Day 060 - 02 Dec 94 - Page 70


     
     1   MR. MORRIS:  Yes, that was it.  Thank you.  I would
     2        contend -----
     3
     4   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Let us look at it first of all.
     5
     6   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, it may be useful to start at the second
     7        paragraph in the right-hand column which was not read on
     8        the previous occasion.
     9
    10   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Let me just read the right-hand column.
    11        Yes?
    12
    13   MR. MORRIS:  In the light of those detailed findings which
    14        I note are based upon appropriate adjusted data from a
    15        previous Franklin Associates' study, that is in the
    16        paragraph above the actual figures on page 233.  Frank
    17        Associates is a company that has done a number of studies
    18        for McDonald's in the US, have they not?  I think it came
    19        up before in another issue.  I cannot remember which one it
    20        was now.  It is clear that by all standards of comparisons
    21        polystyrene foam comes off worse in all cases, in some
    22        cases dramatically worse.  Is that correct?
    23        A.  I think I said in my comment on the "Did you Know"
    24        leaflet that that was a generic statement.  The first
    25        complete paragraph on 223 makes exactly that point:  "It is
    26        critical to note that McDonald's decision to phase out
    27        polystyrene packaging and substitute paper-based wraps
    28        cannot be evaluated as generic paper versus plastic
    29        issue".  I think you can make one generic statement about
    30        paper and you can make another about plastic, but to try to
    31        relate one to the other is extremely difficult because they
    32        are entirely different things.
    33
    34   Q.   Yes, but what they are saying is that there are differences
    35        with different paper, differences may be in the
    36        polystyrene, presumably, but the general position that they
    37        have concluded here in this document endorsed by McDonald's
    38        is that, in the next paragraph after the figures on page
    39        224, "Even if one assumes a highly optimistic recycling
    40        rate for polystyrene foam of 50 per cent" which, in fact,
    41        is not the case any more in the States, is it, because the
    42        recycling was stopped, "environmental consequences in all
    43        categories are still considerably lower for the new wraps."
    44        A.  They would be, yes.
    45
    46   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It has already been indicated that the
    47        document on page 684 of pink V is dated June 1990, and the
    48        American Task Force EDF Report is some 10 months later in
    49        April 1991.
    50        A.  That is right. 
    51 
    52   Q.   I think at the end of the day what is being put to you is 
    53        this:  In the States McDonald's, it is suggested, has
    54        decided to phase out polystyrene in packaging because, if
    55        you look at a basket full of environmental considerations
    56        including energy use, air emissions, water born waste and
    57        solid waste, and then bear in mind the problems with
    58        polystyrene foam recycling, which you do not by and large
    59        have with paper recycling, the environmental balance falls
    60        very heavily in favour of paper rather than polystyrene

Prev Next Index