Day 292 - 01 Nov 96 - Page 19


     
     1        Can I make a final point on CFCs?   When we questioned
     2        Robert Beavers, the US senior vice president, we showed him
     3        the leaflet in Hong Kong from McDonald's Corporation
     4        produced in Hong Kong, which was a corporation leaflet
     5        headed "We care about the ozone layer" .  In the leaflet it
     6        said how in Hong Kong they were using HCFC blowing agents.
     7        If I can just remember from memory here, we have heard
     8        about some of the Hong Kong packaging being supplied from
     9        the UK, and I am not saying that that packaging was made in
    10        the UK, that particular item, but the point being...  I
    11        can't remember who it was that we asked about that,
    12        actually.  The point being, we have heard on any number of
    13        occasions that McDonald's is quite capable of moving
    14        packaging, or food products, around the world when they
    15        need it, and I will come to that later on, with specific
    16        references.
    17
    18        The point I am making about that is the deceptiveness
    19        issue, that they quite irresponsibly continued up to 1995,
    20        I think it was, using ozone damaging materials at the same
    21        time as portraying them in official company leaflets as
    22        under the heading "we care about the ozone layer"  arguing
    23        that HCFCs were less damaging than CFCs.  In fact, by 1995
    24        they should have known that the whole scientific opinion
    25        had been that HCFCs were as damaging as CFCs.  But in any
    26        case, they are certainly damaging.  I mean, if I make the
    27        point, it does not matter whether they are as damaging or
    28        slightly less damaging, you know, they are still damaging,
    29        that is the point.
    30
    31   MR JUSTICE BELL:  You say 'equally damaging'.  Ms. Steel keeps
    32        prompting you.
    33
    34   MR. MORRIS:   She remembers the ninety five percent or five
    35        percent thing, whatever it was.  That was early scientific
    36        opinion in the late '80s, that HCFCs would be an
    37        improvement, which I think we heard that point of view
    38        changed over time as it became apparent.  But anyway, the
    39        point is-----
    40
    41   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You say whether equally damaging or not it is
    42        still damaging?
    43
    44   MR. MORRIS:   Yes.  The reason I brought it up is the
    45        deceptiveness.  If you remember also, a McDonald's advert
    46        in Australia was banned which claimed that McDonald's
    47        packaging was ozone friendly, and that was deemed to be
    48        deceptive, which is not surprising because it should have
    49        said 'ozone damaging' on it.  But of course it makes people
    50        feel better, the public, when they buy their food, to think
    51        they are not actually using a product that is damaging to
    52        the environment.
    53
    54   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Are you moving off those gases for the
    55        moment?
    56
    57   MR. MORRIS:   I am quite happy to carry on.
    58
    59   MR JUSTICE BELL:  I think it is only fair to the stenographer.
    60        Let us have five minutes.

Prev Next Index