Day 284 - 22 Oct 96 - Page 36
1 But in some ways the whole argument is, we feel, a bit
2 artificial because, as I have said, the concern is the
3 damage it does to the environment and that should be the
4 overwhelming concern because whether or not something is
5 strictly rainforest or not we would still pray in aid any
6 damage to the environment done by the cattle ranching
7 industry in Central and Latin America. Can we have a break
8 there?
9
10 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. I will say 5 to 3. If a minute or two
11 more is needed to get the VDU straight, let me know.
12
13 (Short Adjournment)
14
15 MR. MORRIS: The last thing.... Well, the other thing I want
16 to say is that hoof prints on the forest, which presumably
17 one refers to the major documents to raise this kind of
18 concern, does not distinguish between rainforest and
19 tropical forest, so far as I can see. So I think the
20 references to their definitions of rainforest, Charles
21 Secrett is Day 240, pages 24 to 28. And John Carrier, Day
22 242, page 16, line 46 onwards, and page 17, line 28
23 onwards. And of course the others, George Monbiot dealt
24 with this. I can't remember with Dr. Nations. As far as
25 I can remember, he did not distinguish between the two
26 either. And as we have heard in this case, these are
27 effectively McDonald's witnesses as well as their own.
28
29 And one further reflection on this is in terms of the
30 credibility of McDonald's in determining their rainforest
31 policy and what area of territory that related to, if
32 indeed it is a coherent policy at all, is that Mr. Cesca
33 said that he drafted up policy and flew over the Amazon in
34 a plane to chart what he thought where the rainforest ended
35 and everything else started.
36
37 And he admitted not being an expert, and I would have
38 thought if McDonald's were serious about having a policy on
39 such a subject, they would have called in independent
40 experts to define the area of concern as regards
41 environmental damage that cattle ranching might do and will
42 do.
43
44 I think that is a significant failure by McDonald's to take
45 what they are saying seriously or deliberately, as we would
46 say, it was deliberately trying to minimise the area of
47 concern in order to enable them to continue to make their
48 profits out of environmental damage. Further on that, he
49 did not identify what time of year he flew over the forest,
50 I do not think. That might have an effect.
51
52 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Well, does it? Is there any evidence to
53 that effect?
54
55 MR. MORRIS: The point is that some forest is seasonal. There
56 is nothing wrong with that.
57
58 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Was there any evidence on this topic? I
59 cannot speculate about it, can I? You may be right that
60 there was, but I do not recall it at the moment. There was
