Day 083 - 06 Feb 95 - Page 09


     
     1        into the leaflet even less readily -- not at all, we say --
     2        than does diabetes.
     3
     4        My Lord, I do not think I have anything else to say.
     5
     6   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No, thank you.
     7
     8   MR. RAMPTON:  Can I put it one final way on the second limb of
     9        my argument?  Whilst it may be that Dr. Dealer's evidence
    10        might support the first half of Ms. Steel's proposed
    11        amendment as originally read out by her this morning, that
    12        would be a justification of a non-defamatory meaning and,
    13        therefore, irrelevant.  What Dr. Dealer's statement does
    14        not do and provides no foundation for is the second part of
    15        that meaning as read out by your Lordship a moment ago.
    16
    17   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.  As I am likely to treat this as an
    18        application for leave to amend your Defence to bring in
    19        BSE, even though Mr. Rampton started, if one wanted to be
    20        technical, it is your application, so that gives a right of
    21        reply.  That is the only reason I am mentioning it now.
    22        You need not say again anything which you or Mr. Morris
    23        have said already this morning.  I have made a note of all
    24        that.  Is there any extra point you want to make in answer
    25        to Mr. Rampton?
    26
    27   MS. STEEL:  Yes.  There are a couple of things.  "At best
    28        mediocre, at worst poisonous" is not specific to food
    29        poisoning.  The part that says "at best mediocre, at worst
    30        poisonous" is not specific to food poisoning, not to food
    31        poisoning in terms of Mr. Rampton was saying about
    32        diarrhoea and sickness.  It is not specific to that type of
    33        food poisoning.  Obviously, there is more than one meaning
    34        to what food poisoning means.
    35
    36        In relation to the part that is actually in the box
    37        specific to food poisoning, I would say it would be pretty
    38        daft if we were unable to prove diarrhoea and sickness but
    39        could prove something far more serious, i.e. BSE, and yet
    40        that was not allowed as a defence because, obviously, if
    41        people knew that it was, in fact, more serious than what
    42        was written in the leaflet, they would be less likely to go
    43        and buy the product.
    44
    45        The box also mentions about pesticides and pesticide
    46        residues, hormones and things like that, and the build up
    47        of those things.  That is a long-term problem rather than
    48        something short-term with sickness and diarrhoea.  In fact,
    49        there are schools of thought that consider that BSE is a
    50        result of some insecticide and residues, things like that. 
    51 
    52        Dr. Dealer does not totally absolve McDonald's, despite 
    53        what Mr. Rampton is saying.  These things were known about,
    54        transmissibility to humans.  Even if MAFF did not make
    55        recommendations, McDonald's could have done it of their own
    56        volition.  Goads in this country are not illegal, but
    57        McDonald's, so they say, have chosen to ban them.  There
    58        was evidence at the time of a risk and McDonald's could
    59        have chosen to do something about that risk.
    60

Prev Next Index