Day 052 - 21 Nov 94 - Page 23


     
     1        Just above letter F your Lordship said this, that this is
     2        one of the respects in which the Plaintiffs were
     3        complaining of the leaflet to be defamatory, "that the
     4        quality of nutrition of the food which they sell is not
     5        only poor but that their food causes illness including
     6        diabetes, heart disease and cancer and death in those who
     7        eat their products".  Then it goes on to advertising.
     8
     9        My Lord, again I will not keep saying this, but the
    10        importance of this is that here is the court actually
    11        telling the Defendants in a judgment, if they had not
    12        already heard it from me, what is the nature of the
    13        Plaintiffs' complaint about the nutritional aspect of the
    14        leaflet.
    15
    16        My Lord, I said much the same as I have said to your
    17        Lordship (only perhaps at some greater length) in the Court
    18        of Appeal.  It is confirmed by those around me that this
    19        article in the Guardian (at tab 5) on 17th March is,
    20        indeed, an accurate report of what I said in the Court of
    21        Appeal.  I am reported as having said or as having made a
    22        submission that:  "Claims that McDonald's foods cause
    23        breast and bowel cancer would be 'the kiss of death' to the
    24        company if they were upheld in a libel case", I said, "for
    25        the fast-food chain in the Court of Appeal yesterday".
    26        Then, my Lord, in the middle column I am reported as having
    27        said that, "the company needed to defend its reputation,
    28        and he read to the court what he said was the core
    29        allegation in the leaflet, that so-called junk foods like
    30        McDonald's cause cancer and other deadly diseases".
    31
    32        Then at the bottom of the page:  "Mr. Milmo showed the
    33        court a copy of McDonald's own nutrition leaflet which
    34        appeared to accept a link between cancer and a typical
    35        western diet. 'The issue then is whether food produced at
    36        McDonald's come under the definition as a typical western
    37        diet'."  "McDonald's" goes on the report "did not accept
    38        the interpretation of its leaflet, Mr. Rampton said.  A
    39        judge training in assessing difficult technical material
    40        was 'more like to ensure a correct result' than a jury in
    41        such a case.  'If the public should come to the conclusion
    42        as a result of this verdict that the plaintiff's food is
    43        apt to give them cancer of the bowel or breast it would be
    44        the kiss of death for the plaintiff'."  My Lord, that is a
    45        reference back to the summary at the start of the article.
    46        That was on 16th March 1994.
    47
    48        My Lord, next when the Court of Appeal gave judgment -- tab
    49        6 -- on 25th March, the Court of Appeal gave judgment on
    50        the question jury or no jury, Lord Justice Neill giving the 
    51        judgment to the court said this in the middle of page 21: 
    52        "I am afraid, however, that I have been driven to the 
    53        conclusion that the issues which the defendants have raised
    54        about the alleged health hazards of the food sold by the
    55        plaintiffs require a careful and detailed analysis of the
    56        scientific evidence and, as I have explained, a reasoned
    57        judgment about each of the dangers to health which are
    58        propounded by and on behalf of the defendants".
    59
    60        My Lord, one is not, of course, a mind reader:  Two

Prev Next Index