set the agenda and then I will shut
up—the process used was to take advice of the highest calibre.
I invite you when you have got the information to look at the
background of those who serve on the Food Advisory Committee,
the Committee on Toxicity and the Committee on Safety of Medicines
which has also been involved in this as has the Medicines Control
Agency. So you have got four bodies here. There is no argument
that we have not got overall, if you like, the creme de la"
creme of British science which would have been involved in
private practice and of course would have had industrial experience
as well otherwise they probably would not be in the position they
are in now. The second part of the process which is pretty crucial
from our point of view is that it is open, that it can be subject
to examination by this House obviously and by public interest,
by mainstream scientists, in this case mainstream medicine, consumer
organisations, everyone, to have a look and then to aim to make
sure from our point of view as Ministers that we have got balanced
recommendations, that they are—I will not go down the byways—that
they are proportional, based on safety first and are putting public
health as our prime concern. I appreciate there is a problem here
in that we are the Agricultural Committee and I am the MAFF Minister,
but essentially for all the world if we closed our eyes and just
listened we could be discussing a health matter with the Health
Committee. The Health Committee is not doing on inquiry on B6.
That is the central issue, we have got a difference. MAFF followed
the paperwork, we looked at the trail, we looked at how the advisory
committee looked at COT's advice. I will not go over the background
because it has obviously been done more than once. There is no
argument about the basic nutrient. They looked at over 100 scientific
papers. I know the argument rested on two of them and I am not
denying that because they are major papers but that is not to
say 100 papers were not examined. A list has been published. I
put it in the Library and Bernard Donohoe put it in the other
House. We have got this dilemma about the safety factors. We have
to see if we can come to a reasonable conclusion based on the
public interest. That is what we are required to do as Ministers
in any government department when we get a piece of scientific
evidence or advice on which we have got to make policy. That is
what I am satisfied in terms of following the trail we have done
in this case and we will continue to operate on that basis.
264. You talk about the cre"me de la cre"me
but we have had some other parts of the cre"me de la cre"me
in front of us this morning, people like Dr John Marks, Life Fellow,
Girton College, Cambridge and Professor Andre« McLean who
made some very interesting statements about the safety issues
and the reliability of the Dalton and Dalton evidence and it is
interesting to note that of the 49 major submissions as well as
hundreds and hundreds of letters from the general public that
this Committee has received in this inquiry only five have supported
the Committee on Toxicity's position. One was your own. Another
one was COT's. Another came from Katharina Dalton. A fourth came
from PMS Help of whom a patron is Katharina Dalton. A fifth came
from the Consumers for Health Choice Association which made a
rather more general statement about their misgivings about these
kinds of supplements rather than specific allegations about B6.
Does it worry you that five out of 49 support and the other 44
contradict what you are saying in a pretty reasoned and well-argued
way?
(Mr Rooker) I would not weigh the arguments of conducting
policy by the weight of our individual mail bags or the size of
the wallets of the industry. It goes beyond that, to be honest.
We are looking at an issue where we have a nationally occurring
substance, if you like, pushed across, subliminally, nudge nudge,
wink wink, "It will do you good for your health." I
am not a health minister and if you are going to sell it as a
medicine ,then get it registered as a medicine and let it be subject
to the normal regulatory approval process of medicines and the
number one issue in that of course is that it works. I do not
weigh it like that. I do not know because I have had no discussions
with the BMA or medical opinion which has weighed in attacking
COT because that is the way things work with the campaign and
by and large the people concerned with policy change are the ones
who are more motivated. As I say, I cannot weigh the advice that
comes to Ministers, if you like, by the weight of the post bag
or the size of the wallets of those involved. The issues are too
important for that.
Chairman: I must give way to my colleagues. Mr Marsden?
Mr Marsden
265. Jeff, I know you made the point that we cannot go by
the weight of the post bag. No doubt you have had one or two letters
as all of us have had the odd one and it clearly is of great public
concern. The vast majority of ordinary men and women who have
written to me for instance cannot see why such a recommendation
is put before you and they can also see some very large benefits
from taking vitamin B6. I agree with you that any substance that
is claiming to have benefits medically should be properly licensed.
