Day 024 - 15 Sep 94 - Page 24
1 individual company that had violated the law.
2
3 All we wanted from them was what we got, which was their
4 statement that they would, in response to our request they
5 do so, that they would give out these brochures. They had
6 never in the meetings or in the telephone conversations,
7 until they announced it unilaterally on July 7th,
8 indicated to us that they were going to give this
9 information out; indeed, everything they said to us
10 indicated just the opposite. So, their statement here and
11 anywhere else that they had been planning to do this all
12 along seems at best disingenuous and probably just flat
13 and false.
14
15 MR. JUSTICE BELL: You see what is written on the second page
16 of that letter, the history of the matter according
17 to -- the history of McDonald's attitude to ingredient and
18 nutrition booklets as set out by their lawyers in the
19 letter? Had you been told any of that during the meetings
20 or telephone calls you have referred to?
21 A. If I may have a moment to read it? Are you speaking
22 of all seven points raised on pages 2 and 3 of the July 21
23 letter?
24
25 Q. No, because basically from five onwards it goes on to more
26 general matters, but 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 purport to be a
27 historical narrative to some extent, does it not?
28 A. Yes, your Lordship, it does.
29
30 Q. The planning, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, the
31 district of Columbia, one year trial period and so
32 on, step by step approach. Do you remember any
33 information of that kind being given to you before 4th
34 July?
35 A. I do not recall information to the extent that
36 McDonald's was planning to do this all along being given
37 to us before the July 21 letter that the court has just
38 referred to. It may have been that in the interim between
39 the week of July 7th, which was mostly consistent with
40 McDonald's in the States talking to each other through the
41 press, there may have been some telephone calls. I cannot
42 recollect that. The historical recounting here was not
43 the impression we had been given, either in the meetings
44 or in any subsequent oral or written communication to
45 whether they were going to do this anyway.
46
47 But, I would note, for instance, in paragraph 4 all they
48 say is that nationwide extension was under active
49 consideration. They may have been thinking about it, but
50 it is my experience that many companies explore the
51 various options with respect to compliance with the law
52 and, in many instances, they reject those options. They
53 may consider one step and reject it. It is not at all
54 strange that a company would commit hundreds of thousands
55 of dollars to a test marketing programme of whatever
56 nature and then decide it is not in that company's
57 interest to go forward with it.
58
59 If they felt they could find a way to make McDonald's more
60 positive in the public eye by making this information
