Day 296 - 07 Nov 96 - Page 09


     
     1
     2        Obviously, if he cannot tell the difference between the
     3        two, what on earth are they suing over?   It is clear from
     4        the fact that he criticised their own pamphlet when he
     5        mistook it for the London Greenpeace fact sheet is the
     6        reason they are suing is just because they do not like
     7        groups such as London Greenpeace drawing these problems to
     8        the attention of the public.  The problem of the link
     9        between a high fat, low fibre diet and degenerative
    10        diseases, they do not like that being associated with
    11        McDonald's.
    12
    13        Secondly, in terms of showing that the statement in the
    14        London Greenpeace fact sheet about the links between diet
    15        and ill health is a reasonable statement to make, we have
    16        the opinion, or the admission, from Dr. Arnott, the
    17        Plaintiffs' own expert witness on cancer, who, when
    18        Mr. Morris asked him his opinion of the statement 'a diet
    19        high in fat, sugar, animal products and salt and low in
    20        fibre, vitamins and minerals is linked with cancer of the
    21        breast and bowel and heart disease', he replied:  "If it is
    22        being directed at the public then I would say it is a very
    23        reasonable thing to say".  He said:  "It has been linked".
    24        And then Mr. Morris said:  "Would that be a reasonable
    25        statement?"  He said:  "If it was being directed at the
    26        public..." then he would say it was a very reasonable thing
    27        to say, but that "if it was being directed towards the
    28        scientific community, then I think one would be a bit more
    29        careful about the language which one is using".  This is
    30        day 22, page 32.
    31
    32        I think the point to remember here is that the public are
    33        precisely who the fact sheet was aimed at.  The fact sheet
    34        does not pretend to be some specialist, scientific
    35        document.  It makes plain throughout that it is a leaflet
    36        about the fast food industry and the various ways in which
    37        that industry, and multi-nationals in general, harm people,
    38        both customers and staff, and animals and the planet that
    39        we live on, and nobody is going to mistake it for a
    40        scientific journal.
    41
    42        We say that the admission by the Plaintiffs' own declared
    43        expert in the field should have been the end of this
    44        matter.  He was stating that the London Greenpeace
    45        statement about diet and ill health is a satisfactory
    46        summary in terms of our present state of knowledge and how
    47        to convey that knowledge to the public.
    48
    49        Obviously, after we get over that hurdle in relation to the
    50        links between diet and ill health, we still have to show
    51        that McDonald's food has all the attributes of a typical
    52        western diet, being high in fat, particularly saturated or
    53        animal fat, salt and sugar, and low in fibre, vitamins and
    54        minerals.
    55
    56        We would say that the major part of this, possibly
    57        excluding sugar, vitamins and minerals, which I am going to
    58        come back to later, was admitted very early on in the trial
    59        with the evidence of Paul Preston, the president of
    60        McDonald's UK, who admitted that McDonald's products were

Prev Next Index