Day 296 - 07 Nov 96 - Page 12


     
     1
     2        We say that to curtail the expression of such opinions is
     3        to strike at the very heart of freedom of speech in the
     4        United Kingdom.  Obviously, on that point, whilst there are
     5        widely differing opinions about what is unhealthy and what
     6        is healthy, in our view it is clear that the whole weight
     7        of the medical profession has the same view as the London
     8        Greenpeace fact sheet as to what is an unhealthy type of
     9        diet, or unhealthy products as well, what foods go to make
    10        up an unhealthy diet.
    11
    12        Secondly, to contend that an assertion that eating
    13        McDonald's food may well make your diet high in fat, sugar,
    14        animal products and salt, and low in fibre, vitamins and
    15        minerals, to say that that is defamatory of the Plaintiffs,
    16        we would say is wrong.  Well, it is, I mean, basically,
    17        because it is couched in such general terms that to suggest
    18        that ordinary, reasonable members of the public will
    19        consider the two Plaintiffs in a different, still less
    20        worth light because of it, is to defy common sense.
    21
    22        Just while we are on this point, I would also like to
    23        remind the court that we have seen from the Plaintiffs' own
    24        surveys, which, whilst they were dated within the last few
    25        years, I cannot actually remember the dates of them,
    26        Mr. Fairgrieve did actually say that the views expressed in
    27        them, he did not consider that they had changed over the
    28        period of time that he had worked with the company.  And
    29        there was a particular survey carried out for McDonald's
    30        which summarised people's perceptions of McDonald's and the
    31        food was described in those surveys, McDonald's food was
    32        being described as thought to be high in calories and not
    33        rated well as being healthy or made with natural
    34        ingredients.  So there is also the question of....  That is
    35        McDonald's own customers.  They have got the view already
    36        that McDonald's food is unhealthy, is it really going to --
    37        even if they read the London Greenpeace fact sheet and took
    38        it as suggested by the Plaintiffs, would it really make any
    39        difference to their opinion of McDonald's food.
    40
    41        With regards to the parts three and four of the split
    42        meaning, we contend that ordinary, reasonable members of
    43        the public are going to be fairly robust and consider the
    44        words "against their everyday knowledge of food, nutrition
    45        and health", and I did make this point during the argument
    46        about the meaning on this section of the leaflet, no member
    47        of the public would read the words to mean that upon eating
    48        a single McDonald's meal they enter a danger zone, the end
    49        of which is guarded by death or -- well, heart disease and
    50        cancer, which lead to death.  They are simply going to
    51        consider that there are well-known dangers of eating too
    52        much food which is high in fat, sugar, animals products and
    53        salt, and that to be reminded of such a thing is no bad
    54        thing.
    55
    56        It is a bit like being reminded to clean your teeth more
    57        often, it is good advice, but it should not be taken out of
    58        context or attributed a special meaning.
    59
    60        In terms of this suggestion that McDonald's do not properly

Prev Next Index