Day 292 - 01 Nov 96 - Page 17
1 for a start it is relevant in itself, but, secondly, it is
2 relevant should you find that, for example, the production
3 of paper, say, is not damaging.
4
5 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I have said 'no' to that. I have already
6 ruled on that have I not? Whether that is not the analogy
7 you see. I said even with paper, which is clearly
8 mentioned, Polystyrene is not mentioned in this
9 environmental part of the matter at all. Packaging is. It
10 is paper packaging, even with paper packaging, for better
11 or worse, I ruled that the pros and cons of methods of
12 production were not relevant to any charge in the leaflet.
13 As long as I understand what your argument is, whichever
14 side I come down on, I can deal with it. What you say is
15 that anything which has to do with any kind of
16 environmental damage which arises out of packaging in any
17 way is referable to the charge of environmental damage in
18 the leaflet.
19
20 MR. MORRIS: Yes.
21
22 MR JUSTICE BELL: Just let me make a note of that. (Pause) Yes.
23
24 MR. MORRIS: The reality is, the evidence has been heard, and
25 therefore we will pray in aid that evidence, if McDonald's
26 wanted to argue against it being relevant they should have
27 done that before, but now the evidence has been heard and
28 therefore we are entitled to pray it in aid. Whether it
29 should have been heard or not would be a separate point.
30
31 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I am not sure that is right. For better or
32 worse, many trials range over issues where, at the end of
33 the day, the judge has to say although both parties found
34 that fascinating and seemed to think it was very important
35 to the decision which the judge has to make, it was not in
36 fact. But as long as I have your argument I can make a
37 decision on it.
38
39 MR. MORRIS: If McDonald's are helping to wreck the planet
40 through their use of packaging it must be relevant to this
41 fact sheet. That is all I can say. And the use of CFCs in
42 packaging is an extremely damaging practice, the results of
43 which will linger for a long time. It does not really
44 matter whether it was deliberate or cynical, or whatever.
45 The point is, it is just a fact. So in 1989 CFCs were
46 still being used in 29 countries and even today, or at the
47 last point of the evidence from what we heard,, HCFCs which
48 are equally damaging -- they are also damaging, and they
49 are equally damaging -- in terms that they are still
50 destroying the ozone layer, are still being used, as far as
51 we know today, by McDonald's in some countries, albeit two
52 or three countries.
53
54 Professor Duxbury, expert witness for McDonald's, agreed
55 that CFCs and HCFCs caused damage to the ozone layer and
56 that in 1988, which may be felt to be the significant time,
57 '88/'89, McDonald's used "significant" quantities of these
58 chemicals. He further said that McDonald's present UK
59 blowing agent, pentane, for their foam packaging,
60 contribute to smog formation and the greenhouse effect.
