Day 024 - 15 Sep 94 - Page 24


     
     1        individual company that had violated the law.
     2
     3        All we wanted from them was what we got, which was their
     4        statement that they would, in response to our request they
     5        do so, that they would give out these brochures.  They had
     6        never in the meetings or in the telephone conversations,
     7        until they announced it unilaterally on July 7th,
     8        indicated to us that they were going to give this
     9        information out; indeed, everything they said to us
    10        indicated just the opposite.  So, their statement here and
    11        anywhere else that they had been planning to do this all
    12        along seems at best disingenuous and probably just flat
    13        and false.
    14
    15   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You see what is written on the second page
    16        of that letter, the history of the matter according
    17        to -- the history of McDonald's attitude to ingredient and
    18        nutrition booklets as set out by their lawyers in the
    19        letter?  Had you been told any of that during the meetings
    20        or telephone calls you have referred to?
    21        A.  If I may have a moment to read it?  Are you speaking
    22        of all seven points raised on pages 2 and 3 of the July 21
    23        letter?
    24
    25   Q.   No, because basically from five onwards it goes on to more
    26        general matters, but 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 purport to be a
    27        historical narrative to some extent, does it not?
    28        A.  Yes, your Lordship, it does.
    29
    30   Q.   The planning, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, the
    31        district of Columbia, one year trial period and so
    32        on, step by step approach.  Do you remember any
    33        information of that kind being given to you before 4th
    34        July?
    35        A.  I do not recall information to the extent that
    36        McDonald's was planning to do this all along being given
    37        to us before the July 21 letter that the court has just
    38        referred to.  It may have been that in the interim between
    39        the week of July 7th, which was mostly consistent with
    40        McDonald's in the States talking to each other through the
    41        press, there may have been some telephone calls.  I cannot
    42        recollect that.  The historical recounting here was not
    43        the impression we had been given, either in the meetings
    44        or in any subsequent oral or written communication to
    45        whether they were going to do this anyway.
    46
    47        But, I would note, for instance, in paragraph 4 all they
    48        say is that nationwide extension was under active
    49        consideration.  They may have been thinking about it, but
    50        it is my experience that many companies explore the 
    51        various options with respect to compliance with the law 
    52        and, in many instances, they reject those options.  They 
    53        may consider one step and reject it.  It is not at all
    54        strange that a company would commit hundreds of thousands
    55        of dollars to a test marketing programme of whatever
    56        nature and then decide it is not in that company's
    57        interest to go forward with it.
    58
    59        If they felt they could find a way to make McDonald's more
    60        positive in the public eye by making this information

Prev Next Index