Day 296 - 07 Nov 96 - Page 11


     
     1        milkshakes.
     2
     3        We therefore say that it is basically inappropriate for the
     4        court to read too much into the words 'McDonald's meal',
     5        and that it is grossly misleading for the Plaintiffs to
     6        seek to distance themselves from the evidence which clearly
     7        demonstrates the dangers of such food.
     8
     9        On another point, we also submit that the meaning which you
    10        attributed to the words in the leaflet can be broken down
    11        into four parts as follows:  One, that McDonald's food is
    12        very unhealthy because it is high in fat, sugar, animal
    13        products and salt (sodium), and low in fibre, vitamins, and
    14        minerals; two, because eating it may well make your diet
    15        high in fat, sugar, animals products, salt, sodium, and low
    16        in fibre, vitamins and minerals; three, with the very real
    17        risk that you will suffer cancer of the breast or bowel or
    18        heart disease as a result; and, four, that McDonald's know
    19        this but do not make it clear, they still sell their food
    20        and deceive their customers by claiming that their food is
    21        a useful and nutritious part of any diet.
    22
    23        If I can just say that in relation to the first two of
    24        those four parts, they are obviously related as individual
    25        foods, scientifically speaking, or strictly are not defined
    26        individually as being unhealthy; it is the diet that is
    27        unhealthy.  However, as far as the lay person is concerned,
    28        they do identify individual foods and label them as being
    29        unhealthy; for example, packets of sweets, bars of
    30        chocolates, bags of chips, and so on, even though they know
    31        that if they just ate one it is not going to have any great
    32        or lasting effects.
    33
    34        Obviously, we did hear from, I think it was from Civil
    35        Evidence Act witnesses, the doctors in the United States
    36        who had done tests on blood viscosity and blood pressure,
    37        and it could be actually affected by an individual meal.
    38        I think Dr. Barnard and Professor Campbell also said that
    39        as well.  But obviously in terms of lasting effects, it is
    40        not the individual meal, it is not a single meal.
    41
    42        I know you have said that you found that the meaning is
    43        defamatory, but I would just like to make some points in
    44        relation to that anyway, and I do not think it will take
    45        very long.
    46
    47        We think that the evidence has to be analysed according to
    48        the part of the meaning that it is relevant to, but that
    49        also the court should analyse which parts of the meaning
    50        are actually defamatory of the Plaintiffs.  In this
    51        respect, we submit that, firstly, to contend that an
    52        assertion that McDonald's food is unhealthy simply cannot
    53        be defamatory.  It does not lower multi-nationals or the
    54        two Plaintiffs in the eyes of ordinary, reasonable people,
    55        and it is self-evidently a reasonable comment to make.
    56        Views differ radically about what is healthy and unhealthy,
    57        and legitimate arguments rage about the virtues of one type
    58        of food over another.  One person's unhealthy food is
    59        another person's healthy food.  It is all a matter of
    60        opinion.

Prev Next Index