Day 296 - 07 Nov 96 - Page 11
1 milkshakes.
2
3 We therefore say that it is basically inappropriate for the
4 court to read too much into the words 'McDonald's meal',
5 and that it is grossly misleading for the Plaintiffs to
6 seek to distance themselves from the evidence which clearly
7 demonstrates the dangers of such food.
8
9 On another point, we also submit that the meaning which you
10 attributed to the words in the leaflet can be broken down
11 into four parts as follows: One, that McDonald's food is
12 very unhealthy because it is high in fat, sugar, animal
13 products and salt (sodium), and low in fibre, vitamins, and
14 minerals; two, because eating it may well make your diet
15 high in fat, sugar, animals products, salt, sodium, and low
16 in fibre, vitamins and minerals; three, with the very real
17 risk that you will suffer cancer of the breast or bowel or
18 heart disease as a result; and, four, that McDonald's know
19 this but do not make it clear, they still sell their food
20 and deceive their customers by claiming that their food is
21 a useful and nutritious part of any diet.
22
23 If I can just say that in relation to the first two of
24 those four parts, they are obviously related as individual
25 foods, scientifically speaking, or strictly are not defined
26 individually as being unhealthy; it is the diet that is
27 unhealthy. However, as far as the lay person is concerned,
28 they do identify individual foods and label them as being
29 unhealthy; for example, packets of sweets, bars of
30 chocolates, bags of chips, and so on, even though they know
31 that if they just ate one it is not going to have any great
32 or lasting effects.
33
34 Obviously, we did hear from, I think it was from Civil
35 Evidence Act witnesses, the doctors in the United States
36 who had done tests on blood viscosity and blood pressure,
37 and it could be actually affected by an individual meal.
38 I think Dr. Barnard and Professor Campbell also said that
39 as well. But obviously in terms of lasting effects, it is
40 not the individual meal, it is not a single meal.
41
42 I know you have said that you found that the meaning is
43 defamatory, but I would just like to make some points in
44 relation to that anyway, and I do not think it will take
45 very long.
46
47 We think that the evidence has to be analysed according to
48 the part of the meaning that it is relevant to, but that
49 also the court should analyse which parts of the meaning
50 are actually defamatory of the Plaintiffs. In this
51 respect, we submit that, firstly, to contend that an
52 assertion that McDonald's food is unhealthy simply cannot
53 be defamatory. It does not lower multi-nationals or the
54 two Plaintiffs in the eyes of ordinary, reasonable people,
55 and it is self-evidently a reasonable comment to make.
56 Views differ radically about what is healthy and unhealthy,
57 and legitimate arguments rage about the virtues of one type
58 of food over another. One person's unhealthy food is
59 another person's healthy food. It is all a matter of
60 opinion.
