Day 201 - 15 Dec 95 - Page 13


     
     1   MR. MORRIS:  No.  We have heard a great deal about CFCs and
     2        HCFCs ---
     3
     4   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I know we have.
     5
     6   MR. MORRIS:  -- in the pleadings.
     7
     8   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Is there anything which I have missed in the
     9        particulars which refers to paper making, apart from that
    10        general point?
    11
    12   MR. MORRIS:  Yes, page 4 in the meaning ---
    13
    14   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I have that as well.
    15
    16   MR. MORRIS:  --  "(B) For many years the First and Second
    17        Plaintiffs used materials for food packaging which were
    18        harmful to the environment.  The First and Second
    19        Plaintiffs continued to use packaging which was harmful to
    20        the environment."
    21
    22   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I have that.  What troubles me is, those
    23        matters are pleaded, but where is there anything in the
    24        leaflet -- you can plead whatever you like, but where is
    25        there anything in the leaflet which actually brings in the
    26        topic of wood pulp processing?
    27
    28   MR. MORRIS:  It is not mentioned specifically, but obviously in
    29        the section that you refer to about "It takes 800 square
    30        miles of forest just to keep them supplied with paper for
    31        one year", and next, under "Colonial Invasion", it
    32        says: "Not only McDonald's, but many other corporations
    33        contribute to a major ecological catastrophe",
    34        et cetera, "forcing troubled peoples off their ancestral
    35        territories".  Then we would submit that part of the
    36        ecological catastrophe being caused by McDonald's and
    37        others is the result of the production of paper packaging.
    38        Therefore, Ms. Link's evidence is relevant and useful in
    39        identifying how the paper production process is damaging to
    40        the environment.
    41
    42        You cannot really separate one aspect of packaging
    43        production, such as the CFCs, and the other, which is paper
    44        production, the effect of chlorination of paper on the
    45        environment, because the problem for McDonald's packaging
    46        is that because of the scale of it and the choices which
    47        they have made, whether it is paper production or styrene
    48        production, it is damaging to the environment; and we
    49        should be able to make that point clearly.  Otherwise it
    50        will be said: "Well, they are moving towards paper 
    51        production, so everything is fine and, you know, CFCs are 
    52        being dropped", or whatever.  The point is that that 
    53        statement about major ecological catastrophe we would argue
    54        applies as much to their paper production as to the effects
    55        of cattle ranching.
    56
    57   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Is there anything you want to say in addition
    58        to that with regard to incineration?
    59
    60   MR. MORRIS:  I mean, again, it is something that Mr. Lipsett

Prev Next Index