Day 024 - 15 Sep 94 - Page 30


     
     1        should be ordered by all stores (especially in those
     2        states currently considering ingredient labeling
     3        legislation; or in areas getting a lot of media coverage
     4        on this issue)."   Why do you think they said that?
     5        A.  At the time there was a great deal of public attention
     6        and a great deal of consumer interest, as I have said, in
     7        getting information regarding the nutritional content of
     8        foods in general and of fastfoods in particular.  From
     9        this statement I take it that McDonald's was attempting to
    10        either blunt the criticism directed at it for failing to
    11        make the information available, or to respond in an
    12        enlightened self-interest manner to the potential for
    13        stricter laws being enforced against them.
    14
    15   Q.   So the implication is that it is not so important, is it
    16        not, in those states which are not considering ingredient
    17        labelling legislation or where there is not much media
    18        coverage on the issue?
    19        A.  Well, that is what it says, yes.
    20
    21   Q.   I will read out the rest:  "Such voluntary action on our
    22        part should help blunt the growing interest of state and
    23        federal lawmakers for ingredient labeling legislation."
    24        Would you expect a company like McDonald's to welcome
    25        interest of state and federal lawmakers for ingredient
    26        labelling legislation?
    27        A.  I would be surprised if McDonald's, or anyone else,
    28        welcomed that type of legislation because marketers do not
    29        like to have any restrictions placed on them by anybody on
    30        what they can say about the products.
    31
    32   Q.   Then it says:  "(Also ... we would much rather provide
    33        this information voluntarily, than be legislated into
    34        taking this -- or any other more severe/costly action --
    35        at a later date)."  I will not read the rest.
    36
    37        Having seen this memo now, is this the impression -- this
    38        memo is to all their, as they call it, the McDonald's
    39        family, the McDonald's system.  Is this the impression
    40        they were giving to you when they were talking to you
    41        about their intentions?  Were they saying one thing to you
    42        and saying another thing to their company as a whole?
    43        A.  At the time they sent out this memo (if, indeed, they
    44        sent it out) at or around July 3 of 1986, certainly.  As
    45        of then, they had told us they were not able to tell us
    46        whether or not they would be able to agree to our offer of
    47        resolution by giving out the brochures.  Seeing this memo
    48        only confirms the conclusion I reached when I learned that
    49        they had gone ahead with the public announcement on July
    50        7th that they had intentionally deceived us as to their 
    51        reasons for the delay. 
    52 
    53        This is the type of internal document I would review in
    54        order to reach a determination as to whether or not a
    55        company had engaged in deceptive behaviour.  This tells me
    56        that there was an intent to do so.  Inferentially I read
    57        into the combination of McDonald's telling us they could
    58        not, they were not able to give us any word on whether
    59        they would be able to get this information out until after
    60        the July 4th holiday, combined with whatever significant

Prev Next Index