Day 053 - 22 Nov 94 - Page 17


     
     1        relying on the context, because it is actually perfectly
     2        clear to us what it means as regards diet, which I am
     3        talking about now.  But, in fact, the context throughout
     4        the whole leaflet is in our favour, in terms of whether it
     5        is talking about diet, not McDonald's, the amount of time
     6        someone might eat a McDonald's meal.
     7
     8        It would be the same if it was referring to Mars Bars or,
     9        you know, relating to sweets in general, rather than just
    10        the amount of time someone ate a Mars Bar, being bad for
    11        their teeth.  A Mars Bar is bad for their teeth, because it
    12        is part of the generic problem of sweets.
    13
    14        One final point: it struck me, I think there was a lot of
    15        legal -- I do not know this for a fact -- but the cigarette
    16        industry resisted for decades the implication that
    17        cigarettes caused cancer because, you know, they argue
    18        their cigarettes could not be criticised because it could
    19        not be shown that someone had actually got it from smoking
    20        their particular cigarettes.  I think that has also has to
    21        be borne in mind.
    22
    23   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I think the point which Mr. Rampton was
    24        seeking to take against you was that for years some people
    25        anyway resisted the suggestion that there was any causal
    26        link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, and some
    27        people even do still, yet it is generally accepted that
    28        there is a causal link between cigarette smoking and lung
    29        cancer.  The mere fact that there is a certain scientific
    30        scepticism, so far as a causal link between a diet high in
    31        fat, et cetera, and certain kinds of cancer, does not mean
    32        to say that there is such a causal link.  When time goes on
    33        and science develops, we will find that there is.
    34
    35   MR. MORRIS:  I was just about to say I am not just on the
    36        causation point.
    37
    38   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Let us go back to where we were in your
    39        argument.  I only raise these matters so that you can deal
    40        with them, if you wish.
    41
    42        I think the last point you were making was, you were saying
    43        that the part under "What's so unhealthy about McDonald's
    44        food?" was really directed at deception rather than their
    45        food actually causing these illnesses.
    46
    47   MS. STEEL:  It is directed at deception and also that it is high
    48        in fat and low in fibre, et cetera.  On F1, "sell meals
    49        which cause cancer of the breast and bowel and heart
    50        disease in their customers", if it was a cigarette company 
    51        suing us and it was about cigarettes and lung cancer and 
    52        that said, "sell cigarettes which cause lung cancer in 
    53        their customers", I do not think you would ever be able to
    54        prove that, because you would never be able to specifically
    55        prove that that was the specific cause, as opposed to -- I
    56        do not know -- they might have had a packet of a different
    57        brand once in their life, or something like that; whereas
    58        if it said, "sell cigarettes, the contents of which, i.e.
    59        tobacco and nicotine, et cetera, are causally linked to
    60        lung cancer", you would be able to prove that.

Prev Next Index