Day 292 - 01 Nov 96 - Page 21


     
     1
     2        While I am on this document I might as well read out the
     3        other bits of the document so I do not have to go back to
     4        it.  The impression of that is, first of all, that they
     5        agreeing with those concerns by re-evaluating their paper
     6        packaging use, and then they try to justify the use of
     7        Polystyrene as a result, implying that the damage to
     8        forests and causing water pollution and the high use of
     9        energy involved in manufacturing paper would be reduced if
    10        they moved on to Polystyrene foam packaging. "Foam
    11        packaging is more energy and resource efficient to produce
    12        than paper or cardboard.  By contrast the manufacturer of
    13        paper required" -- and I emphasise 'required' -- "the
    14        destruction of trees and can pollute water".
    15
    16        We say that is an admission in June 1990, which is felt to
    17        be a very relevant time. "The foam packaging used by
    18        McDonald's is completely CFC free" -- that is in that
    19        country, not in other countries if you include HCFCs - this
    20        is a UK document. "It is re-cycleable" -- which it is not,
    21        that is deceptive.  In fact, in America,, as we have heard,
    22        they would not be allowed to claim that in a public
    23        document such as this, certainly not in advertising.  In
    24        fact, while I am on the subject, as we know, they were
    25        admonished, or whatever the word is, the advert that was
    26        used by McDonald's was banned or withdrawn, but claimed
    27        that their packaging was re-cycleable when they were not
    28        recycling it, and that was in this country.
    29
    30   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Is that the one that has bits about what is
    31        can be recycled as?
    32
    33   MR. MORRIS:   No, this is a different one.  This is 'Packaging,
    34        the facts', the other one is 'Recycling, the facts'.  It
    35        then says about "in favour of the foam packaging, it does
    36        not give out toxic emissions".  "It should be noted that
    37        had non-biodegradable matter aids decomposition in
    38        landfills by forming air pockets vital to the degradation
    39        process."  You could say that is an admission that because
    40        it does not biodegrade and forms air pockets is therefore
    41        contributing more greatly to the filling up of landfills
    42        and the sheer volume of landfills which are a problem all
    43        over the country.  People do not like landfills, and there
    44        is no reason why waste that is not necessary should end up
    45        in landfills, in particular non-biodegradable waste which
    46        would be there presumably for a million years littering our
    47        planet with junk.
    48
    49        So that was not the exact document which I was referring to
    50        before which actually made the statement that they
    51        recognised the damaging effects of Polystyrene in America,
    52        it was an American document, which I will come to, but what
    53        I am trying to say is that they-----
    54
    55   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   You were on forests and hence got you to
    56        paper, and then you read the rest while you were there.
    57
    58   MR. MORRIS:   Yes, that is true, that is true, I side tracked.
    59        Forests.  So McDonald's have accepted in mass produced
    60        public literature that paper production is damaging to the

Prev Next Index