Day 284 - 22 Oct 96 - Page 44


     
     1        rather prejudiced so far as that particular topic is
     2        concerned.
     3
     4   MR. MORRIS:   Right.  Yes.  It is not a question of proving it
     5        is a reasonable statement, but that a person could hold
     6        that view honestly, even if they were biased.  Yes.
     7
     8   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Right.
     9
    10   MR. MORRIS:   The last point about -- it has probably been dealt
    11        with; it does not feature specifically in the fact sheet --
    12        which is that McDonald's have stated that they are being
    13        responsible by not using recently cleared ex-rainforest
    14        land -- and because obviously recognising that the
    15        destruction of forest is a process over a period of time
    16        for a supply chain which, in itself, develops over a period
    17        of time; and they, we would say, recognise that, and take
    18        the view -- or, in fact, Edie Bensilum defined to
    19        David Rose that when they say "recent", they mean within 25
    20        years.  What she said to David Rose, 10 years up to 1989
    21        and 25 years after 1989, is sort of paralleled in the
    22        letters, if you remember, from Costa Rica -- I cannot
    23        remember who wrote them, we only had about six -- where
    24        they were responding to McDonald's seeking guarantees; and
    25        there were two letters from either suppliers or McDonald's
    26        management.  We can check later on in the evidence.  One
    27        said: "We can assure you we do not use land deforested in
    28        the last 10 years", and then the next one, a couple of
    29        years later, said within 25 years.  It seems that not only
    30        was Edie Bensilum saying that to David Rose, but this was
    31        something that was being said internally.  So......
    32
    33   MR JUSTICE BELL:  Which version do you ask me to accept?
    34
    35   MR. MORRIS:   We are saying that McDonald's definition of what
    36        would be recently cleared rainforest would be anything
    37        within the last 25 years; and do not forget that we are
    38        talking about -----
    39
    40   MR JUSTICE BELL:  No, that is not what she was saying -- she was
    41        saying not within the 25 years.  Oh, so "recently
    42        deforested" would be within the last 25 years.
    43
    44   MR. MORRIS:   Yes.
    45
    46   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   The reason I ask you is -- of course, it may
    47        be more favourable to what you are trying to prove if that
    48        is not the definition, but the definition is deforested
    49        since we first had an interest, because that could be very
    50        recent indeed. 
    51 
    52   MR. MORRIS:   There are two separate points I am making here: 
    53        one, that, yes, what she is recognising is that it is bad
    54        if rainforest that has been destroyed within the last
    55        25 years, rainforest land that has been deforested (in her
    56        own words) in the last 25 years would have been recently
    57        cleared, as far as McDonald's is concerned, and that is a
    58        bad thing.  But, however, it now turns out that what
    59        McDonald's policy really is, having accepted that it is a
    60        bad thing if it is used within the last -- having been

Prev Next Index