Day 285 - 23 Oct 96 - Page 19


     
     1        system, then what chance has a policy got, especially a
     2        confused one and contradictory one, and it could be
     3        argued, and we do argue, that such a policy is for public
     4        consumption, not for any purpose other than that.
     5        Generally I think it would be fair to say that McDonald's
     6        policy on local use is something that they say in every
     7        country because it makes people feel better in those
     8        countries that McDonald's is not this faceless
     9        international US based corporation but they are committed
    10        to the local economy and that kind of stuff.  It does not
    11        have any relevance whatsoever to environmental protection
    12        or....
    13
    14        And I think my next point is that the import specification
    15        in the US which McDonald's pray in aid is just that kind
    16        of specification.  It is some kind of -- well, maybe
    17        nationalistic is not the right word; we want to show our
    18        customers that we are using US beef, but, of course, as we
    19        all know, and I will going into it later, that does not
    20        necessarily mean anything because of the labelling
    21        system.  And at least for certain until a definition was
    22        sent to raw material suppliers in 1989 specifying what
    23        that meant and that McDonald's maybe was getting serious
    24        about it, maybe.
    25
    26        And I do think that McDonald's, no doubt Mr. Rampton will
    27        pray in aid policies throughout his submissions to you and
    28        if policies -- I mean, they do have a role in the evidence
    29        in this case, we would say not the role that McDonald's
    30        have given to them, and if they can be shown to be
    31        worthless or just for public consumption or contradictory,
    32        it does say something about what the role of such policies
    33        are in terms of public perception, and that they cannot
    34        use them, Mr. Rampton will not be able to use them as
    35        protection because a policy is no evidence that something
    36        has not happened.
    37
    38        So what if McDonald's have a specification for 1978 saying
    39        no imported beef?  Where is the evidence brought by the
    40        plaintiffs that in fact they did not have any imported
    41        beef in 1978?   And that is where Mr. Beavers comes in,
    42        that even if they did have any kind of policies or
    43        specifications, they had to -- you know, the most
    44        important ones such as the fat content and ice in the
    45        patties, they had to discontinue a number of suppliers
    46        that they found out about because he said they had an
    47        impossible task of trying to police the supply chain,
    48        which is the reason they got the numbers down in the
    49        eighties to five companies.  And I will try and get those
    50        references later on today or whenever.
    51
    52        Now, Dr. Gonzalez did give four reasons, in any event, for 
    53        when policies could be pushed aside or put to the one
    54        side.  And I think the four reasons he gave, on day 68,
    55        page 11, line 30, were regulations, presumably national
    56        laws, religion, economics and customers.
    57
    58        Now, regulations, there is nothing they can do about; that
    59        is the law, it does not apply to this issue.  Religion
    60        does not apply to this issue.  Customers are very much, if

Prev Next Index