Day 009 - 08 Jul 94 - Page 30


     
     1        McDonald's about this issue?
              A.  No, we had -- well, it depends, 7,000 to 10,000
     2        enquiries.  Again in the United States at the time I would
              estimate that we served 18 million people a day.  So I am
     3        trying to put that in proportion as to how many customers
              we served.  We consider that to be an important issue with
     4        our customers, for sure.
 
     5   Q.   Those letters continued until you made the switch?
              A.  Yes.
     6
         MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That means something like -- I do not know
     7        what the population in the United States was then.
              A.  240 million.
     8
         Q.   So you were serving about one in 14 members of the
     9        population every day?
              A.  Every day.
    10
         MR. MORRIS:  The CFCs that were in your polystyrene foam
    11        packaging in the late 80s, I believe you said yesterday
              CFCs damage the environment; is that correct?
    12        A.  I am sorry.  I could not hear your question.
 
    13   Q.   Do the CFCs that were in your packaging damage the
              environment, as far as you know?
    14        A.  I could not answer that question definitely.  The
              signs, at the time that that was done, definitely showed
    15        that CFCs potentially could be a significant ozone
              depletion factor.
    16
         Q.   You believe those studies?
    17        A.  We did.
 
    18   Q.   Is that the reason you withdrew them?
              A.  Yes, it is.
    19
         Q.   You said that if you had heard of any country using CFCs
    20        you would act immediately to get it stopped?
              A.  Yes, that is how strongly I felt about it.
    21
         Q.   The McDonald's company.  How long have you had that
    22        attitude?  How many years?
              A.  I have had that attitude since first reviewing the
    23        research.  I think the attitude I have has probably
              escalated over time because over time, since 1987, when we
    24        made our decision, the Montreal Protocol was not yet
              released.  In successive years since then I think there is
    25        even more a preponderance of evidence that CFCs have a
              potentially ozone depletion effect.  So, yes, I think my 
    26        attitude has strengthened each year.  I think that is 
              something -- I am glad we made a decision to get out. 
    27
         Q.   When did the company decide to phase out HCFCs as also a
    28        damaging alternative?
              A.  In 1990 is the time frame that I would say that we
    29        placed emphasis around the world to phase out HCFC-22.
              That again was based on the progressive information that
    30        we were getting from the Montreal Protocol Report and the
              scientific evidence, which during 1990's and continuing

Prev Next Index