Day 012 - 18 Jul 94 - Page 28


     
     1   Q.   Will you take it from me that those letters and the
              telephone call are virtually in identical terms, yes?
     2        A.  That is correct.
 
     3   Q.   Can we go back to the one, please, from Mr. Abrams, the
              Attorney General of New York, on page 127?
     4        A.  I am there.
 
     5   Q.   It says this:  "The Attorneys General of New York, Texas,
              and California have completed our joint review of
     6        McDonald's recent advertising campaign consisting of six
              print advertisements which make claims regarding
     7        the nutritional quality of McDonald's food".  Did you know
              at this stage, Mr. Horwitz -- first, were you yourself
     8        personally concerned in, as it were, establishing
              McDonald's position in relation to these letters from the
     9        Attorneys General?
              A.  Yes, I was.
    10
         Q.   Did you know of any joint review going on between the
    11        Attorneys General of New York, Texas and California at
              this time?
    12        A.  Not that I can recall.
 
    13   Q.   The letter reads on:  "Our mutual conclusion is that this
              advertising campaign is deceptive.  The intent and overall
    14        impact of the current campaign is to deceive consumers
              into believing that McDonald's food is healthful and
    15        wholesome. In fact, despite the self-congratulatory
              advertisements in this campaign, McDonald's own
    16        publications reveal repeated examples of foods containing
              unhealthful levels of sodium, fat or cholesterol. We
    17        therefore request that McDonald's immediately cease and
              desist further use of this campaign".  I will come to the
    18        specific complaints in a moment.
 
    19        Then he says:  "Last summer McDonald's, at the insistence
              of our three states and together with the other major
    20        fastfood restaurants, agreed to provide booklets to its
              customers giving the nutrition facts on its food. Now,
    21        this substantial achievement for consumers has been
              distorted into an advertising campaign which appears
    22        intended to confuse and mislead".
 
    23        Mr. Horwitz, you have told us -- I will not ask you again
               -- about the assertion that the booklet was provided at
    24        the insistence of three states.  I do not want to go back
              to that.  What I do want to ask is this:  You have also
    25        told us there was no intent to mislead the public.  I will
              come back to that in a moment too.  Was the advertising 
    26        campaign, as it were, intended as a distortion of the 
              achievement of the booklet? 
    27        A.  No, it was not.
 
    28   Q.   Was it intended to climb on the back of the booklet's
              success?
    29        A.  Yes, it was.  The campaign was intended to make the
              population of the United States aware of the availability
    30        of the booklets.
 

Prev Next Index