Day 292 - 01 Nov 96 - Page 36
1 about that? You have made your point about it.
2
3 MR. MORRIS: Yes. So this part in parentheses, which, as I
4 said, I have not looked through the whole of the rest of
5 the pamphlet, but I don't think there is any equivalent
6 section in the entire pamphlet that is in parentheses in
7 that way. In fact, I think we can say that there is not
8 anywhere in the pamphlet something like that.
9
10 So clearly the impression that the person reading this
11 would be given is that this is branching off on a train of
12 thought which, while relevant to this section of the
13 pamphlet, because it could not fit in anywhere else,
14 clearly is separate from the issue, the immediate specific
15 issue, which is about tropical forests, and of course that
16 the use of the word "forests" is referred to there as
17 well.
18
19 The other thing is we would argue -- obviously it is
20 talking about all forests, because it says forests, but
21 also, although the mind of the person writing this pamphlet
22 is in some ways irrelevant, certainly it is our
23 understanding it was based upon the estimate made by Bruce
24 Hannon some years before. In fact, the words are virtually
25 identical from the extract of what he said in the San
26 Francisco Examiner, which I can't remember where the
27 document is.
28
29 MR. JUSTICE BELL: You need not worry, because I have that in
30 mind.
31
32 MR. MORRIS: In fact, in our pleadings it is pleaded very
33 badly, it was not what he said in the San Francisco
34 Examiner; what he said in the San Francisco Examiner is, as
35 far as we are concerned, absolutely accurate.
36
37 We note the words "to keep them supplied with paper for one
38 year", and that is very careful wording to imply an ongoing
39 usage, and the same considerations would apply to, for
40 example, the head of cattle needed to be raised for
41 McDonald's benefit. We have to understand that if
42 McDonald's only take 10 percent of a cow, that cow still
43 has to be raised for the companies that use the various
44 parts of it because it cannot be raised just as a 10
45 percent animal. So that is common sense, we would say.
46
47 Now, as regards the 'do not be fooled by McDonald's saying
48 they use recycled paper or a tiny percent of it is', it
49 does not say there that they are lying. It does not say,
50 as McDonald's claim, that they are lying when they claim to
51 use recycled paper; it says, 'do not be fooled', i.e. it
52 says, 'do not be fooled' i.e., do not just take everything
53 at face value, do not just see the side of the story that
54 they want to put to you, what is the reality? It says,
55 only a tiny percent of it is, i.e., when McDonald's say
56 they use recycled paper it may in fact only contain a tiny
57 percent of recycled content, or if they say in general,
58 'Oh, we use recycled paper' then people have to
59 investigate and say, 'Well, exactly what percentage of
60 their paper is recycled? '
