Day 298 - 11 Nov 96 - Page 19


     
     1        millions of people that are eating substantial amounts of
     2        McDonald's foods may have had their diet so affected
     3        negatively.
     4
     5        And we think we have conclusively shown that they will, by
     6        any logistical analysis of the situation, with all the
     7        compounding factors, will have had their diet affected and
     8        some of them, et cetera.  So we believe we have shown,
     9        through this exercise, a far greater test than we have been
    10        set by the meaning which you have decided.
    11
    12        Therefore, if someone's diet is poor, you then go on to
    13        say, will there be a very real risk you will suffer
    14        diseases.  And obviously if someone's diet may have been so
    15        -- we believe we have already proved the links between
    16        diet and disease and that they are causal.  That is
    17        completely established, we believe, with no serious
    18        challenge, despite all the evidence of the Plaintiffs, but
    19        obviously, if some people's diet has been, is poor, and
    20        that McDonald's has made a contribution either because of
    21        the kind of food that they are selling or promoting, or all
    22        the compounding factors I have mentioned, then there
    23        obviously is a very real risk.  In fact, you could argue
    24        that we only have to show that one person had had that very
    25        real risk for it to be accurate, because under your
    26        meaning, it just says the implication is that if you eat it
    27        a lot it may make your diet high in fat with the real risk
    28        that you, that person doing that, will suffer cancer of the
    29        breast or bowel or heart disease as a result.
    30
    31        So I think that although we have shown that the reality is
    32        that millions of people are having their diet influenced,
    33        and all the compounding factors mean that McDonald's is
    34        responsible for dietary patterns in a number of ways, that
    35        in some ways that is a challenge which we have taken on and
    36        we believe proven, which may not really be necessary, based
    37        on the interpretation of your meaning, which is really to
    38        say to somebody, what we are saying in the leaflet is if
    39        you eat this kind of food to a certain extent it may make
    40        your diet high in X, Y, Z with the result that you will
    41        suffer a very real risk.  I think that is all basically
    42        proven scientific fact before we even come on to the
    43        realistic numbers of hundreds of millions of people that
    44        McDonald's are influencing through their promotion of such
    45        foods.
    46
    47        So I think the numbers game, if you like, is in some ways,
    48        obviously, we don't know how you are thinking in all ways,
    49        but we feel we have done a great deal more than we would
    50        have to, and Helen is going to come on to the detail of
    51        that in terms of numbers.
    52
    53   MS. STEEL:   Just to tie up a few loose points, before I forget
    54        them.  When you are weighing up the evidence of Professor
    55        Wheelock, which in actual fact ended up being, in the vast
    56        majority of it, in our favour, that he seemed to change, he
    57        seemed to have changed his mind since he had become a
    58        consultant for McDonald's about whether or not it was a
    59        good idea for people to eat high fat snacks.  Before he was
    60        a consultant for McDonald's, he published a paper saying it

Prev Next Index