Day 246 - 09 May 96 - Page 61


     
     1        was, and we did away with that.  But we took counsel from
     2        government, we took counsel from the industry, and
     3        determined that what might have been right for the United
     4        States and their situation was not right for here.  The
     5        officials in the Ministry of Environment I spoke to here
     6        said that the recyclability of foam was not something they
     7        thought we should walk away from easily.  Equally, there is
     8        always a push and a pull.  The material used to make
     9        expanded polystyrene was not -- totally went to waste from
    10        the petroleum industry.  The alternative was to use
    11        forestry products.  We preferred not to do that at that
    12        moment in time.  So, it is a very conscious decision not to
    13        go all the way, plus the consumer research here said
    14        something quite different.
    15
    16   Q.   This is 1st November 1990, this particular memo.  I want to
    17        see if there is any more on packaging.  Move on to another.
    18
    19   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Let me just note the date of that.  It is
    20        1990?
    21
    22   MR. MORRIS:  November, yes.
    23
    24   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  1st November, 1990.  Yes.
    25
    26   MR. MORRIS:  Actually, there is one nutrition matter I was going
    27        to bring up that I forgot in passing.  Do you remember a
    28        Company being fined by Stratford upon Avon magistrates for
    29        selling doughnuts not using real chocolate -- fined £350
    30        with £2,800 costs?
    31        A.  I remember that case, yes.
    32
    33   Q.   Yes.  Do you recall that the Stratford bench reached their
    34        decision after hearing a food scientist who appeared for
    35        McDonald's say most people who bought the food in
    36        McDonald's would not expect real chocolate?
    37        A.  I do not remember that statement, but I remember the
    38        case.
    39
    40   Q.   You do not happen to know who was the food scientist who
    41        appeared for McDonald's?
    42        A.  No, I do not.
    43
    44   Q.   That is an accurate description as far as the fine is
    45        concerned anyway?
    46        A.  I could not confirm or deny that either, I do not
    47        remember.  I know the case though.
    48
    49   Q.   You remember the company was fined?
    50 
    51   MR. RAMPTON:  Can I politely enquire as to what issue in the 
    52        case this goes? 
    53
    54   MR. MORRIS:  It goes to accurate portrayal of food products.
    55
    56   MR. RAMPTON:  Where does that arise, I ask my Lord, in the
    57        context of this case?
    58
    59   MR. MORRIS:  It goes to the deceptiveness in the terms of the
    60        portrayal of McDonald's food.

Prev Next Index