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

Prev Next Index