Day 001 - 28 Jun 94 - Page 44


     
     1        Again, my Lord, if the defendants are right and the
              leaflets' lurid and alarmist references to the subject of
     2        food poisoning were in any sense justified, one would
              expect to find the defendants were able to point to a
     3        large number of instances of food poisoning in this
              country over the last 20 years.  In fact, they can show
     4        but one outbreak; that was in Preston in Lancashire, in
              January 1991.  It is true to say that they alleged three
     5        others, but these are wholly unsubstantiated and may be
              ignored for the present purposes.
     6
              My Lord, the conclusion I draw from those figures is this:
     7        The risk that anyone might contract food poisoning from
              eating a meal at McDonald's is, truly speaking,
     8        negligible, in the sense that it is not a thought which
              ought to cross anyone's mind when entering a McDonald's
     9        restaurant any more than the risk that he might contract
              cancer or diabetes.
    10
              My Lord, the rearing and slaughter of animals is next.
    11        Here I express the issue in this way:  Are the methods by
              which animals to make McDonald's food reared and
    12        slaughtered cruel and inhumane?  My Lord, I remind your
              Lordship that McDonald's owns no animals, no farm and no
    13        slaughter houses with the result that, in this area, they
              are of course, as in others, largely in the hands of
    14        others.
 
    15        That does not mean that McDonald's shrug their shoulders
              and turn away from the issue.  On the contrary, they are
    16        and always have been astute to ensure fast they can that
              the animals they use are reared in the best conditions and
    17        slaughtered by the most humane methods available.
 
    18        My Lord, this may be an important point in the case.  It
              is necessary perhaps to mention it now.  McDonald's do not
    19        dispute the right of anyone at all, if that should be his
              honest view, to say in strong terms, if he wishes, that he
    20        disapproves of keeping and killing animals for human
              consumption.  That is not what this case is about.  It is
    21        entirely a matter of opinion.
 
    22        What McDonald's do object to, however, is gross
              misdescription of the facts underlying the expression of
    23        such opinions.  Thus, my Lord, in this case while
              McDonald's unreservedly accept that a person holding
    24        strong views on the matter might honestly describe the
              slaughter of animals for food as "murder", they
    25        emphatically do not accept that that person or those
              people are entitled to colour their opinion and to try to 
    26        excite support for it by falsely asserting as a matter of 
              fact that the animals which McDonald's use (and I am now 
    27        taking the words from the pamphlet) "often struggle to
              escape from the killing-line, become frantic as they watch
    28        the animal in front of them being slaughtered; frequently
              have their throats cut while still fully conscious".
    29
              My Lord, none of those factual assertions has any basis in
    30        fact so far as the animals used by McDonald's are
              concerned; nor is it true that the conditions in which

Prev Next Index