Day 052 - 21 Nov 94 - Page 24


     
     1        possibilities about that, or one certainty is that Lord
     2        Justice Neill is saying that the issue is whether the
     3        Plaintiffs' food is dangerous; second, which is uncertain,
     4        it may be the case, that that is how he saw what the
     5        Defendants were saying in their defence.  But clear it is
     6         -- whether that be so or not, one cannot tell or whether
     7        it is an interpretation of the leaflet -- that what
     8        Lord Justice Neill has identified as the issue requiring
     9        trial by judge alone because it is a difficult issue is
    10        whether the Plaintiffs' food gives rise to a danger to
    11        health in those that eat it.
    12
    13        My Lord, then finally by way of notice to the Defendants,
    14        if any further notice were needed at this stage, my opening
    15        of the case on 28th June, page 8 of the transcript.  I did
    16        what I did just now, which was to draw your Lordship's
    17        attention to the context of the leaflet as a whole, the
    18        relevant parts.  Then at line 21, just below, I said:  "My
    19        Lord, if the implication of that passage is that the person
    20        who eats a McDonald's meal is running a significant risk
    21        or, indeed, any risk at all of giving himself cancer or
    22        heart disease or, as the Defendants additionally allege
    23        now, diabetes, then, my Lord, it is an entirely false
    24        statement.
    25
    26        It is also a false statement that it is an accepted medical
    27        fact that there is a causal association between cancer and
    28        the consumption of a large amount of saturated fats or
    29        sodium."
    30
    31        My Lord, that, in my respectful submission, looks both
    32        backwards and forwards.  It reflects the way the case has
    33        been put and understood by the court to be put ever since
    34        7th July 1993.  It reflects the way -- I hope your Lordship
    35        would agree, and I would hope to show your Lordship some of
    36        the passages in a moment -- in which the issue has, in
    37        fact, been litigated in this court over the past months.
    38
    39   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Did Mr. Morris say anything which might be
    40        helpful one way or another in his opening?  I did not bring
    41        my notes.
    42
    43   MR. RAMPTON:  I do not know that he did.  We will look over the
    44        adjournment because I shall not finish before then.
    45        Mr. Atkinson is going to look now.  My Lord, then having
    46        posed those two questions -- they are two questions; one is
    47        the main question, does McDonald's food give you cancer and
    48        heart disease; the second and subsidiary question is
    49        whether in any event there is a causal association between
    50        diet and cancer in this context -- I came back to the topic 
    51        at page 35 of the transcript, just below line 28 at the 
    52        bottom of the page. 
    53
    54        "My Lord, the next topic is nutrition.  This is, as your
    55        Lordship appreciate -- this is not meant as a sour pun; it
    56        lies at the heart of the case -- the reason is that
    57        McDonald's sell food; their business depend upon it and if
    58        people thought that the food was going to kill them, they
    59        would not then go into their restaurants.
    60

Prev Next Index