Day 007 - 06 Jul 94 - Page 52
1 Q. OK. I do not know whether you have it in front of you,
but in your statement on paragraph 2 you mention that you
2 monitor packaging legislation and labelling restrictions.
What sort of labelling restrictions are you referring to
3 there?
A. Well, restrictions on how you make a claim for
4 recycled content, for instance, that you have to declare
the overall recycled contents and the post consumer
5 recycled contents, so we make sure that is accurate; those
types of things.
6
Q. What about recyclability?
7 A. Yes. We will not label a package in the US with
"recyclability" unless we have an active programme to
8 recycle that product in the stores.
9 Q. I think that you agreed that CFCs cause damage to the
ozone layer or that scientific evidence -----
10 A. The scientific evidence I had seen at the time we were
making those decisions said that it was a potential ozone
11 depletor, so that is what I knew.
12 Q. I think you agreed that HCFCs were originally thought to
have five per cent of the ozone depletion or ozone
13 damaging potential of CFCs?
A. Yes.
14
Q. So you agree that they cause damage?
15 A. Potentially.
16 Q. I think you said you recognised that general sort of
scientific feeling now is that HCFCs are quite possibly
17 considered more damaging than CFCs?
A. No, I do not believe I made that statement, no.
18 I quite frankly did not follow it.
19 MR. JUSTICE BELL: "More than was thought HCFCs did".
20 MISS STEEL: OK.
21 MR. JUSTICE BELL: "Or HCFC 22".
22 MISS STEEL: Anyway, you accept the point about five per cent
at least?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. So there is some damage. I think you did say that
packaging blown with hydrocarbons does have an
25 environmental impact?
A. Correct.
26
Q. Smog formation and greenhouse gases?
27 A. Yes, those are two of the impacts.
28 Q. Then I think you were talking about carbon dioxide being a
new blowing agent?
29 A. Yes.
30 Q. And you said that was a greenhouse gas and contributes to
global warming?
