Day 296 - 07 Nov 96 - Page 12
1
2 We say that to curtail the expression of such opinions is
3 to strike at the very heart of freedom of speech in the
4 United Kingdom. Obviously, on that point, whilst there are
5 widely differing opinions about what is unhealthy and what
6 is healthy, in our view it is clear that the whole weight
7 of the medical profession has the same view as the London
8 Greenpeace fact sheet as to what is an unhealthy type of
9 diet, or unhealthy products as well, what foods go to make
10 up an unhealthy diet.
11
12 Secondly, to contend that an assertion that eating
13 McDonald's food may well make your diet high in fat, sugar,
14 animal products and salt, and low in fibre, vitamins and
15 minerals, to say that that is defamatory of the Plaintiffs,
16 we would say is wrong. Well, it is, I mean, basically,
17 because it is couched in such general terms that to suggest
18 that ordinary, reasonable members of the public will
19 consider the two Plaintiffs in a different, still less
20 worth light because of it, is to defy common sense.
21
22 Just while we are on this point, I would also like to
23 remind the court that we have seen from the Plaintiffs' own
24 surveys, which, whilst they were dated within the last few
25 years, I cannot actually remember the dates of them,
26 Mr. Fairgrieve did actually say that the views expressed in
27 them, he did not consider that they had changed over the
28 period of time that he had worked with the company. And
29 there was a particular survey carried out for McDonald's
30 which summarised people's perceptions of McDonald's and the
31 food was described in those surveys, McDonald's food was
32 being described as thought to be high in calories and not
33 rated well as being healthy or made with natural
34 ingredients. So there is also the question of.... That is
35 McDonald's own customers. They have got the view already
36 that McDonald's food is unhealthy, is it really going to --
37 even if they read the London Greenpeace fact sheet and took
38 it as suggested by the Plaintiffs, would it really make any
39 difference to their opinion of McDonald's food.
40
41 With regards to the parts three and four of the split
42 meaning, we contend that ordinary, reasonable members of
43 the public are going to be fairly robust and consider the
44 words "against their everyday knowledge of food, nutrition
45 and health", and I did make this point during the argument
46 about the meaning on this section of the leaflet, no member
47 of the public would read the words to mean that upon eating
48 a single McDonald's meal they enter a danger zone, the end
49 of which is guarded by death or -- well, heart disease and
50 cancer, which lead to death. They are simply going to
51 consider that there are well-known dangers of eating too
52 much food which is high in fat, sugar, animals products and
53 salt, and that to be reminded of such a thing is no bad
54 thing.
55
56 It is a bit like being reminded to clean your teeth more
57 often, it is good advice, but it should not be taken out of
58 context or attributed a special meaning.
59
60 In terms of this suggestion that McDonald's do not properly
