Day 024 - 15 Sep 94 - Page 55


     
     1
     2        That means that it is not part -- it is part of a balanced
     3        diet, but only if you choose to have one meal that has
     4        negative attributes and have to scrimp at either end of
     5        the spectrum.  If you eat three meals and one of them is a
     6        McDonald's meal, you have to be very careful in the other
     7        two meals as to what you eat.
     8
     9   Q.   Going on then, when you replied to this letter -- I do not
    10        mean you personally -- I am not sure whether you wrote the
    11        reply or not.
    12
    13   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It is 164.
    14
    15   MS. STEEL:  Or Exhibit 9.  You did not go into detailed
    16        answers.  Was there some reason for that?
    17        A.  Yes.  As a general enforcement matter, we do want to
    18        make companies aware of our concerns and we do try to
    19        resolve our concerns short of litigation.  We do not,
    20        however, feel it is incumbent upon us as the prosecutor to
    21        argue with the company.  If they want to resolve a
    22        conflict, as McDonald's did by agreeing to stop printing
    23        the ads, then they can, but we do not find it very useful
    24        to engage in the give and take, gainsaying each other's
    25        positions.  We learned that that was not a way to resolve
    26        the conflict.  You have to presume that two sides have
    27        differing opinions and approaches to the matter.
    28
    29        It did not matter to me that McDonald's wanted to put
    30        forth publicly that they did differ with our conclusions;
    31        that was fine with me.  It did not behove us, in order to
    32        resolve it, to sit back and start arguing with them.  On
    33        rare instances that we had been drawn into such arguments,
    34        we had found it only prelonged the resolution and usually
    35        resulted in litigation.  That would have been why the
    36        response to Mr. Califano was as brief as it was, as
    37        reflected in the May 1987 letter that I signed.
    38
    39        But I do draw the distinction.  With this one I remember
    40        specifically that, contrary to the usual course of action,
    41        when Attorney General Mattox got Mr. Califano's letter,
    42        the May 4th letter, he telephoned me -- he being in
    43        Austin, me being in Dallas -- and told me:  "You write
    44        Califono and you say this" and this letter is, though
    45        directed to be sent by me, and though fully agreed with by
    46        me, was Attorney General Mattox's wording.  I may have
    47        said:  "Thank you for your consideration", I might have
    48        stuck that on at the end, but otherwise this is what
    49        General Mattox told me to say to the former secretary in
    50        Human Services. 
    51 
    52   Q.   That would be a fairly standard way of dealing with this; 
    53        you would try to avoid getting drawn into long arguments
    54        which could just delay the resolution of the matter?
    55        A.  Yes.  That is why I say I agreed fully with it; of
    56        course I did, this was my boss telling me to do it, but
    57        had I had second thoughts those second thoughts would have
    58        confirmed this approach.  That is the way I do it as
    59        well.  I do not want to argue with companies about why we
    60        are right and they are wrong.  The choice they had was to

Prev Next Index