Day 284 - 22 Oct 96 - Page 44
1 rather prejudiced so far as that particular topic is
2 concerned.
3
4 MR. MORRIS: Right. Yes. It is not a question of proving it
5 is a reasonable statement, but that a person could hold
6 that view honestly, even if they were biased. Yes.
7
8 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Right.
9
10 MR. MORRIS: The last point about -- it has probably been dealt
11 with; it does not feature specifically in the fact sheet --
12 which is that McDonald's have stated that they are being
13 responsible by not using recently cleared ex-rainforest
14 land -- and because obviously recognising that the
15 destruction of forest is a process over a period of time
16 for a supply chain which, in itself, develops over a period
17 of time; and they, we would say, recognise that, and take
18 the view -- or, in fact, Edie Bensilum defined to
19 David Rose that when they say "recent", they mean within 25
20 years. What she said to David Rose, 10 years up to 1989
21 and 25 years after 1989, is sort of paralleled in the
22 letters, if you remember, from Costa Rica -- I cannot
23 remember who wrote them, we only had about six -- where
24 they were responding to McDonald's seeking guarantees; and
25 there were two letters from either suppliers or McDonald's
26 management. We can check later on in the evidence. One
27 said: "We can assure you we do not use land deforested in
28 the last 10 years", and then the next one, a couple of
29 years later, said within 25 years. It seems that not only
30 was Edie Bensilum saying that to David Rose, but this was
31 something that was being said internally. So......
32
33 MR JUSTICE BELL: Which version do you ask me to accept?
34
35 MR. MORRIS: We are saying that McDonald's definition of what
36 would be recently cleared rainforest would be anything
37 within the last 25 years; and do not forget that we are
38 talking about -----
39
40 MR JUSTICE BELL: No, that is not what she was saying -- she was
41 saying not within the 25 years. Oh, so "recently
42 deforested" would be within the last 25 years.
43
44 MR. MORRIS: Yes.
45
46 MR. JUSTICE BELL: The reason I ask you is -- of course, it may
47 be more favourable to what you are trying to prove if that
48 is not the definition, but the definition is deforested
49 since we first had an interest, because that could be very
50 recent indeed.
51
52 MR. MORRIS: There are two separate points I am making here:
53 one, that, yes, what she is recognising is that it is bad
54 if rainforest that has been destroyed within the last
55 25 years, rainforest land that has been deforested (in her
56 own words) in the last 25 years would have been recently
57 cleared, as far as McDonald's is concerned, and that is a
58 bad thing. But, however, it now turns out that what
59 McDonald's policy really is, having accepted that it is a
60 bad thing if it is used within the last -- having been
