Day 001 - 28 Jun 94 - Page 37


     
     1        I have mentioned.  It is that the defendants have confused
              food with diet.
     2
              Professor Wheelock, for example, will show that a normal,
     3        healthy person can safely eat as many as seven typical
              McDonald's meals in a week and will still fall well short
     4        of his recommended intakes of both total and saturated
              fat; those totals being expressed as a percentage of total
     5        calorie intake.  Hence, he can eat those meals without
              causing any significant risk to his health whatsoever.
     6
              Add to that, my Lord, this, that the plaintiffs' research
     7        has shown that such a person would be a rare bird, indeed,
              that is to say, the seven meals a week man or woman or
     8        child.
 
     9        In the United States the percentage of customers in 1991
              who visited a McDonald's restaurants once a week or more
    10        was 22 per cent; in the United Kingdom in 1993/94 the
              equivalent figure was 15 per cent.  The percentage of
    11        those who visited a McDonald's restaurant seven times a
              week was zero.  The average frequency of visits in this
    12        country was three to five times a year.
 
    13        My Lord, then there is this further consideration which
              I express, if I may, as a series of rhetorical questions:
    14        Who is it that makes the decision to eat a McDonald's
              meal?  Is it McDonald's or is it the consumer?  Who is it
    15        that decides how many McDonald's meals the consumer will
              eat in a given week?  Who is it that decides what other
    16        kinds of food the consumer will eat during the course of
              that week?  Who is it that decides whether the consumer
    17        will take his children to a McDonald's restaurant and, if
              so, how often?
    18
              My Lord, in our submission, the conclusions which may be
    19        drawn from all this are these:  First, no doubt, there
              might be an argument whether or not it was advisable to
    20        eat McDonald's food three times a day, 365 days a year,
              year after year.  But, my Lord, such a consumer is a
    21        fantasy figure; he does not exist.
 
    22        When McDonald's food is eaten as part of a diet -- I fear,
              though it is wearisome, I shall keep stressing that word
    23         -- which is otherwise reasonably well-balanced,
              McDonald's food, even if eaten several times in a week, is
    24        perfectly innocuous.  More than that, it provides much
              that is positively beneficial to human health:  Protein,
    25        vitamins, calcium, iron and, of course, energy.
  
    26        The accusations levelled at McDonald's food by the leaflet 
              are, therefore, wholly unsustainable.  Whatever medical or 
    27        scientific evidence there may or -- I stress the word --
              may not be to suggest an association between certain kinds
    28        of diet and certain diseases, what is absolutely
              incontrovertible is that McDonald's cannot be held
    29        responsible for it.  They sell food, not diets.  The
              decision as to what a person or children should include in
    30        his or her diet is the responsibility of that person
              alone; it is not the responsibility of McDonald's.

Prev Next Index