Day 292 - 01 Nov 96 - Page 52
1
2 Page 19: no recycled content, office stationery, before
3 1990.
4
5 Page 20: agrees McDonald's was using recycled paper
6 content for PR purposes. What that means is that he said,
7 actually, that they had not announced -- we said they were
8 using that for propaganda purposes, and he said they never
9 announced it. We put to him a document where, in fact, it
10 says, you know, how their office paper was made out of
11 recycled paper.
12
13 Page 21: two and four hole trays not used in Europe, and
14 paper bags had little recycled content in Europe.
15
16 So, the overall picture that was developing after all this
17 cross-examination, once we actually went back to the
18 relevant time in this case, which was 1990 or before, and
19 once we got beyond concentrating on the items that
20 McDonald's were flagging up as being important ones, it
21 turns out that very little was recycled of any kind in
22 Europe or anywhere else, as far as any of the evidence is
23 concerned, you know, at the relevant time or before.
24
25 Page 25 to 26: CFCs in Turkey. There was an idea from
26 Mr. Oakley that they had to use CFC blowing agents in
27 Turkey or HCFCs -- I can't remember which it was now --
28 because somehow the supplier did not have the capability of
29 producing or economic considerations because of import
30 duties, but they had not stopped, as we put to him -- wait
31 a minute. I don't know if it was there or another time.
32 But the point was that they were exporting other items to
33 Turkey at the same time, and they were moving packaging all
34 over the place. They were supplying, I think, Eastern
35 Europe with their packaging from other countries. So,
36 really, when he said economic considerations, that is
37 really what it came down to, that they were prepared to use
38 damaging packaging materials if it was economically
39 beneficial.
40
41 Then on page 29, there is the vast empty gravel pits which
42 are unfortunately being filled up with McDonald's packaging
43 and other people's packaging waste.
44
45 Page 32, he recognised that environment/index.html">litter is a danger. There was
46 a lot of -- he recognised that. It was not just a question
47 of unsightliness; it had other damaging implications.
48
49 On page 33, he said that how they used the packaging for
50 promoting the brand image. Then he said that all packaging
51 ends up as environment/index.html">litter or in landfill.
52
53 Then he said, on page 34, that Oakbrook was responsible for
54 all the packaging in Europe, which, again, he should know
55 -- and, presumably, I think McDonald's probably accept
56 now, like they accept the point about being responsible for
57 what happens in the supply chain; I should think they now
58 must accept responsibility for the relevance of what
59 McDonald's anywhere in the world does, as far as this case
60 is concerned. It is the McDonald's system that is at issue