That I think is a matter of concern but with Professor Woods clearly
sticking to his assertion that there is no need to go back on
the advice that he has given, what is your view about this other
evidence that has been placed before us from the Gaby study, which
seemed not to be able to replicate Dalton and Dalton, the 1,671
long-term users and of course the US Academy of Sciences' study
which seemed to fly in the face of the main central tenet on which
COT base their recommendation.
(Mr Rooker) To pick up on one point, the 1,671, that
has passed my desk for a while. That was a questionnaire issued
to 10,000 people. Most of the letters I have had—and I suspect
most of the letters which members of the Committee have had—have
essentially been based on taking high-dose vitamin B6 for health
reasons. I will not even make a joke because I have not counted
them but a number of men said taking 100 mg of B6 every day helped
them with their PMS and they have signed the letters. We have
had hundreds of them. That is clearly like we all know setting
up a stall in a shopping centre on a Saturday and asking people
to sign to oppose something. On health grounds we have got to
look at the issue, if I can say Paul, slightly differently. We
have some independent evidence and I say "independent"
because it is not MAFF scientists who are coming up with this,
and obviously we analyse it. There are four separate groups involved
to a lesser or greater degree, such as the Medicines Control Agency,
the Committee on Safety of Medicines and Department of Health
ministers. I am here as a MAFF minister but effectively I am speaking
for Health ministers, there is no division between us whatsoever
on this. We have a substance here which is naturally occurring
in our food which we require at minimum levels which is being
sold, if you like, as a chemical dose to the body. It is not intended
to be taken in a banana, a glass of beer, a potato, in the normal
way it would be taken in with the other nutrients which would
come in from taking food. It is being taken in and advised to
be taken in as a dose, in a tablet. Under food law, that is how
it is sold at the present time. We have had sufficient grounds
to believe that continually taking it at high doses could be damaging,
not seriously damaging to health, no one is arguing that otherwise
we would have been in a lot earlier with the regulations, but
long-term it could be damaging. We are not banning the product.
I heard the term "draconian measures" here today, it
cannot conceivably be argued that it is draconian when nobody
is going to be prevented from taking B6. I cannot prevent people
taking pills out of a bottle. The industry had an opportunity,
but chose not to do so, to put warnings on the labels, and the
Food Advisory Committee went beyond COT, COT did not suggest that,
the Food Advisory Committee said that there should be a warning
on the label that continual high doses could be damaging. People
will still be able to take the product. If they have got a health
reason to take it, which most letters I claim have argued, they
will be perfectly able to do so by going to the pharmacy, like
I do to get my hayfever tablets every year and they will be simply
asked the question, "Are you taking anything else?"
And sometimes I have said yes. It will just be a warning, just
to make people stop and think, "Hang on a minute, are you
sure this is okay, that there are no side effects?" Or, in
the other case, if they need very high doses, to go see their
doctor, not the Food Minister but the doctor, let the doctor look
at the clinical symptoms and make a judgment in the doctor's clinical
opinion as to whether or not a high dose is required and whether
that dose is available as a medicine which has been approved by
the Medicines Control Agency and has gone through all the trials
to make sure it works. I am not looking at the efficacy and COT
was not either, it was not asked to do that. It was asked to look
at this, because of the Consumers' Association request in February
1995, because of complaints and the kind of things which have
been raised.
266. So you are saying, casting ourselves forward, if the
regulations take effect as recommended, that an individual would
have to go to their doctor or GP, so how would they then, if the
GP was agreeable, get that medicine? How would you envisage them
gaining it? By prescription?
(Mr Rooker) Yes. You know what the proposal is—between
11 and 49 mg it will be available in the pharmacy without a doctor's
prescription but only in a pharmacy as a medicine. Above that,
50 mg and above—and that is not the total dose, this is
the dose in the bottle, this is the tablets, of course—the
doctor will prescribe. I am not making an excuse but if people
want to go and take more, they can, I cannot stop them doing that
anyway, the over-consumption of any product. There are already
doctors who do that. It is not the case that it will not be available,
it will be. On the other hand, it is up to the manufacturers of
high dose B6 to get their product approved as a medicine, and
to do that it will have to satisfy, I understand, a whole series
of regulatory tests like all other medicines do. That is expensive.
