§ Mr. PaiceTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will invite the Committee on Toxicology of Chemicals in Food to reconsider the 39W research evidence on vitamin B6 in dietary supplements on which they based their advice, with special reference to the study by Dalton and Dalton; what assessment he has made of the criticism of the Committee's research evaluation; and if he will ensure that the members of the Committee have no interest which could be relevant to their advice. [14042]
§ Mr. RookerThe Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) has considered the data on the toxicity of vitamin B6 on two separate occasions. It is aware that the validity of some of the science on which its recommendation was based—including the study by Dalton and Dalton—has been questioned but it has not been persuaded that this issue needs to be looked at for a third time. The Government has every confidence in the rigour with which the COT reviewed the data and in the robustness of the recommendation it made. We see no reason to invite the Committee to reconsider the evidence.
Members of the COT are appointed by the Chief Medical Officer as independent scientific and medical experts on the basis of special skills and knowledge. However, it is inevitable that most experts will have gained experience by applying scientific and toxicological skills to address questions of a commercial nature. In order to ensure that these commercial interests do not conflict with the need to obtain independent expert advice, members are required to declare any commercial interests on appointment and, again, during meetings if a topic arises in which they have an interest. Details of the interests declared by COT Members have been placed in the Library. The Government is wholly satisfied with the integrity of the members of the COT and with the independence of its advice.