Day 052 - 21 Nov 94 - Page 23
1 Just above letter F your Lordship said this, that this is
2 one of the respects in which the Plaintiffs were
3 complaining of the leaflet to be defamatory, "that the
4 quality of nutrition of the food which they sell is not
5 only poor but that their food causes illness including
6 diabetes, heart disease and cancer and death in those who
7 eat their products". Then it goes on to advertising.
8
9 My Lord, again I will not keep saying this, but the
10 importance of this is that here is the court actually
11 telling the Defendants in a judgment, if they had not
12 already heard it from me, what is the nature of the
13 Plaintiffs' complaint about the nutritional aspect of the
14 leaflet.
15
16 My Lord, I said much the same as I have said to your
17 Lordship (only perhaps at some greater length) in the Court
18 of Appeal. It is confirmed by those around me that this
19 article in the Guardian (at tab 5) on 17th March is,
20 indeed, an accurate report of what I said in the Court of
21 Appeal. I am reported as having said or as having made a
22 submission that: "Claims that McDonald's foods cause
23 breast and bowel cancer would be 'the kiss of death' to the
24 company if they were upheld in a libel case", I said, "for
25 the fast-food chain in the Court of Appeal yesterday".
26 Then, my Lord, in the middle column I am reported as having
27 said that, "the company needed to defend its reputation,
28 and he read to the court what he said was the core
29 allegation in the leaflet, that so-called junk foods like
30 McDonald's cause cancer and other deadly diseases".
31
32 Then at the bottom of the page: "Mr. Milmo showed the
33 court a copy of McDonald's own nutrition leaflet which
34 appeared to accept a link between cancer and a typical
35 western diet. 'The issue then is whether food produced at
36 McDonald's come under the definition as a typical western
37 diet'." "McDonald's" goes on the report "did not accept
38 the interpretation of its leaflet, Mr. Rampton said. A
39 judge training in assessing difficult technical material
40 was 'more like to ensure a correct result' than a jury in
41 such a case. 'If the public should come to the conclusion
42 as a result of this verdict that the plaintiff's food is
43 apt to give them cancer of the bowel or breast it would be
44 the kiss of death for the plaintiff'." My Lord, that is a
45 reference back to the summary at the start of the article.
46 That was on 16th March 1994.
47
48 My Lord, next when the Court of Appeal gave judgment -- tab
49 6 -- on 25th March, the Court of Appeal gave judgment on
50 the question jury or no jury, Lord Justice Neill giving the
51 judgment to the court said this in the middle of page 21:
52 "I am afraid, however, that I have been driven to the
53 conclusion that the issues which the defendants have raised
54 about the alleged health hazards of the food sold by the
55 plaintiffs require a careful and detailed analysis of the
56 scientific evidence and, as I have explained, a reasoned
57 judgment about each of the dangers to health which are
58 propounded by and on behalf of the defendants".
59
60 My Lord, one is not, of course, a mind reader: Two