Frankly, we cannot possibly have a situation in the country where
we allow people to put medicines on the market unless we know
they work, so people's health is not damaged. There has to be
that process.
267. I understand the line you are taking, and I personally
agree with that, but let us just switch back. Have you personally
looked at the evidence that COT looked at, in particular Dalton
and Dalton and the Phillips study?
(Mr Rooker) The answer is yes, but it is no good asking
me any questions about it. I am a production engineer—
268. What I am saying is, I am just a lay person, I am not
a scientist, but I look at that and, as has already been admitted,
I think it is fundamentally flawed in many, many ways. Therefore
what I am suggesting is that maybe the problem is in the actual
process by which recommendations are being made to the ministerial
team, because whilst the end objective might be very noble and
might be totally correct at the end of the day, I think you have
been led up the garden path. What I put to you is, if you look
at that evidence it is flawed, therefore do you have full confidence
in COT?
(Mr Rooker) The answer to that is unequivocally, yes.
I answered a PQ, so it is on the record, and I was asked if I
had read any of the papers and over the Christmas recess, as part
of my Christmas reading, I did dip into some of the papers. I
am not a scientist. What I did read was the document assembled
by the COT secretariat on the evidence, on the 100 papers, which
was a fairly substantial document but it was written for COT members,
all of whom understand different aspects of science; they are
all scientists, it is true. "Summary" is probably the
wrong word but it is a commentary on the 100 papers. I can remember
writing on my copy of that paper over the Christmas recess, "This
document ought to be in the public domain", but unfortunately
it cannot be because of the nature of the way the work was done,
because of commercial confidentiality, I was told it was not possible
to have that document put in the public domain. I suppose, if
I had any doubts about the issue, when I read that document, having
also dipped into one or two of the others—and I am not making
a scientific judgment here—I did not have any doubts afterwards.
So the answer is, yes, I do have confidence. The way the case
is put across—because if you like we are dealing with food
masquerading as a medicine or the other way round, depending where
you are—you have an industry which feels itself under attack,
and it is not. I have a completely open mind as I approach this,
I have not got an empty mind, and I had an open mind on this when
I first approached this. This is not an issue which has been dealt
with within two or three months, there is a track record on this,
and other, if you like, food scientists, not toxicity experts,
have looked at it on the Food Advisory Committee. So I have no
problem about this. On the other hand, I also have to say that
at no time have I sent any signal whatsoever to either COT or
the Food Advisory Committee, "Do not give me this evidence
because I do not want it" or "Will you bend, and I will
go along with it"? They have had no steer whatsoever, because
that would be (a) improper and (b) it would ruin the fact that
we rely on independent scientific advice in making policy. It
is a long way of saying it, but the answer to your question is,
yes.
Mr Mitchell
269. This document which you are mentioning, can we have
a copy of it? Can we have sight of it?
(Mr Rooker) I knew you were going to ask that the
minute I mentioned it! The answer I will probably be told is,
no. I will ask. This was a document put together by the COT secretariat
for COT's use. I think you have already heard from Professor Woods
and I have not discussed this, certainly not this aspect, with
him but I have discussed the way the committee works. There were
two sets of documents because they looked at the issue twice.
I have not come briefed with the legal arguments about what we
can disclose and what we cannot. On the one hand we want to be
as open as possible but I remember writing on the document that
this ought to be in the public domain but then lawyers got to
me and said to, "Minister, this can't go into the public
domain for lots of reasons." Whether it can come to this
Committee I do not know but I will certainly ask. As a non-scientist
I was asked if I had read any of the papers involved and I had
but I am not qualified to comment on them. I felt reassured when
I read the commentary that was put together by the COT's secretariat
and the Department of Health that we had got a sensible conclusion
on public health grounds for what is a difficult issue. It is
the first time it has ever been examined.
Chairman: Of course we could receive the document on a commercially
confidential basis in which case it would be confidential to members
of the Committee or, alternatively, you could release an expurgated
version of it which removes the commercially confidential information
which could then be published with our report. If this document
has weighed so heavily in your thinking then I think it is something
we would like very much to see.
Mr Mitchell
270. It is difficult for us to decide when you mention a
document which we have not heard of. Did this document indicate
harmful toxic effects of doses below 100 mg?
