Day 037 - 14 Oct 94 - Page 09


     
     1        something which has a significant adverse effect, adverse
     2        impact, upon the producer or during the selling process
     3        itself or upon the eventual consumer, at some stage during
     4        that process.
     5
     6        In my view, McDonald's, through the literature I have
     7        perused, do practise unethical marketing.  I think it is
     8        sad to say that, because in other aspects McDonald's is a
     9        company whose huge success is genuinely very impressive,
    10        but the one-sided aspect to which you refer is one crucial
    11        aspect of their marketing, which I would brand as
    12        unacceptable and unethical.  It is for this reason, that
    13        McDonald's clearly do in their literature set themselves
    14        up as nutritional consultants to their market, to the
    15        country, in effect, perhaps, who knows, to the world, and
    16        I feel, incidentally, they have no need to adopt that
    17        position.  Why they do so, perhaps, you would care to
    18        discuss in a moment?
    19
    20   Q.   We will come to that later.
    21        A.  But doing that, they then assume a very considerable
    22        onerous burden; one which I feel they shirk almost
    23        totally.  They use trickery of a kind that is very easy to
    24        identify, which I will be pleased to do so referring to
    25        the literature I have perused, to give the impression of
    26        being a caring company; one which only has the best
    27        interests of its consumers at heart; when, in fact, what
    28        they are doing is selling something that is not healthy
    29        and, in many ways, is a worthless product.  It is for that
    30        reason that I characterise their marketing effort as
    31        unethical.
    32
    33   Q.   So, is the problem then that they are casting themselves,
    34        as you say, in the role of nutritional experts?
    35        A.  That is right; that is part of the problem.
    36
    37   Q.   I am sure we will come back to that, but just a thought
    38        that strikes me:  Are there obligations on people that set
    39        themselves up professionally to provide nutritional advice
    40        to the public, do you know?
    41        A.  Yes.
    42
    43   Q.   Or should there be, whatever?
    44        A.  Again, I would like to answer that in a broad context
    45        and say, yes, of course.  I mean, the prime obligation is
    46        to be impartial if you set yourself up as a consultant in
    47        the health of nutrition and, clearly, McDonald's are not.
    48        It is all part of their marketing effort.  I mean, at this
    49        stage it would, perhaps, be helpful to the court rather
    50        than talk in generalities to talk about specifics. 
    51 
    52   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.  You have set out your view.  What 
    53        would help me, as in fact you have done in your statement
    54         -- no doubt Mr. Morris will take us to it -- as you have
    55        said, would be to look at specific publications of
    56        McDonald's, and where you consider that they are
    57        misleading or conflict with what you say is the stand they
    58        have taken in giving nutritional advice.
    59
    60   MR. MORRIS:  It has been said in this court that the McDonald's

Prev Next Index