Day 059 - 01 Dec 94 - Page 54


     
     1        look at the situation we found what I have just explained,
     2        that basically people have applied the same amount of
     3        pesticides and fertilizers to growing their product as they
     4        have always done because that was the way they always did
     5        it and they knew they would get a safe result.
     6
     7        Now, when you are growing a crop, you need to go through
     8        crop year trials to prove it can be done with less.  It,
     9        therefore, takes a number of years to establish to the
    10        farmer that it can be done with less.  That has now been
    11        done and we feel confident we have made big reductions in
    12        the use of pesticides and fertilizers in growing potatoes
    13        for McDonald's.
    14
    15   Q.   Again I ask you, why did you do that?  Was it simply
    16        because you wanted to do burnish your public image?
    17        A.  No, as I said up front, we felt that this would become
    18        an environmental issue over time and, once we had been
    19        alerted to the situation, we could see that, yes, there
    20        probably was excess usage going on of the use of these
    21        fertilizers and pesticides and that, indeed, is what we
    22        found.
    23
    24        Now, if you look at it from the farmer's point of view and
    25        then ultimately our point of view and the end customer's
    26        point of view, the fewer pesticides and fertilizers that
    27        you use in growing, the lower your cost is going to be.  So
    28        there does become a cost motive.  That certainly was not
    29        the driving motive at the beginning, but that is a
    30        consequence of what we have done.
    31
    32   Q.   The potato is cheaper with fewer pesticides and
    33        fertilizers?
    34        A.  Very, very marginally, yes.
    35
    36   Q.   Finally, Mr. Oakley -- I promise it is finally -- I want to
    37        briefly, if I may, to the question of environment/index.html">litter.  Does environment/index.html">litter
    38        fall within your area of responsibility within the company?
    39        A.  No, it does not.
    40
    41   Q.   It does not.  It is, I suppose it might be said, a
    42        consequence of packaging in one sense -- direct or indirect
    43        is another question, of course -- do you have any knowledge
    44        of McDonald's attitude and response to the environment/index.html">litter problem?
    45        A.  Well, I know what happens in and around the
    46        restaurants.
    47
    48   Q.   Do you know that from direct experience?
    49        A.  Yes, I cannot be absolutely specific but, yes, I have a
    50        broad knowledge of what happens. 
    51 
    52   Q.   We have heard talk in this court of environment/index.html">litter patrols.  Do you 
    53        know whether they exist or not?
    54        A.  Yes, they do.  Each restaurant would have a environment/index.html">litter
    55        patrol operating around the restaurant.
    56
    57   Q.   What sort of area do they operate in?
    58        A.  I cannot be specific there.  It is around 300 yards
    59        either side of the restaurant.
    60

Prev Next Index