Day 010 - 11 Jul 94 - Page 67
1
Q. That is correct?
2 A. I am aware of that.
3 Q. It was the pack leader so far as the food packaging or the
food service industry?
4 A. That is right. Can I also point out that their
decision to ban foam came exactly five days after the
5 first series of Mctoxics actions aimed at McDonald's use
of foam, and, in addition, that the BOC Group focused in
6 part on the use of CFCs by McDonald's, so that we believed
at the time (and I still believe it is true today) that
7 the decision-making process that McDonald's engaged in was
related to that campaign and knowledge that the campaign
8 would continue.
9 Q. You have, I take it, no direct evidence for that
assertion?
10 A. No, that is experience, that is four years, three
years, of working on the matter.
11
MR. JUSTICE BELL: Are you saying they made the decision in the
12 five days or it was a result of -----
A. I am saying they were aware for some time prior to the
13 October 1988 days of action that this was one of the
issues that their foam use was going to be, that was going
14 to be raised in regard to use of foam food packaging; that
we were producing the material and distributing it
15 throughout the summer of 1987.
16 MR. RAMPTON: I just want to draw your attention to the second
paragraph on this page, the one beginning: "The ozone
17 depletion of potential HCFC-22" -- this is April 12th 1988
-- "is far smaller than that of CFC-11 and CFC-12". It
18 was thought at that time that its ozone depleting
potential was something like 95 per cent less than that of
19 the two CFCs, was it not?
A. That is what I am aware of, yes.
20
Q. That was the respectable scientific view, was it not?
21 A. I am not sure what .....
22 Q. When you go back to your written statement you seem to be
suggesting in the third paragraph on the fourth page that
23 this proposition was really manufactured by industry
scientists, namely, at that date, that HCFC-22 was only
24 1/20th as damaging to the ozone layer. Do you see you are
suggesting that?
25 A. Yes, I can see what you are saying.
26 Q. It is not right, is it?
A. Well, what I would say is that that statement is an
27 abbreviated comment regarding the matter I was raising.
I could be, I am perfectly willing to expand that comment
28 because it does bear on your notion of respectability and
how we perceived these environmental organisations, how we
29 perceived their relationship, so that -----
30 Q. Sorry. It is most discourteous of me. Please continue.
A. What I would prefer to do is to put into the record
