Day 012 - 18 Jul 94 - Page 28
1 Q. Will you take it from me that those letters and the
telephone call are virtually in identical terms, yes?
2 A. That is correct.
3 Q. Can we go back to the one, please, from Mr. Abrams, the
Attorney General of New York, on page 127?
4 A. I am there.
5 Q. It says this: "The Attorneys General of New York, Texas,
and California have completed our joint review of
6 McDonald's recent advertising campaign consisting of six
print advertisements which make claims regarding
7 the nutritional quality of McDonald's food". Did you know
at this stage, Mr. Horwitz -- first, were you yourself
8 personally concerned in, as it were, establishing
McDonald's position in relation to these letters from the
9 Attorneys General?
A. Yes, I was.
10
Q. Did you know of any joint review going on between the
11 Attorneys General of New York, Texas and California at
this time?
12 A. Not that I can recall.
13 Q. The letter reads on: "Our mutual conclusion is that this
advertising campaign is deceptive. The intent and overall
14 impact of the current campaign is to deceive consumers
into believing that McDonald's food is healthful and
15 wholesome. In fact, despite the self-congratulatory
advertisements in this campaign, McDonald's own
16 publications reveal repeated examples of foods containing
unhealthful levels of sodium, fat or cholesterol. We
17 therefore request that McDonald's immediately cease and
desist further use of this campaign". I will come to the
18 specific complaints in a moment.
19 Then he says: "Last summer McDonald's, at the insistence
of our three states and together with the other major
20 fastfood restaurants, agreed to provide booklets to its
customers giving the nutrition facts on its food. Now,
21 this substantial achievement for consumers has been
distorted into an advertising campaign which appears
22 intended to confuse and mislead".
23 Mr. Horwitz, you have told us -- I will not ask you again
-- about the assertion that the booklet was provided at
24 the insistence of three states. I do not want to go back
to that. What I do want to ask is this: You have also
25 told us there was no intent to mislead the public. I will
come back to that in a moment too. Was the advertising
26 campaign, as it were, intended as a distortion of the
achievement of the booklet?
27 A. No, it was not.
28 Q. Was it intended to climb on the back of the booklet's
success?
29 A. Yes, it was. The campaign was intended to make the
population of the United States aware of the availability
30 of the booklets.
