Day 060 - 02 Dec 94 - Page 73
1 but that is what it is, is it not?
2 A. I simply think they are putting both sides of the case,
3 my Lord. I do not know what the person's intention was
4 when she wrote it, but they are clearly stating both sides
5 of the case as they saw it, as they saw it at that time.
6
7 MR. MORRIS: Both sides of the case are, in fact, that the use
8 of paper packaging is required for the destruction of trees
9 and can pollute water, and on the other side foam packaging
10 is more energy and resource efficient?
11 A. That is what they wrote, but, as I have told you -----
12
13 Q. But, on the other side, in fact, it is not true because we
14 now know it would be rewritten if it is written now?
15 A. I think it is fair to say that that statement would be
16 written differently if it was written now, yes.
17
18 Q. It is true that the manufacture of paper requires the
19 destruction of trees and can pollute water; is that a true
20 statement?
21 A. I am not sure about the polluting water; you certainly
22 have to take down trees to make wood pulp.
23
24 Q. So it is fair comment to say that the manufacture of paper
25 requires the destruction of trees?
26 A. Well, I think if you did not treat the water, then you
27 could say it was polluted but, generally, I think a major
28 paper mill might treat the water first before putting it
29 back into the stream.
30
31 Q. Just forgetting the water thing then, it is just a fair
32 statement, a fair comment to make -- OK. The next sentence
33 says: "The foam packaging used by McDonald's is completely
34 CFC free. It is recyclable and does not give out toxic
35 emissions." The word "recyclable" has been said to be
36 misleading or deceptive by the Advertising Standards
37 Authority in advertisements, and their remit, I think,
38 applies quite widely to -- yes, unless you are going to
39 recycle that material yourself. So, in hindsight from the
40 ruling of the Advertising Standards Authority and also the
41 EDF, McDonald's stricture on not using the word
42 "recyclable" unless the products have a reasonable chance
43 of being recycled, would you now say that you would not use
44 that word if this leaflet was rewritten?
45 A. No, I would not say that.
46
47 Q. So, you do not take counsel from the position of McDonald's
48 Corporation and the Advertising Standards Authority on not
49 misleading customers then?
50 A. I did not say that. I disagreed with your question.
51
52 MR. JUSTICE BELL: We went through this yesterday, did we not?
53 A. We did -- several times, I think.
54
55 MR. MORRIS: Do you think it is misleading customers to say that
56 something is recyclable when, in fact, there is no real
57 practical prospect that it is going to happen?
58 A. It is a statement of fact. It is recyclable. Our aim
59 is to develop a recycling programme, as we clearly told you
60 yesterday on several occasions.
