Day 292 - 01 Nov 96 - Page 16
1 made in the leaflet.
2
3 MR. MORRIS: Well, we would say it is distinctly relevant to
4 that, that the inference on the criticism of their
5 packaging in that section about destruction of forests and
6 tropical forests, that the sting of it is that packaging is
7 damaging to the environment, and the conclusion is that you
8 are helping the McDonald's empire wreck the planet by using
9 -- well, the tropical forests issue and cattle ranching,
10 and also the packaging is a separate point in terms of it
11 is not to do with rainforest, but it is part of that
12 section because it is the one section that deals with their
13 effects on the environment.
14
15 And the packaging elsewhere in the leaflet refers to
16 plastic packaging, as I have pointed out. Also Mcgarbage.
17 If Mr. Rampton is going to use the headings as context then
18 we are entitled to as well, although we say they are
19 satirical pointers at the most. But that is that. Also,
20 that we would wish to pray in aid any defamatory evidence
21 that has been established in this case, especially those
22 which McDonald's have taken up the gauntlet of course, that
23 relate to any of the issues directly or indirectly. It
24 obviously relates to the issues in the fact sheet in terms
25 of packaging, damage generally, the use of packaging being
26 wasteful, junk and garbage. So we would say on all those
27 points, it is clearly relevant. Exactly how centrally
28 relevant you think it is, we would say it is centrally
29 relevant, but it is certainly relevant, and McDonald's knew
30 it was.
31
32 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That seems to me to be the issue. You say
33 the sting of it, the sting of this part of the leaflet is
34 that it is damaging to the environment, and the question
35 I have put, which may be what I have to answer, is - is the
36 sting of it that packaging is damaging to the environment
37 generally? In which case the CFCs could come in. Or is
38 the sting of it that it is damaging to the environment
39 through the effects of waste only? And that is the
40 question I have to answer, is it not? If it is the former,
41 CFCs come in; if it is the latter, they do not.
42
43 MR. MORRIS: The production of it includes the damage to
44 forests. So the production of packaging is part of the
45 sting.
46
47 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I appreciate that. But no one is making
48 clam shells out of wood. That takes us back to paper.
49
50 MR. MORRIS: But then, if we say-----
51
52 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I am just asking about CFCs and HCFCs.
53
54 MR. MORRIS: Yes, but if the production of packaging causes
55 damage to the environment when it is their paper packaging,
56 we would say, we must be entitled to say and pray in aid
57 that the other packaging which is mentioned in the leaflet
58 as junk, paper and plastic containers, by inference, that
59 if the production of the plastic packaging is also damaging
60 to the environment, then we should pray that in aid. Well,