(Mr Rooker) Let's get this clear. Paul asked me if
I had read any of the hundred papers that COT had looked at. The
answer to that is yes I had read more than two or three, but no
more than about six. I browsed the headlines, the synopses of
some of the others. The accompanying paper was a working paper
for the COT secretariat. I am advised, by the way, which is a
very useful result of being given time to answer the same question
twice, that we probably can provide the document.
271. Did it indicate harmful effects of doses below 100 mg?
(Mr Rooker) No. This paper was a commentary on the
hundred papers that had been before COT in terms of a review.
The paper itself was not original work.
272. Did it deal with Dalton and Dalton?
(Mr Rooker) Yes and it dealt with the contradictions.
Some of the papers alleged to be around on B6 are no more than
a 100-word letter in a medical journal. That does not constitute
a scientific paper subject to peer group review and yet that is
put in the totality of all these papers on B6.
273. Telephone surveys do not either.
(Mr Rooker) No, but one has to look at it in the round.
You have to look at the totality. That is what COT have done and
that is what MAFF have done.
274. COT's recommendations come to be constructed on research
by Dalton and Dalton which has been called into question. Let
me ask another question. Here we have something where COT comes
up with a recommendation which, as I understand it, the previous
Conservative Minister referred back because she did not particularly
want anything to do with it. It then comes up to you and you implement
it. You are implementing it surely by shifting the ground of the
argument because what you are concerned with is B6 as a medicine
and the medicinal effects of B6. You doubt actually the claims
made for B6. The fact is under present legislation under the present
regime it is a food supplement and therefore does not need to
be considered except if toxic effects follow from over large doses.
That is the only reason for considering it, not its medical claims,
not the need for it, not anything else. You would really like
it to be a medicine?
(Mr Rooker) The central force of all the arguments
opposed to what we are doing is health and medicinal. You are
quite right, there has been a shift since last year in terms of
public policy on this in respect of putting the consumer first
and taking a more robust line on the precautionary principle regarding
food safety. We make no apology for that whatsoever. I do not
know by definition what the previous Minister did or said. I have
got no access to the papers. All I have got is the chronology
of who did what as it went backwards and forwards to the advisory
committees. You have made an assertion that I have no information
about whatsoever. I do not know if the previous Minister has ever
looked at it. Nobody has ever mentioned that. I have never asked
about it. I would not be entitled to see the papers anyway. The
fact of the matter is that it had come through if you like the
regulatory advisory process robustly enough and giving enough
warnings about the fact that prolonged use of this high dose food
supplement could cause damage to human health as a food supplement.
You are absolutely right, I am not dealing with health but the
point is that those taking the other line concentrate almost exclusively
on health reasons. For that there is a different regulatory process.
275. At the moment it is a food supplement. What you said,
as I read it and heard it, is that you would like it shifted to
a medical category where it would have to prove its claims—that
would be an expensive process—but we are talking about the
simple issue of toxicity. Until it is shifted and becomes a medicine,
toxicity is the only issue and the level at which that occurs
is the only problem. You are asking us to treat vitamin B6 differently
to vitamin E or vitamin C. The consumer thinks, "This does
me good. I want to take it. I like to take it." It is not
a medical matter and that is why you have no medical evidence
from the BMA and The Lancet and so on and so forth. It
is a consumer issue and the consumer should be free to buy products
which the consumer believes do them good unless there are toxic
consequences which could be proved. Is that not the issue?
(Mr Rooker) Absolutely correct and that is why we
examine by purchasing thousands of food products every year for
our chemical surveillance programme, our pesticide residue programme,
our vetinerary medicines residue programme. We purchase literally
thousands of samples of food products a year to make sure that
they do not contain substances that have been put in by manufacturers
or during the process of manufacture that are harmful to public
health. Nobody in MAFF until the Consumers Association wrote in
in 1995 had ever considered looking at food supplements even though
they were sold under food law. I cannot speak for the background
of the Department of Health. It was an area that we had never
examined in the past. You could argue that is a criticism of MAFF's
surveillance process in the past but nevertheless they did this
and they did then what was proper and asked the Committee that
would be looking at the technical aspects of it, which is a Department
of Health Committee, COT, to examine this particular food substance.
