Day 186 - 10 Nov 95 - Page 37


     
     1        that they are deliberately withholding information, just
     2        that the guides are lacking in information, and is not
     3        specifically about what they have put in the food; it is
     4        about what is or is not in the nutrition guides.  To say
     5        that the guides are lacking in information can hardly be
     6        said to be defamatory.
     7
     8        It seems to me, reading this case, that the only exception
     9        to not being able to say that the food caused ill health
    10        was if you actually said that it instantaneously caused you
    11        to become ill, in terms of saying that it was poisonous as
    12        in, you know, you start writhing around on the ground
    13        straight after eating it.  There is reference in the
    14        judgments to the defendant having said that it would
    15        produce more customers for him as a surgeon -- which
    16        clearly is talking about people becoming ill, which would
    17        be parallel with heart disease and cancer; and they said
    18        that that was not defamatory to say that the products could
    19        make people ill.  I am sorry, I have actually lost the part
    20        where it said -----
    21
    22   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I think it is on page 565, is it not?  Is it
    23        the penultimate, very long sentence in the first paragraph
    24        of the Lord President's judgment?
    25
    26             "Now, if the pursuer had been prepared to say
    27             that these words were used as meaning that the
    28             bread was calculated instantly to destroy human
    29             life, that would have been an allegation of a
    30             different kind from the others; but it was
    31             conceded in argument that nothing more was
    32             intended than to convey, by a strong form of
    33             expression, the idea that the bread was
    34             unwholesome."
    35
    36        A little later, it says that if the allegation was of
    37        adulteration, which is adding something harmful, then it
    38        would be different.
    39
    40   MS. STEEL:   Right.  Well, I think it is clear that in our case
    41        there is no allegation in the leaflet that McDonald's have
    42        deliberately made -----
    43
    44   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It is the bottom of the following page, 566.
    45
    46   MS. STEEL:   Right.  There is no allegation in the leaflet that
    47        McDonald's have deliberately made the food that they sell
    48        bad for people's health, that they have put extra fat in in
    49        order to cause people to get heart disease and/or cancer or
    50        whatever.  Therefore, there is no -- well, there is no 
    51        allegation of deliberate intent. 
    52 
    53        I think the paragraph that you read out was one of the
    54        important points, about it being calculated to "instantly
    55        destroy human life", but there was another point, which
    56        I cannot remember where it was, about the surgeon getting
    57        extra custom because people became ill as a result of
    58        eating the bread.
    59
    60   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Is it the beginning of Lord Deas' judgment?

Prev Next Index