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
