Day 001 - 28 Jun 94 - Page 35


     
     1        1952.
 
     2        The next question, my Lord, I ask on this topic, recycling
              and waste, is this:  Does the manufacturer of paper for
     3        the plaintiffs' packaging create any significant hazards
              to human health or to the environment at large?  Mr. Bryan
     4        Bateman -- the reference is yellow bundle IV/11 -- who is
              an expert in the manufacture of paper will tell your
     5        Lordship that it is not.
 
     6        The next question:  Do the plaintiffs have a responsible
              attitudes and effective policies in relation to the
     7        reduction, recycling and disposal of waste, including
              environment/index.html">litter?  I answer that question in this way:  First, my
     8        Lord, the plaintiffs' evidence will show that the
              plaintiffs, both in the United States and in Europe, have
     9        always striven, often in collaboration with outside
              agencies, to find ways of reducing the amount of packaging
    10        they need, of increasing its recycled content, of using
              whatever materials are thought to cause least damage to
    11        the environment and controlling the environment/index.html">litter which a fast
              food operation inevitably generates.
    12
              In all these areas, the plaintiffs have been at the
    13        forefront of research and development of new initiatives
              and practical action.  I might give one example:  In 1974,
    14        in the USA, McDonald's were using cardboard containers for
              their hamburgers and other products.  In response to
    15        public concern about the over use of trees, water and
              energy, McDonald's commissioned the Stamford Research
    16        Institute in California to carry out a study of the
              question.  This study included that McDonald's should
    17        switch from paper to polystyrene foam.  McDonald's duly
              complied.
    18
              Some 15 years later, in response to concern in America
    19        about landfill and disposal of polystyrene foam,
              McDonald's commissioned a further study by Franklin
    20        Associates Limited.  This study concluded that, after all,
              paper was more environmentally friendly than polystyrene
    21        foam.  So, McDonald's in America immediately switched back
              to paper which is what they use now.
    22
              My Lord, another example from a different area, environment/index.html">litter:
    23        Professor Ashworth, who is Research Professor of Urban
              Environmental Studies at the University of Salford and who
    24        has been Director General of the Tidy Britain Group since
              1987, describes McDonald's policies, attitudes and
    25        initiatives in trying to reduce the amount of environment/index.html">litter which
              it creates and to prevent its spread, as I quote 
    26        "exemplary".  In that he includes (but by no means 
              restricts it to) the provision of "environment/index.html">litter patrols" by 
    27        McDonald's staff which were invented by McDonald's and
              were at any rate for a long time unique to McDonald's.
    28
              My Lord, the next topic is nutrition.  This is, as your
    29        Lordship will appreciate -- this is not meant as a sour
              pun; it lies at the heart of the case -- the reason is
    30        that McDonald's sell food; their business depends upon it
              and if people thought that the food was going to kill

Prev Next Index