Day 299 - 13 Nov 96 - Page 09


     
     1        poisoning, and that is something that would have an
     2        immediate poisonous effect.
     3
     4        This does come after the nutrition section, so people would
     5        probably think that that was what it was referring to but,
     6        if not, then they are going to think it is referring to the
     7        food poisoning section where, as we know, there has been
     8        the worst case scenario on more than one occasion.  Just by
     9        way of one example, the outbreak of food poisoning in
    10        Preston, which McDonald's have admitted resulted in 13 or
    11        14 people being hospitalised.
    12
    13        Just on what you were saying a moment ago, whilst you could
    14        say that the sting of this section of the leaflet is that
    15        McDonald's are deliberately exploiting children through
    16        their use of advertising and gimmicks which encourage
    17        children to pester their parents into taking them to
    18        McDonald's to eat junk food, if you find that as the
    19        meaning, it must be within the Plaintiffs' own pleaded
    20        meaning, so it would only be able to be with reference to
    21        the point about trapping children into thinking they are
    22        not normal, or children being trapped into thinking they
    23        are not normal if they do not go to McDonald's,
    24        pressurising their parent into taking them there, and the
    25        unhealthy nature of the food.
    26
    27        Can I just make an additional point on the poisonous part?
    28        That, obviously, when you are deciding the meaning, it
    29        should be borne in mind that people are going to use their
    30        common sense when they read that; they are not going to
    31        imagine that it means that if they go and eat a meal at
    32        McDonald's they are going to drop dead, because they all
    33        know lots of people who have eaten at McDonald's who have
    34        eaten meals there and have not immediately dropped dead.  I
    35        mean, it is clear anyway, the leaflet, that it is talking
    36        about the worst case scenario.  It does say "at worst".  It
    37        is not talking about the general instantaneous effect of
    38        every meal.
    39
    40        Just in terms of mediocrity, I mean, it is basically saying
    41        that, you know, at best the food is not bad for you, but
    42        there is nothing remarkable about it, and the point that is
    43        relevant here is that if food is really tasty you do not
    44        have to have loads of gimmicks to draw people in.  You
    45        know, if something is worth eating for itself, people come
    46        in and get it anyway.  But the reality is that at
    47        McDonald's, if there was not all the dressing up with the
    48        happy hats and muzac, and happy meals and advertising, and
    49        the packaging, bright packaging and so on, that people
    50        would not keep going back there and eating the food.
    51
    52        I mean, effectively, McDonald's witnesses have admitted so
    53        much when they have said that without advertising they
    54        would not exist.  That was Paul Preston, McDonald's UK
    55        president who admitted that.  I mean, John Hawkes said it
    56        as well.  I can't remember how many others.  It is clear
    57        that McDonald's executives know the reality, that their
    58        business is based on the creation of this fun and happy
    59        place image which they have spent so much on cultivating.
    60

Prev Next Index