Day 024 - 15 Sep 94 - Page 51
1 not a preservative, it does not deny that it is a chemical
2 that has been added to the product. I believe it can also
3 be considered a preservative because of the action it
4 has.
5
6 I do not truly care (and did not at the time care) whether
7 it was a chemical stabilizer or a chemical preservative.
8 They were hiding the ball on both of these chemicals being
9 present in the product. They admit that there is a
10 chemical preservative, sodium benzoate, in their letter.
11 I believe Mr. Horwitz's testimony confirmed that. The
12 letter says our objections are unfounded. That is how the
13 paragraph starts out. Then they go on, having said that
14 the objections were unfounded, to admit the objections
15 were, in fact, founded although in so indirect a manner as
16 to be not immediately apparent.
17
18 One of our allegations was that the statement that there
19 was nothing in it except these items, and for that matter,
20 as I said, this was only a few of the problems with this
21 ad, the fact that they say no artificial preservatives
22 when the product, by their own admission, contained an
23 artificial preservative says to me that that ad is
24 deceptive. It also says that it was more than a small
25 error on McDonald's part, as they have chosen to portray
26 it, that they had neglected to mention the preservative.
27 They chose to make an affirmative claim to the public that
28 there was no artificial preservatives in there; there was,
29 sodium benzoate, and they admit to it. That ad was for
30 that reason false and deceptive and, therefore, in
31 violation of our law.
32
33 Q. To someone who is concerned not to eat or drink things
34 with artificial preservatives in, do you think it would
35 make any difference to them whether the preservative was
36 in the flavouring or in the shake itself? Do you think
37 they would say: "Oh, I will drink that after all because
38 it is only in the flavouring"?
39 A. That is not a difference, in fact, because the
40 flavouring is in the shake itself, so the shake has
41 artificial flavouring, chemical flavouring in it, or
42 chemical preservative, rather, in it. Whether it is part
43 of the flavouring is just a characterisation by
44 McDonald's, that is a distinction with no difference
45 whatsoever. Nor would it make it a difference to anyone
46 who wanted to avoid anything other than natural
47 ingredients, whether sodium hetametaphosphate is
48 classified by McDonald's as a chemical stabilizer or a
49 chemical preservative. The purpose is to avoid artificial
50 chemicals in your products, and one of them, McDonald's,
51 admits that it was wrong and the other one were playing
52 name games, but the simple fact is they did not disclose
53 the chemical stabilizers were in there.
54
55 Q. If we move on to the cholesterol ad (which is on page 115)
56 what would you want to answer, what would you want to say
57 in answer to what they stated in the letter?
58 A. I would have to go on to the next paragraph. The
59 second paragraph generally responds or paraphrases in a
60 rather belittling way the conclusions reached in our
