Day 053 - 22 Nov 94 - Page 45
1 talks of the possibility of McDonald's food being poisonous
2 which is referred to in K of the Statement of Claim, what
3 that ----
4
5 MS. STEEL: It says "at best mediocre and at worst poisonous".
6
7 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Poisonous in what way?
8
9 MS. STEEL: I think it is clear from that that it is referring
10 to a worst case scenario; that could be either if people
11 eat a great deal of it, it could be poisonous in the terms
12 of contributing to long-term degenerative diseases, or it
13 could be in terms of in the worst case they may get food
14 poisoning -- there is an incident that the Plaintiffs have
15 admitted in relation to that -- or it could also be that if
16 concerns about food additives turn out to be correct, the
17 worst case scenario is that people could get some kind of
18 long-term poisoning from those, such as potassium bromate
19 which has now been banned. I think it is clear that it is
20 not saying their food per se is poisonous in that if you
21 eat one meal you are likely to drop dead. I think, even if
22 it did look as though it was saying that, nobody would
23 believe it, because I am sure everybody has people who they
24 know who have been to McDonald's and eaten a meal and not
25 dropped dead.
26
27 Can I say something in relation to some of the things that
28 were said yesterday? There was a reference to the Guardian
29 report and Mr. Rampton said it was an accurate record. It
30 may accurately reflect what was reported in it, but
31 obviously it did not reflect the whole of what was said at
32 that hearing. At that hearing, I can remember Mr. Milmo on
33 our behalf reading the passage from "Good Food, Nutrition
34 and McDonald's" about the relationship between a typical
35 western diet and certain forms of cancer. At some stage
36 when he replied, Mr. Rampton said that that passage could
37 not be treated as an admission for the purposes of this
38 case.
39
40 That was a clear indication to us that the Plaintiffs were
41 denying any association or relationship, and that that was
42 the issue in the case.
43
44 I do not know whether perhaps you could check this, but
45 Mr. Rampton referred yesterday to the Associated Leisure
46 case and he said that that application for amendment was
47 before the trial started. As I recall, that is correct,
48 but I also think I recall that they were granted an
49 adjournment in order to deal with that amendment. But it
50 is some time since I read the case, so perhaps if you could
51 check that and bear it in mind? But it is quite a
52 different situation to being in the middle of a trial and
53 all the difficulties that are entailed as a result of that.
54
55 In my notes I have a large number of times where
56 Mr. Rampton has made comments that I totally and utterly
57 disagree with in terms of he said things indicating our
58 state of mind, but I feel that I have probably given you
59 our position on that, that we did not interpret the issue
60 as being whether there was a causal link but, as far as we
