Day 060 - 02 Dec 94 - Page 73


     
     1        but that is what it is, is it not?
     2        A.  I simply think they are putting both sides of the case,
     3        my Lord.  I do not know what the person's intention was
     4        when she wrote it, but they are clearly stating both sides
     5        of the case as they saw it, as they saw it at that time.
     6
     7   MR. MORRIS:  Both sides of the case are, in fact, that the use
     8        of paper packaging is required for the destruction of trees
     9        and can pollute water, and on the other side foam packaging
    10        is more energy and resource efficient?
    11        A.  That is what they wrote, but, as I have told you -----
    12
    13   Q.   But, on the other side, in fact, it is not true because we
    14        now know it would be rewritten if it is written now?
    15        A.  I think it is fair to say that that statement would be
    16        written differently if it was written now, yes.
    17
    18   Q.   It is true that the manufacture of paper requires the
    19        destruction of trees and can pollute water; is that a true
    20        statement?
    21        A.  I am not sure about the polluting water; you certainly
    22        have to take down trees to make wood pulp.
    23
    24   Q.   So it is fair comment to say that the manufacture of paper
    25        requires the destruction of trees?
    26        A.  Well, I think if you did not treat the water, then you
    27        could say it was polluted but, generally, I think a major
    28        paper mill might treat the water first before putting it
    29        back into the stream.
    30
    31   Q.   Just forgetting the water thing then, it is just a fair
    32        statement, a fair comment to make -- OK.  The next sentence
    33        says:  "The foam packaging used by McDonald's is completely
    34        CFC free.  It is recyclable and does not give out toxic
    35        emissions."   The word "recyclable" has been said to be
    36        misleading or deceptive by the Advertising Standards
    37        Authority in advertisements, and their remit, I think,
    38        applies quite widely to -- yes, unless you are going to
    39        recycle that material yourself.  So, in hindsight from the
    40        ruling of the Advertising Standards Authority and also the
    41        EDF, McDonald's stricture on not using the word
    42        "recyclable" unless the products have a reasonable chance
    43        of being recycled, would you now say that you would not use
    44        that word if this leaflet was rewritten?
    45        A.  No, I would not say that.
    46
    47   Q.   So, you do not take counsel from the position of McDonald's
    48        Corporation and the Advertising Standards Authority on not
    49        misleading customers then?
    50        A.  I did not say that.  I disagreed with your question. 
    51 
    52   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  We went through this yesterday, did we not? 
    53        A.  We did -- several times, I think.
    54
    55   MR. MORRIS:  Do you think it is misleading customers to say that
    56        something is recyclable when, in fact, there is no real
    57        practical prospect that it is going to happen?
    58        A.  It is a statement of fact.  It is recyclable.  Our aim
    59        is to develop a recycling programme, as we clearly told you
    60        yesterday on several occasions.

Prev Next Index