Day 291 - 31 Oct 96 - Page 41


     
     1
     2        By way of an example, Mr. Gregory's statement was served
     3        before this trial started, and he mentioned in his
     4        statement about the use of goads at Midland Meat and, yet,
     5        when Mr. Chambers -- well, he mentioned about the use of
     6        goads in his statement, and so McDonald's must have known
     7        that Midland Meat were using goads; and, yet, when
     8        Mr. Chambers came to give his evidence two years later,
     9        they were still using goads, and he did not even know that
    10        it was against the policy.  So it just shows, you know,
    11        that the reality of the situation is that there is no real
    12        concern for the animals; it is all about a PR exercise.
    13
    14        Just some other quick points about the policy -- well,
    15        actually one general point.  This is not on the policy.  In
    16        the Rearing and Slaughter, pink 10, in tab 2 there were a
    17        whole load of McDonald's food product specifications which
    18        were purportedly relevant to the rearing and slaughter of
    19        animals and their welfare.  I mean, we did bring this up on
    20        one occasion.  I cannot, for the life of me, remember when
    21        it was.  Just to remind you that none of those
    22        specifications have anything which is specifically about
    23        animal welfare.
    24
    25   MR JUSTICE BELL:  Well, it was either Mr. Gomez Gonzales or
    26        Mr. Cesca who referred to those, and, when asked about an
    27        animal welfare specification, said it was there, and then
    28        got to the position where it was in those documents and we
    29        could not find anything in them.  Was that not the point?
    30
    31   MS. STEEL:   Yes.  Basically, you know, they are putting the
    32        bundles supposedly as an example of how wonderful
    33        McDonald's are, and the reality is that there is nothing in
    34        there at all about animal welfare.
    35
    36        In tab 1, the animal welfare and husbandry, McDonald's
    37        position document, the second point is that McDonald's
    38        insist that animals used in its products are reared in a
    39        clean, safe, hygienic, comfortable environment, and that
    40        humane methods of killing are used.  Obviously, basically,
    41        that is a joke.  We have heard about all the conditions
    42        that the chickens live in, for example.  Mrs. Druce, when
    43        she was giving evidence on day 109, page 27, lines 15 to
    44        44, she related how she did not think that the broiler
    45        units could be described as any of those things; they could
    46        not be described as being clean, safe, hygienic or
    47        comfortable for the birds.
    48
    49        In terms of the humane methods of killing that are used, we
    50        have heard that both Sun Valley and Bowes do not comply 
    51        even with the Codes of Practice in this country; so they 
    52        can hardly be said to be humane.  Obviously, in terms of 
    53        the cattle for the abattoirs that we have heard evidence
    54        about, there are faults there, in any event.  I mean, that
    55        is, you know, aside from the fact that the whole process is
    56        inhumane, anyway; just the fact that it is curtailing an
    57        animal's life.
    58
    59        On page 2 of the animal welfare policy, or a summary of
    60        suppliers' position, it says, under "Chickens

Prev Next Index