Day 001 - 28 Jun 94 - Page 45
1 McDonald's animals, that is shorthand for the animals used
by McDonald's, are reared are in any sense inhumane or
2 cruel.
3 Those, as your Lordship knows, who keep and slaughter the
animals for McDonald's in this country will be coming to
4 court to explain, not only about the hygiene of their
premises but, perhaps just as important, to explain how
5 their animals are kept and killed and they will attest to
their concern of the welfare for their animals.
6 Dr. Pattison, Mr. Bowes and Mr. Chambers.
7 In addition to them, Dr. Neville Gregory -- reference
yellow bundle IX/10 -- who is Senior Research Fellow in
8 the Department of Meat Animal Science at the University of
Bristol's School of Veterinary of Science and is in charge
9 of the department's work on animal welfare has visited
each of the companies concerned and inspected their
10 operations. His report confirms that each of the
companies observes the highest standards of animal
11 welfare.
12 My Lord, once again this is not at all surprising. The
reasons for it are quite simple: First, an animal which
13 has been badly kept has a reduced value in the market.
Second, an animal which becomes frightened or stressed may
14 damage itself or the humans who are looking after it.
Third, stress in animals causes amino-acids to be released
15 into the muscle which spoils the meat and will often mean
that it has to be rejected.
16
In addition, as in the case of food poisoning, in most
17 countries of the world each establishment is subject to
strict regulation and to supervision and inspection by
18 government officials -- MAFF in this country and the
United States Department of Agriculture in America, for
19 example.
20 But, my Lord, in fact, McDonald's do not leave the matter
there. They do not leave their suppliers to
21 self-regulation or regulation by government agencies.
They themselves insist that their animals are reared and
22 slaughtered in accordance with local regulations and as
humanely as possible. Your Lordship will find the second
23 plaintiff's, that is the English company's, statement of
their position on animal welfare at yellow bundle IX/1.
24 I will not read it now.
25 In addition, what happens in this country and attitudes
which McDonald's maintain in this country are the same in
26 America. That is to be found in the first statement of
Fernando Gonzales Gomez at yellow (sic) bundle IX/2, and
27 Paul Simmons, yellow bundle XII/1. The first reference to
these statements as to the position on animal welfare is
28 pink, not yellow, my Lord.
29 Then I pass to employment. The issue I pose here is: Do
the plaintiffs cynically exploit their workforce for the
30 sake of a fast buck? I break the issue down as follows:
Are the plaintiffs' rates of pay unduly low? The answer
