Noakes’s evidence ‘irrelevant to charge’

Cape Town-160211-Prof Tim Noakes during Health Professions Council of SA inquiry in Claremont-Picture by BHEKI RADEBE

Cape Town-160211-Prof Tim Noakes during Health Professions Council of SA inquiry in Claremont-Picture by BHEKI RADEBE

Published Feb 11, 2016

Share

Nicolette Dirk

AN ADVOCATE representing the Health Professions Council of SA (HPCSA) heavily criticised evidence presented by Professor Tim Noakes to the professional conduct committee yesterday as irrelevant to the charge he faces.

During questioning by his defence, Noakes gave an extensive overview of the evolution of the diet of humankind over the past three million years – from strictly eating animal-dense food to consuming refined foods, which he described as toxic. “Early human species ate crocodile, impala and even elephants,” said Noakes. “Humans were also the best hunters at the time and were also great scavengers along the sea shore.”

It was around 8 000BC that grains were introduced into the human diet, after bigger mammals had been wiped out.

Noakes said maize had been introduced to the African diet through imports from South America. He said grain had had a negative impact on continents like Africa, where it did not form part of an indigenous diet.

He also argued that a high cholesterol intake did not correlate with heart disease. He stated that diabetes, smoking and hypertension had a closer link to heart problems than cholesterol.

Responding to claims that his Banting diet was unconventional, Noakes said his extensive presentation was an attempt to highlight the health risks of some conventional beliefs about diet.

But HPCSA advocate Ajay Bhoopchand said while the evidence was interesting, his patience was being pushed to the limit. “I cannot see how this lecture links to the actual charge. This is just giving the respondent free reign to express himself in a forum without focusing on the charge he faces,” said Bhoopchand.

He then asked Noakes’s defence team to explain the relevance of his testimony to the actual charge

Noakes’s advocate, Ravin Ramdass, argued that much of the evidence was to address whether the advice given was conventional or unconventional. It also needed to look at whether the low carbohydrate, high fat (LCHF) diet could be harmful. Ramdass said a holistic view was needed. He said it was a highly technical area and all the evidence Noakes had given was needed.

“The understanding was to give the committee a comprehensive view. For us to just have given snippets would be undermining the case,” said Ramdass.

In 2014, Pippa Leenstra had tweeted Noakes and nutritional therapist Sally-Ann Creed, co-authors of The Real Meal Revolution, about whether it was safe for breastfeeding mothers to be on the Banting diet. Noakes had replied on Twitter: “Baby doesn’t eat the dairy and cauliflower. Just very healthy high fat breast milk. Key is to ween baby on to LCHF.”

A past president of the Association for Dietetics in SA, Claire Julsing-Strydom, had lodged a complaint with the HPCSA.

[email protected]

Related Topics: