Day 294 - 05 Nov 96 - Page 13


     
     1        than some of the others.
     2
     3   MR. MORRIS:   The point though is that the mere use of additives
     4        is not in itself defamatory, but obviously when there are
     5        additives which are harmful or there is a risk of them
     6        being harmful, then it is relevant to the claim of "K",
     7        meaning "K", about the potential to do harm.
     8
     9   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Yes.
    10
    11   MR. MORRIS:   So, which again, as I said about the at worst
    12        poisonous is a general charge without specifying what the
    13        cause would be, and there are hints and specific references
    14        to where the harm would emanate from, which we have heard
    15        from diets, from residues, from food poisoning incidents
    16        and from harmful additives.  From the unnecessary use of
    17        additives as well.
    18
    19        As for their meaning that they use - what was the last
    20        one - sell hamburgers which are very likely to cause food
    21        poisoning, if McDonald's think that is what the leaflet
    22        says, they must be completely incapable of reading
    23        something with a clear mind.  The only reference to, as I
    24        say, hamburgers causing food poisoning is the "What's Your
    25        Poison" box, and that is very clearly expressed in a
    26        responsible way.
    27
    28        I don't say you are very likely to get food poisoning if
    29        you eat hamburgers, but there is a risk, a risk which, for
    30        example, the government recognised in 1991 following the
    31        Preston incident when they issued a national press release
    32        and publicity campaign to encourage people to cook their
    33        burgers longer, and McDonald's also announced that they
    34        were going cook their burgers longer, precisely because
    35        that risk was not only recognised as being a risk, but also
    36        that the result of not taking it seriously might be that
    37        people suffer serious illness, such as happened in Preston
    38        and as happened in 1992 in the USA at McDonald's. I think
    39        that is....
    40
    41   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Yes, we will break off there.  Two o'clock.
    42
    43                         (Luncheon Adjournment)
    44
    45   MR. MORRIS:   Just before we come to what we might call our core
    46        evidence, core submissions, I want to say something in
    47        terms of the risk of food poisoning.  In Mr. Rampton's
    48        opening speech, on page 42 of that speech, he refers to
    49        McDonald's "recognising as they do" -- this is line 9 --
    50        "that the risk of food poisoning may also occur at
    51        different stages before ever the food gets into the
    52        restaurants, for example at the slaughter house or in the
    53        meat processing factory.  McDonald's insist on the highest
    54        standards of quality and hygiene control by their
    55        suppliers."
    56
    57        So we say, there you are, McDonald's recognise that the
    58        risk of food poisoning may also occur at different stages
    59        before the customer; just common sense, really.  I have not
    60        really dealt with our meaning that much.  I think I will

Prev Next Index