Day 292 - 01 Nov 96 - Page 19
1 Can I make a final point on CFCs? When we questioned
2 Robert Beavers, the US senior vice president, we showed him
3 the leaflet in Hong Kong from McDonald's Corporation
4 produced in Hong Kong, which was a corporation leaflet
5 headed "We care about the ozone layer" . In the leaflet it
6 said how in Hong Kong they were using HCFC blowing agents.
7 If I can just remember from memory here, we have heard
8 about some of the Hong Kong packaging being supplied from
9 the UK, and I am not saying that that packaging was made in
10 the UK, that particular item, but the point being... I
11 can't remember who it was that we asked about that,
12 actually. The point being, we have heard on any number of
13 occasions that McDonald's is quite capable of moving
14 packaging, or food products, around the world when they
15 need it, and I will come to that later on, with specific
16 references.
17
18 The point I am making about that is the deceptiveness
19 issue, that they quite irresponsibly continued up to 1995,
20 I think it was, using ozone damaging materials at the same
21 time as portraying them in official company leaflets as
22 under the heading "we care about the ozone layer" arguing
23 that HCFCs were less damaging than CFCs. In fact, by 1995
24 they should have known that the whole scientific opinion
25 had been that HCFCs were as damaging as CFCs. But in any
26 case, they are certainly damaging. I mean, if I make the
27 point, it does not matter whether they are as damaging or
28 slightly less damaging, you know, they are still damaging,
29 that is the point.
30
31 MR JUSTICE BELL: You say 'equally damaging'. Ms. Steel keeps
32 prompting you.
33
34 MR. MORRIS: She remembers the ninety five percent or five
35 percent thing, whatever it was. That was early scientific
36 opinion in the late '80s, that HCFCs would be an
37 improvement, which I think we heard that point of view
38 changed over time as it became apparent. But anyway, the
39 point is-----
40
41 MR. JUSTICE BELL: You say whether equally damaging or not it is
42 still damaging?
43
44 MR. MORRIS: Yes. The reason I brought it up is the
45 deceptiveness. If you remember also, a McDonald's advert
46 in Australia was banned which claimed that McDonald's
47 packaging was ozone friendly, and that was deemed to be
48 deceptive, which is not surprising because it should have
49 said 'ozone damaging' on it. But of course it makes people
50 feel better, the public, when they buy their food, to think
51 they are not actually using a product that is damaging to
52 the environment.
53
54 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Are you moving off those gases for the
55 moment?
56
57 MR. MORRIS: I am quite happy to carry on.
58
59 MR JUSTICE BELL: I think it is only fair to the stenographer.
60 Let us have five minutes.
