Day 012 - 18 Jul 94 - Page 76


     
     1        there was no enforcement proceeding, there were no consent
              decrees that I can recall.
     2
         MR. JUSTICE BELL:  There may be a different terminology here.
     3        To a lawyer anything may be voluntary which is not made
              under legal compulsion, that is, has been made the subject
     4        of a statutory regulation or a court order.  It may be
              voluntary with some shoving from an authority.
     5
         MS. STEEL:  That is what I was going to come to.
     6
         MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
     7
         MS. STEEL:  Is not the reality that these state Attorneys
     8        General were saying that if McDonald's was not going to
              provide this nutritional labelling, they were going to
     9        bring in laws or, I do not know, use existing laws -- I am
              not clear exactly what there was in place already -- they
    10        were going to take some kind of action to force McDonald's
              to provide these listings?
    11        A.  I think whenever you are dealing with the Attorney
              General, that type of a threat is always there, even if
    12        not spoken directly, I do not think there is any question
              about that.  My recollection on this occasion was that
    13        there was an exchange of information.  We advised them
              what we were doing.
    14
              They saw this also as a good opportunity for them to show
    15        that -- this was my impression -- to show the type of work
              that they are doing for their people, and for that reason
    16        in an unprecedented step which has never been done before,
              as far as I am aware, or ever, they agreed to a joint
    17        press statement with McDonald's having half of the control
              on the statements.  It is just unheard of for the Attorney
    18        General to agree to something like that.  We saw that as a
              good opportunity for us.
    19
         Q.   Did you not say to them:  "We are not interested in the
    20        joint press statement because we are doing this entirely
              voluntarily, so what has it to do with you?"
    21        A.  Quite the contrary.  We had some internal discussions
              and there were comments saying that if they want to take
    22        credit for it, how does that hurt us?  It will foster a
              long term, good relationship with them for the
    23        corporation.  There was no animosity in this encounter.
              That is why we were so terribly surprised, having got that
    24        letter from Mr. Ray Burns' (?) office without any real
              prior notice after the add campaign as well.  Things were
    25        moving smoothly.
  
    26   Q.   So you are saying that, essentially, McDonald's agreed to 
              do a joint statement which may have led people to get the 
    27        wrong impression, just for the sake of fostering good
              relations with the New York Attorney General?
    28        A.  I am not sure I understand your question in terms of
              people getting the wrong impression.  We were on the
    29        pathway of distributing more comprehensive information.
              The Attorney General advised us that this was something
    30        that they were looking into; it was something that was of
              interest to them.

Prev Next Index