Day 296 - 07 Nov 96 - Page 13


     
     1        inform their customers of the dangers of eating too much
     2        food which is high in fat, sugar, animal products and
     3        fault, and low in fibre, vitamins and minerals, we submit
     4        that this is no more than to suggest that McDonald's --
     5        well, both Plaintiffs, one is a massive UK company with
     6        millions of pounds of advertising budget and the other is a
     7        huge multi-national with a 1.8 billion dollar a year
     8        advertising budget, two companies which are making millions
     9        of dollars and pounds out of the hamburger eating
    10        community, owe a special duty to that community to alert
    11        them to any possible dangers relating to their eating
    12        habits.
    13
    14        In other words, on the verge of the 21st Century the public
    15        expects corporations that have almost limitless resources
    16        to act responsibly and to err on the side of caution when
    17        they are imparting information to their customers.
    18
    19        Although we say that that is the essence of that paragraph,
    20        we do know in fact that McDonald's are aware of the dangers
    21        of a high fat low fibre diet and that they do not bother to
    22        inform the public.  The only document where the dangers are
    23        related is a specialist document which was sent round to
    24        members of the medical community, profession, although it,
    25        I think, could be obtained from head office by the public
    26        if they wrote in for it, but it was not available in
    27        stores, which is basically where McDonald's customers are
    28        going to get their information.
    29
    30        McDonald's do not bother to inform the public of the
    31        dangers; instead they dress up their food as nutritious and
    32        a useful part of a balanced diet, which, as I think Jane
    33        Brophy, who we called, you remember that she was a National
    34        Health Service health promotion adviser to health
    35        professionals, and she referred to some of the literature
    36        that health professionals are now expected to make
    37        available to the public regarding the need for a healthy
    38        diet in order to avoid chronic degenerative diseases.
    39
    40        I should point out that that information being available to
    41        the public it is available to McDonald's and they could, in
    42        turn, make it available to their customers.  She concluded
    43        that most people in health education know that a typical
    44        McDonald's meal does not comply with current healthy eating
    45        recommendations, and that is why McDonald's literature
    46        states that the two golden rules for healthy eating are
    47        variety and moderation, which she said are vague terms
    48        which do not help the average person to choose a health
    49        promoting diet.
    50
    51        A further point is that we submit that the court should
    52        consider the impact of the leaflet on ordinary members of
    53        the public.  They are not going to go running to the doctor
    54        nor are they going to abandon longstanding eating habits
    55        just because they have read one leaflet about McDonald's
    56        food, diet, heart disease and cancer.  They are going to
    57        consider things in the round, taking on board the parts
    58        that fit in with their views on nutrition and rejecting the
    59        parts that do not.  Just, basically, weighing it up with
    60        their own common sense and what is already widely reported

Prev Next Index