§ 2.37 p.m.
§ LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCHMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Food Standards Committee adheres to the same criterion as the United States Food and Drug Administration that no toxic materials should be permitted in food or drink at a level higher than one-hundredth of the chronic toxic dose.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD)My Lords, my right honourable friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Minister of Health, in association with other Ministers concerned, propose to issue shortly a Memorandum, as a guide to those concerned with the use of additives in food, about toxicity testing and the procedures followed by the Food Standards Committee, its Food Additives and Contaminants Sub-Committee and Pharmacology Panel. The Food Standards Committee knows of the criteria adopted by the United States Food and Drug Administration.
1231 No single method of extrapolation from animals to humans is accepted by all scientists. The composition of the human diet is very different from that which will keep rodents or other animals healthy, and there may be a relationship between the proportion of carbohydrate, fat or protein in the diet and the effect of a food additive. There are certain conditions occurring in man that are extremely difficult to reproduce in animals—for example, certain blood diseases, of which I would give as an example agranulocytosis; and some allergic conditions—for example, anaphylactoid purpura, and subjective symptoms of importance in man cannot be detected in animals. In relating the maximum daily tolerated dose producing no ill-effects in animals with the daily intake for man, a safety factor of 100 is commonly employed by scientists. The Food Standards Committee does not, however, regard this factor as an invariable guarantee of safety in framing its recommendations.
§ LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCHMy Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for the large amount of slightly irrelevant detail that he has given, may I ask him whether his answer means that in some cases it is considered that the standard of 100 is excessive?
LORD ST. OSWALDYes, it is so considered, and in that event the recommendations take the point into account. I would point out that my substantive Answer was much more relevant than, in my experience, many of the noble Lord's supplementary questions.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, I have listened to the noble Lord's long Answer. Can he tell the House what he had for lunch?
§ LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCHMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord 1232 whether there are any cases in which the criterion of one in 100 has been exceeded and large amounts have been approved?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, "lesser factors" is, I think, what the noble Lord means. Yes, there are one or two cases. I can give the noble Lord examples if he wishes, but not at the moment, I am afraid. May I apologise for the fact that I slightly and unintentionally, misled my noble friend Lord Hawke? In fact, by and large, I suppose that my answer was "No".
§ LORD BOOTHBYMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend to bear in mind that there is still a sharp distinction to be drawn between human beings and animals?