Day 186 - 10 Nov 95 - Page 14
1 complex, a complex construction, dramatically elevating the
2 burden of proof on us as well.
3
4 So their first impression -- bearing in mind that they are
5 the Plaintiffs and they would take a maximum position from
6 their first impression -- was that it was about the
7 contents of McDonald's food and the links between
8 nutritional -- basically, they are talking about
9 nutritional value , which is exactly of course what that
10 paragraph is about, the nutritional value or otherwise of
11 that kind of food.
12
13 So that is that. I think we are going to look at the
14 "bread" case. I cannot remember what it was called.
15 A bit later on, Helen is going to deal with that. If
16 I can just say, as it comes in the order that Mr. Rampton
17 dealt with it, that Mr. Rampton accepted that merely
18 criticising food products even in -- I think it is what the
19 "bread" case says -- even in the most forthright and
20 fundamental terms, such as in that case, is not
21 defamatory. He said there is some kind of hierarchy of
22 additional meaning that implies incompetence, negligence,
23 recklessness, deliberate malpractice, fraud and
24 dishonesty -- the first one of those at the bottom, ending
25 up with fraud and dishonesty.
26
27 We would say that the leaflet is clearly not defamatory,
28 that there is a right to criticise food products and diet
29 -- which, in any case, it is only being criticised as part
30 of the diet -- and, in fact, the leaflet is very mild
31 compared to the "bread" case. There is no allegation in
32 the leaflet of fraud or adulteration. The criticism that
33 is made of McDonald's is not of their food, in effect; it
34 is of their nutrition guide, saying it does not give all
35 the facts. Therefore, it is not saying that their food is
36 adulterated or it is not what they claim it is, in terms of
37 the actual content of the food. It is not saying that they
38 are lying about their food. It is talking about the public
39 policy issues surrounding that kind of food.
40
41 Therefore, there is no allegation in the leaflet which
42 could possibly make the genuine and protected criticisms of
43 food products into a defamatory meaning. The criticisms
44 are of the nutrition guide and, obviously, of diet in
45 general. We will come to that case maybe a bit later on.
46
47 Coming back to the actual character of the fact sheet, we
48 would say it is clearly a reference document for people who
49 are interested in the issues. Incidentally, I believe the
50 allegation against me is that I was in a room when it was
51 on the table, and that I put it in a letter or some letters
52 and mailed it out to enquirers.
53
54 So I would say it has the character of a specialist
55 document. Just as if something appeared in The Times or
56 The Guardian, or something, a reasonable reader would be
57 expected to read it carefully, and if there was anything
58 complicated or contradictory or things that are open to
59 interpretation, and yet they would be expected to read it
60 twice. We would say a reasonable reader clearly would be