You cannot call it a food with respect. It is a dose of a chemical.
The way that it is put across in a supplement it cannot count
as a food but it is sold under food law. That is this grey area
that we are getting to grips with.
276. It is a diet supplement. Lots of other things come into
that diet supplement category which are not being treated in the
same way as B6. Really toxicity is the only issue. I am delighted
that MAFF examine various products to see if they contain various
elements of toxicity but you have not been able to show, and only
the Dalton and Dalton report appears to show levels of damage
at doses below 100 mg. Once it has been recommended that the dose
is cut down to 10 mg you will have a flood of people saying, "Good
on you, Jeff. I tremble at the limbs every time I take this and
I want somebody to stop me taking it"! There has been no
evidence since that decision either.
(Mr Rooker) I am not sure which way round in a sense
you are putting the argument to me. Whether I should wait for
massive new evidence over and above, let's say, Dalton and Dalton,
which is the one you harp on about, before we take any action.
Enough other people have looked at Dalton and Dalton and the methodology
as freely admitted—and there is a degree of openness about
it that is remarkable—is open to question. The outcome raises
enough doubts in the minds of those involved to say, "Hang
on, perhaps we ought to take some action or make some recommendations
on this particular substance at high dose." That is a matter
of judgment, Austin. I do not think my judgement is superior to
anybody else's. The fact of the matter is that there have not
been, as you have heard from Professor Woods, any long-term epidemiological
studies about the safety of B6 not even by the industry or by
other scientists in America. We have next to Holland the most
liberal regime on B6 in the European Union. Even if these regulations
come through at 10 mg a day that still leaves us above all other
Member States of the European Union except Holland. The argument
that it has been draconian is absolute nonsense. We are just being,
and I freely admit it, pre-cautionary on the basis of the evidence
around which is too substantial to ignore.
277. It shifts the whole basis of supply from health shops
to pharmacies, from one set of manufacturers to another set of
manufacturers, it puts it on to prescription. It is a fairly basic
change and the recommended limit is a tenth that which the American
Academy of Science found to be acceptable in the States.
(Mr Rooker) But that, with respect, is a function
of the safety factor. You cannot ignore that.
278. But all this is on the basis of the Dalton and Dalton
study which has been called into question. Since Dr Dalton is
not a scientist, she is an expert on PMS and an exponent of progesterone,
which is dearer than B6, it is really questionable whether that
pyramid should be erected on such a small case.
(Mr Rooker) I freely admit, by the way, that the health
food shop I walked into in W4 last summer—I wish I had bought
it, I did not because I was checking on B6 and how it was sold,
per hundred or per fifty—when I saw the bottle of 250 mg
tablet doses, that health food shop will not be able to sell those
tablets any more; I freely admit that. When I held a meeting with
the industry, I think it was on 23rd July last year, along with
Tessa Jowell, there were 20 or 30 people in the room, it was an
open meeting, we had a journalist from The Times there—not
someone I chose—I was told B6 accounted for 4 per cent of
the turnover. I do not know whether you want to explore in the
time available—because I do want to come back to PMS—the
issue of the effect on the economy of health food shops. I will
be more than happy to go into that because, frankly, we are not
having the co-operation we would want on that. You raised PMS
and what Dalton and Dalton said. This is not something I just
dreamed up. My mother-in-law stuck this month's Woman and Home
in front of me at the weekend, because she knew about B6 because
it was mentioned in the household one day. This is an article
by Dr Rosemary Leonard, a big three-page piece on vitamins, not
just a Sunday supplement. She says supplements might help and
it mentions PMS. "Women taking the combined contraceptive
pill may find a daily supplement of vitamin B6, 10 mg, helps prevent
low moods." I do not know Dr Rosemary Leonard, she is a principal
partner in a large group practice wherever, she is the health
editor of The Sun, you might think that goes against her,
but here is a practising doctor giving her advice to the generality
of women. Not every scientist or every doctor is going to take
the same view. She happens to take that view.
279. Jeff, she is one doctor, one GP, who is not a scientist,
who is going for the safe recommendation because that is the COT
recommendation.
(Mr Rooker) Mainstream doctors are not disagreeing,
Austin.
|
