Day 292 - 01 Nov 96 - Page 17


     
     1        for a start it is relevant in itself, but, secondly, it is
     2        relevant should you find that, for example, the production
     3        of paper, say, is not damaging.
     4
     5   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I have said 'no' to that.  I have already
     6        ruled on that have I not?   Whether that is not the analogy
     7        you see.  I said even with paper, which is clearly
     8        mentioned, Polystyrene is not mentioned in this
     9        environmental part of the matter at all.  Packaging is.  It
    10        is paper packaging, even with paper packaging, for better
    11        or worse, I ruled that the pros and cons of methods of
    12        production were not relevant to any charge in the leaflet.
    13        As long as I understand what your argument is, whichever
    14        side I come down on, I can deal with it.  What you say is
    15        that anything which has to do with any kind of
    16        environmental damage which arises out of packaging in any
    17        way is referable to the charge of environmental damage in
    18        the leaflet.
    19
    20   MR. MORRIS:   Yes.
    21
    22   MR JUSTICE BELL:  Just let me make a note of that.  (Pause) Yes.
    23
    24   MR. MORRIS:   The reality is, the evidence has been heard, and
    25        therefore we will pray in aid that evidence, if McDonald's
    26        wanted to argue against it being relevant they should have
    27        done that before, but now the evidence has been heard and
    28        therefore we are entitled to pray it in aid.  Whether it
    29        should have been heard or not would be a separate point.
    30
    31   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I am not sure that is right.  For better or
    32        worse, many trials range over issues where, at the end of
    33        the day, the judge has to say although both parties found
    34        that fascinating and seemed to think it was very important
    35        to the decision which the judge has to make, it was not in
    36        fact.  But as long as I have your argument I can make a
    37        decision on it.
    38
    39   MR. MORRIS:   If McDonald's are helping to wreck the planet
    40        through their use of packaging it must be relevant to this
    41        fact sheet.  That is all I can say.  And the use of CFCs in
    42        packaging is an extremely damaging practice, the results of
    43        which will linger for a long time.  It does not really
    44        matter whether it was deliberate or cynical, or whatever.
    45        The point is, it is just a fact.  So in 1989 CFCs were
    46        still being used in 29 countries and even today, or at the
    47        last point of the evidence from what we heard,, HCFCs which
    48        are equally damaging -- they are also damaging, and they
    49        are equally damaging -- in terms that they are still
    50        destroying the ozone layer, are still being used, as far as
    51        we know today, by McDonald's in some countries, albeit two
    52        or three countries.
    53
    54        Professor Duxbury, expert witness for McDonald's, agreed
    55        that CFCs and HCFCs caused damage to the ozone layer and
    56        that in 1988, which may be felt to be the significant time,
    57         '88/'89, McDonald's used "significant" quantities of these
    58        chemicals.  He further said that McDonald's present UK
    59        blowing agent, pentane, for their foam packaging,
    60        contribute to smog formation and the greenhouse effect.

Prev Next Index