The last two decades have seen an increase in the prevalence of asthma, eczema, and allergic rhinitis in developed countries. This increase has been paralleled by a fall in the consumption of saturated fat and an increase in the amount of polyunsaturated fat in the diet. This is due to a reduction in the consumption of animal fat and an increase in the use of margarine and vegetable oils containing ω-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), such as linoleic acid. There is also evidence for a decrease in the consumption of oily fish which contain ω-3 PUFAs, such as eicosapentaenoic acid.In a number of countries, there are social class and regional differences in the prevalence of allergic disease, which are associated with differences in the consumption of PUFAs. Linoleic acid is a precursor of arachidonic acid, which can be converted to prostaglandin E 2 (PGE 2 ), whereas eicosapentaenoic acid inhibits the formation of PGE 2 . PGE 2 acts on T-lymphocytes to reduce the formation of interferon-γ (IFN-γ) without affecting the formation of interleukin-4 (IL-4). This may lead to the development of allergic sensitization, since IL-4 promotes the synthesis of immunoglobulin E (IgE), whereas IFN-γ has the opposite effect.Changes in the diet may explain the increase in the prevalence of asthma, eczema and allergic rhinitis. The effects of diet may be mediated through an increase in the synthesis of prostaglandin E 2 which in turn can promote the formation of immunoglobulin E.

In the years following the publication of the Report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice.' the government introduced a package of politically expedient crime control legislation that included the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (hereinafter CPIA). The statute created a new system of disclosure in criminal trials.! This new system was based upon the premise advanced by the Royal Commission that prosecution obligations in respect of disclosure of unused material had moved too far in favour of a defendant? and that, in respect of 'sensitive' information in particular, there was inadequate protection for informants or for undercover police officers." The CPIA has restricted the availability of information to the defence, placed new disclosure obligations on an accused prior to trial and has, through the Code laid pursuant to the primary legislation, expanded the scope of public interest immunity." It is argued in this article that the statutory obligations concerning the disclosure of unused material are inadequately defined, leaving too wide a prosecutorial discretion, and that the normative CPIA provisions concerning 'sensitive material' may lead to defendants contesting allegations on the basis of opaque incriminatory evidence and thus preclude a fair trial." Further, judicial control? is ineffective because decision-making is based upon information supplied and controlled by the party seeking immunity. There is no external accountability governing the possible suppression of evidence. In conclusion, it is suggested that since there is inevitably potential for an evidence deficit, that may distort the fact-finding process, there should be random review by a disclosure Commissioner to discourage investigators and prosecutors from non-compliance with the minimum criteria of the Act. The background to CPIA The original raison d' etre for establishing the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice had been concern over a number of high profile cases I Cm 2263 (1993) (hereafter RCCJ). 2 There is now a two-stage disclosure process with more detailed prosecution disclosure only available on service of a defence statement. 3 RCCJ, pp 93-95. 4 Ibid, paras 42-47. 5 Code of Practice, para 6. 6 Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 6(3)(a) gives the right to be informed of details of the accusation sufficient to make a relevant defence and Article 6(3)(d) the right to examine witnesses against one. 7 The court is to adjudicate on prosecution claims of public interest immunity. See CPIA, ss 3(6), 7(5), 8(5),9(8) and 15.

No abstract