Day 053 - 22 Nov 94 - Page 17
1 relying on the context, because it is actually perfectly
2 clear to us what it means as regards diet, which I am
3 talking about now. But, in fact, the context throughout
4 the whole leaflet is in our favour, in terms of whether it
5 is talking about diet, not McDonald's, the amount of time
6 someone might eat a McDonald's meal.
7
8 It would be the same if it was referring to Mars Bars or,
9 you know, relating to sweets in general, rather than just
10 the amount of time someone ate a Mars Bar, being bad for
11 their teeth. A Mars Bar is bad for their teeth, because it
12 is part of the generic problem of sweets.
13
14 One final point: it struck me, I think there was a lot of
15 legal -- I do not know this for a fact -- but the cigarette
16 industry resisted for decades the implication that
17 cigarettes caused cancer because, you know, they argue
18 their cigarettes could not be criticised because it could
19 not be shown that someone had actually got it from smoking
20 their particular cigarettes. I think that has also has to
21 be borne in mind.
22
23 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I think the point which Mr. Rampton was
24 seeking to take against you was that for years some people
25 anyway resisted the suggestion that there was any causal
26 link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, and some
27 people even do still, yet it is generally accepted that
28 there is a causal link between cigarette smoking and lung
29 cancer. The mere fact that there is a certain scientific
30 scepticism, so far as a causal link between a diet high in
31 fat, et cetera, and certain kinds of cancer, does not mean
32 to say that there is such a causal link. When time goes on
33 and science develops, we will find that there is.
34
35 MR. MORRIS: I was just about to say I am not just on the
36 causation point.
37
38 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Let us go back to where we were in your
39 argument. I only raise these matters so that you can deal
40 with them, if you wish.
41
42 I think the last point you were making was, you were saying
43 that the part under "What's so unhealthy about McDonald's
44 food?" was really directed at deception rather than their
45 food actually causing these illnesses.
46
47 MS. STEEL: It is directed at deception and also that it is high
48 in fat and low in fibre, et cetera. On F1, "sell meals
49 which cause cancer of the breast and bowel and heart
50 disease in their customers", if it was a cigarette company
51 suing us and it was about cigarettes and lung cancer and
52 that said, "sell cigarettes which cause lung cancer in
53 their customers", I do not think you would ever be able to
54 prove that, because you would never be able to specifically
55 prove that that was the specific cause, as opposed to -- I
56 do not know -- they might have had a packet of a different
57 brand once in their life, or something like that; whereas
58 if it said, "sell cigarettes, the contents of which, i.e.
59 tobacco and nicotine, et cetera, are causally linked to
60 lung cancer", you would be able to prove that.
