Day 001 - 28 Jun 94 - Page 44
1 Again, my Lord, if the defendants are right and the
leaflets' lurid and alarmist references to the subject of
2 food poisoning were in any sense justified, one would
expect to find the defendants were able to point to a
3 large number of instances of food poisoning in this
country over the last 20 years. In fact, they can show
4 but one outbreak; that was in Preston in Lancashire, in
January 1991. It is true to say that they alleged three
5 others, but these are wholly unsubstantiated and may be
ignored for the present purposes.
6
My Lord, the conclusion I draw from those figures is this:
7 The risk that anyone might contract food poisoning from
eating a meal at McDonald's is, truly speaking,
8 negligible, in the sense that it is not a thought which
ought to cross anyone's mind when entering a McDonald's
9 restaurant any more than the risk that he might contract
cancer or diabetes.
10
My Lord, the rearing and slaughter of animals is next.
11 Here I express the issue in this way: Are the methods by
which animals to make McDonald's food reared and
12 slaughtered cruel and inhumane? My Lord, I remind your
Lordship that McDonald's owns no animals, no farm and no
13 slaughter houses with the result that, in this area, they
are of course, as in others, largely in the hands of
14 others.
15 That does not mean that McDonald's shrug their shoulders
and turn away from the issue. On the contrary, they are
16 and always have been astute to ensure fast they can that
the animals they use are reared in the best conditions and
17 slaughtered by the most humane methods available.
18 My Lord, this may be an important point in the case. It
is necessary perhaps to mention it now. McDonald's do not
19 dispute the right of anyone at all, if that should be his
honest view, to say in strong terms, if he wishes, that he
20 disapproves of keeping and killing animals for human
consumption. That is not what this case is about. It is
21 entirely a matter of opinion.
22 What McDonald's do object to, however, is gross
misdescription of the facts underlying the expression of
23 such opinions. Thus, my Lord, in this case while
McDonald's unreservedly accept that a person holding
24 strong views on the matter might honestly describe the
slaughter of animals for food as "murder", they
25 emphatically do not accept that that person or those
people are entitled to colour their opinion and to try to
26 excite support for it by falsely asserting as a matter of
fact that the animals which McDonald's use (and I am now
27 taking the words from the pamphlet) "often struggle to
escape from the killing-line, become frantic as they watch
28 the animal in front of them being slaughtered; frequently
have their throats cut while still fully conscious".
29
My Lord, none of those factual assertions has any basis in
30 fact so far as the animals used by McDonald's are
concerned; nor is it true that the conditions in which
