Day 292 - 01 Nov 96 - Page 09


     
     1        That, in a nutshell, is what we set out to demonstrate in
     2        the case and which we think we have demonstrated
     3        overwhelmingly, both from our witnesses and from McDonald's
     4        own witnesses.  Whether or not McDonald's cannot carry out
     5        their business without some kind of damage to the
     6        environment, and whether they are doing anything to
     7        minimise that or are concerned about it, is really a very
     8        minor issue, because the question we have to ask is: does
     9        the production of mountains of packaging cause damage to
    10        the environment.  And the answer is plainly "Yes".  And
    11        McDonald's will accept that fact.
    12
    13        Mr. Rampton, in his opening speech, characterised the issue
    14        as this, on page 33:  "Is the Plaintiffs' use of resources
    15        significantly detrimental to the environment?".  He goes on
    16        about CFCs, loss of trees or damage to forests, volume of
    17        waste, and disposal of packaging and, of course, environment/index.html">litter,
    18        which have been the issues throughout the case,
    19        effectively.
    20
    21        Now, I am going to do this submission slightly differently
    22        than I did the tropical forests one, by going through our
    23        core evidence, without references initially, so we can see
    24        the kind of general picture.  Having given the core
    25        evidence, I may not need to emphasise the context all the
    26        time of the references that I go through.
    27
    28   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No.
    29
    30   MR. MORRIS:   We hope, anyway.  I will come back to some of the
    31        legal points about meaning and all that kind of stuff a bit
    32        later on when I have had a chance to make notes on that.
    33
    34        The first matter I want to look at, the overall picture,
    35        I think that was expressed very well by Anne Link, our
    36        expert witness, who is the science coordinator of the
    37        Women's Environmental Network, who are currently sponsoring
    38        a Waste and Minimisation Bill in the UK Parliament.  She
    39        talked about the negative effects to the environment caused
    40        by McDonald's packaging.  She was particularly concerned
    41        about dangerous chemicals and excessive amounts of energy
    42        used in production processes, and also about the damage
    43        caused by the disposal of discarded materials.
    44
    45        She criticised the sheer volume of company packaging, much
    46        of it unnecessary, and the fact that McDonald's uses
    47        disposable items instead of re-usables.  On top of that,
    48        they do not even recycle any customer waste.  She said the
    49        aim should be a no-waste society, and that was an
    50        internationally recognised aim.
    51
    52        Referring to McDonald's official documents, she concluded
    53        that the company, quote, is waiting until forced to change
    54        by increasing environmental awareness, and, quote, could be
    55        using its international structure to spread good
    56        environmental ideas rather than bad ones, as at present.
    57
    58        Now, Edward Oakley, senior vice-president for McDonald's in
    59        charge of purchasing for Northern Europe, or he was when he
    60        gave evidence, and he had been there since 1984, I think,

Prev Next Index