Day 083 - 06 Feb 95 - Page 09
1 into the leaflet even less readily -- not at all, we say --
2 than does diabetes.
3
4 My Lord, I do not think I have anything else to say.
5
6 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No, thank you.
7
8 MR. RAMPTON: Can I put it one final way on the second limb of
9 my argument? Whilst it may be that Dr. Dealer's evidence
10 might support the first half of Ms. Steel's proposed
11 amendment as originally read out by her this morning, that
12 would be a justification of a non-defamatory meaning and,
13 therefore, irrelevant. What Dr. Dealer's statement does
14 not do and provides no foundation for is the second part of
15 that meaning as read out by your Lordship a moment ago.
16
17 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. As I am likely to treat this as an
18 application for leave to amend your Defence to bring in
19 BSE, even though Mr. Rampton started, if one wanted to be
20 technical, it is your application, so that gives a right of
21 reply. That is the only reason I am mentioning it now.
22 You need not say again anything which you or Mr. Morris
23 have said already this morning. I have made a note of all
24 that. Is there any extra point you want to make in answer
25 to Mr. Rampton?
26
27 MS. STEEL: Yes. There are a couple of things. "At best
28 mediocre, at worst poisonous" is not specific to food
29 poisoning. The part that says "at best mediocre, at worst
30 poisonous" is not specific to food poisoning, not to food
31 poisoning in terms of Mr. Rampton was saying about
32 diarrhoea and sickness. It is not specific to that type of
33 food poisoning. Obviously, there is more than one meaning
34 to what food poisoning means.
35
36 In relation to the part that is actually in the box
37 specific to food poisoning, I would say it would be pretty
38 daft if we were unable to prove diarrhoea and sickness but
39 could prove something far more serious, i.e. BSE, and yet
40 that was not allowed as a defence because, obviously, if
41 people knew that it was, in fact, more serious than what
42 was written in the leaflet, they would be less likely to go
43 and buy the product.
44
45 The box also mentions about pesticides and pesticide
46 residues, hormones and things like that, and the build up
47 of those things. That is a long-term problem rather than
48 something short-term with sickness and diarrhoea. In fact,
49 there are schools of thought that consider that BSE is a
50 result of some insecticide and residues, things like that.
51
52 Dr. Dealer does not totally absolve McDonald's, despite
53 what Mr. Rampton is saying. These things were known about,
54 transmissibility to humans. Even if MAFF did not make
55 recommendations, McDonald's could have done it of their own
56 volition. Goads in this country are not illegal, but
57 McDonald's, so they say, have chosen to ban them. There
58 was evidence at the time of a risk and McDonald's could
59 have chosen to do something about that risk.
60
