Day 053 - 22 Nov 94 - Page 45


     
     1        talks of the possibility of McDonald's food being poisonous
     2        which is referred to in K of the Statement of Claim, what
     3        that ----
     4
     5   MS. STEEL:  It says "at best mediocre and at worst poisonous".
     6
     7   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Poisonous in what way?
     8
     9   MS. STEEL:  I think it is clear from that that it is referring
    10        to a worst case scenario; that could be either if people
    11        eat a great deal of it, it could be poisonous in the terms
    12        of contributing to long-term degenerative diseases, or it
    13        could be in terms of in the worst case they may get food
    14        poisoning -- there is an incident that the Plaintiffs have
    15        admitted in relation to that -- or it could also be that if
    16        concerns about food additives turn out to be correct, the
    17        worst case scenario is that people could get some kind of
    18        long-term poisoning from those, such as potassium bromate
    19        which has now been banned.  I think it is clear that it is
    20        not saying their food per se is poisonous in that if you
    21        eat one meal you are likely to drop dead.  I think, even if
    22        it did look as though it was saying that, nobody would
    23        believe it, because I am sure everybody has people who they
    24        know who have been to McDonald's and eaten a meal and not
    25        dropped dead.
    26
    27        Can I say something in relation to some of the things that
    28        were said yesterday?  There was a reference to the Guardian
    29        report and Mr. Rampton said it was an accurate record.  It
    30        may accurately reflect what was reported in it, but
    31        obviously it did not reflect the whole of what was said at
    32        that hearing.  At that hearing, I can remember Mr. Milmo on
    33        our behalf reading the passage from "Good Food, Nutrition
    34        and McDonald's" about the relationship between a typical
    35        western diet and certain forms of cancer.  At some stage
    36        when he replied, Mr. Rampton said that that passage could
    37        not be treated as an admission for the purposes of this
    38        case.
    39
    40        That was a clear indication to us that the Plaintiffs were
    41        denying any association or relationship, and that that was
    42        the issue in the case.
    43
    44        I do not know whether perhaps you could check this, but
    45        Mr. Rampton referred yesterday to the Associated Leisure
    46        case and he said that that application for amendment was
    47        before the trial started.  As I recall, that is correct,
    48        but I also think I recall that they were granted an
    49        adjournment in order to deal with that amendment.  But it
    50        is some time since I read the case, so perhaps if you could 
    51        check that and bear it in mind?  But it is quite a 
    52        different situation to being in the middle of a trial and 
    53        all the difficulties that are entailed as a result of that.
    54
    55        In my notes I have a large number of times where
    56        Mr. Rampton has made comments that I totally and utterly
    57        disagree with in terms of he said things indicating our
    58        state of mind, but I feel that I have probably given you
    59        our position on that, that we did not interpret the issue
    60        as being whether there was a causal link but, as far as we

Prev Next Index