Day 042 - 31 Oct 94 - Page 13
1 fact that it seems like there is only stabiliser, for
2 instance, and in fact there are other chemicals. We
3 accepted that; we accepted that. If they believed it was
4 misleading, then, okay, we withdrew the ad.
5
6 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Do we not have the copy of the ruling?
7
8 MS. STEEL: Yes. It is directly behind that.
9
10 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Can we look at that, then, because that is
11 likely to be more informative than Mr. Hawkes's answers.
12 Let me just read that.
13
14 MS. STEEL: The complainant objected that, in fact, the
15 milkshake did contain a number of other chemicals. "The
16 Authority, however, considered the advertisement to be" --
17 sorry.
18
19 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I can read it. By all means, read it out if
20 you want to make it public, but I read it when I read the
21 witness statements, and I have read it again. It said it
22 was misleading just to mention adding "a little
23 stabiliser", when there were other additives as well; that
24 was the effect of it.
25
26 THE WITNESS: Yes, my Lord.
27
28 MS. STEEL: "The Authority considered the advertisement to be
29 misleading in that it gave a strong indication that the
30 only chemical used in food preparation by McDonald's was
31 stabiliser. They requested that if similar advertisements
32 appeared in future, the claims be amended accordingly."
33
34 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I would have thought it was more than a
35 strong indication; I would have thought it was an outright
36 statement, if that is all it contained, myself. But there
37 we are.
38
39 MS. STEEL: That was the purpose of this advertisement, was it
40 not, to make people think there were not many chemicals in
41 McDonald's food?
42 A. The purpose of the advertisement was to show that there
43 was a little chemicals in the food; and that is still the
44 case. It is just that the way that this was put was seen
45 to be misleading, because we only showed one example in the
46 stabiliser.
47
48 Q. Were you aware of a similar case like this in the
49 United States, where McDonald's claimed that there was only
50 one type of chemical, or something like that, in its
51 milkshakes; that they got wrapped over the knuckles by
52 three Attorneys General in three States?
53 A. No, I am not aware of that.
54
55 MR. RAMPTON: That is a "when did you stop beating your wife"
56 question. Mr. Hawkes might be aware of the advertisement,
57 but the addition of the proposition that they were wrapped
58 over the knuckles is not something-----
59
60 MR. JUSTICE BELL: In any event, Mr. Hawkes has not agreed with
