Day 008 - 07 Jul 94 - Page 37


     
     1        those are three groups that are larger than EDF; EDF
              falls, I think, either fourth or fifth, but they are only,
     2        the other ones are more international -- the EDF is
              strictly United States, so perhaps that is why you have
     3        not heard of them here, but they are in the top five
              significant.
     4
         MR. RAMPTON:  Mr. Langert, in part answer, perhaps, to his
     5        Lordship's question -- entirely my fault for not spotting
              it before -- can we read the first paragraph?
     6
         MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I have read the first paragraph and then
     7        I wondered how to compare it with other groups -- that is
              not to stop you reading it, if you want to.
     8
         MR. RAMPTON:  I will, if your Lordship will forgive me.  It
     9        says on the first paragraph on page 140:  "On the other
              side of the task force, the Environmental Defence Fund is
    10        a national non-profit organisation that links science,
              economics and law to create innovative, economically
    11        viable solutions to environmental problems".   True so
              far?
    12        A.  Yes.
 
    13   Q.   "EDF was founded in 1967 by scientists on Long Island to
              fight the spraying of the pesticide DDT.  With its
    14        headquarters now in New York City, EDF has grown to seven
              offices nationwide.  EDF's professional staff of over 110
    15        scientists, economists, attorneys, engineers and
              administrators are supported by more than 200,000 members
    16        and over 100 private foundations."  This is in April
              1991.  Do you know whether it has grown since then or not?
    17        A.  It has grown since then.
 
    18   Q.   Do the members and private foundations who support EDF pay
              subscriptions?
    19        A.  Yes.
 
    20   Q.   Can I ask you this:  Was the decision to change from
              polystyrene foam for some of the packaging to paper in any
    21        way influenced by the perception that one of the blowing
              agents for the polystyrene foam might be damaging to the
    22        ozone layer?
              A.  If you are asking, many of our customers thought that
    23        we were still using polystyrene, that was using CFCs as a
              blowing agent.
    24
         Q.   Some of the blowing agent used in the United States at
    25        that date, 1990, was HCFC-22?
              A.  Correct. 
    26 
         Q.   As we heard Mr. Kouchoukos say yesterday, none of it was 
    27        CFC?
              A.  None of McDonald's but there were CFCs used.
    28
         Q.   I know that, I was talking about the polystyrene foam used
    29        by McDonald's?
              A.  OK, yes.
    30
         Q.   I am coming to the phase out of CFCs, I am going backwards

Prev Next Index