Day 010 - 11 Jul 94 - Page 67


     
     1
         Q.   That is correct?
     2        A.  I am aware of that.
 
     3   Q.   It was the pack leader so far as the food packaging or the
              food service industry?
     4        A.  That is right.  Can I also point out that their
              decision to ban foam came exactly five days after the
     5        first series of Mctoxics actions aimed at McDonald's use
              of foam, and, in addition, that the BOC Group focused in
     6        part on the use of CFCs by McDonald's, so that we believed
              at the time (and I still believe it is true today) that
     7        the decision-making process that McDonald's engaged in was
              related to that campaign and knowledge that the campaign
     8        would continue.
 
     9   Q.   You have, I take it, no direct evidence for that
              assertion?
    10        A.  No, that is experience, that is four years, three
              years, of working on the matter.
    11
         MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Are you saying they made the decision in the
    12        five days or it was a result of -----
              A.  I am saying they were aware for some time prior to the
    13        October 1988 days of action that this was one of the
              issues that their foam use was going to be, that was going
    14        to be raised in regard to use of foam food packaging; that
              we were producing the material and distributing it
    15        throughout the summer of 1987.
 
    16   MR. RAMPTON:  I just want to draw your attention to the second
              paragraph on this page, the one beginning:  "The ozone
    17        depletion of potential HCFC-22" -- this is April 12th 1988
               -- "is far smaller than that of CFC-11 and CFC-12".  It
    18        was thought at that time that its ozone depleting
              potential was something like 95 per cent less than that of
    19        the two CFCs, was it not?
              A.  That is what I am aware of, yes.
    20
         Q.   That was the respectable scientific view, was it not?
    21        A.  I am not sure what .....
 
    22   Q.   When you go back to your written statement you seem to be
              suggesting in the third paragraph on the fourth page that
    23        this proposition was really manufactured by industry
              scientists, namely, at that date, that HCFC-22 was only
    24        1/20th as damaging to the ozone layer.  Do you see you are
              suggesting that?
    25        A.  Yes, I can see what you are saying.
  
    26   Q.   It is not right, is it? 
              A.  Well, what I would say is that that statement is an 
    27        abbreviated comment regarding the matter I was raising.
              I could be, I am perfectly willing to expand that comment
    28        because it does bear on your notion of respectability and
              how we perceived these environmental organisations, how we
    29        perceived their relationship, so that -----
 
    30   Q.   Sorry.  It is most discourteous of me.  Please continue.
              A.  What I would prefer to do is to put into the record

Prev Next Index