Day 024 - 15 Sep 94 - Page 30
1 should be ordered by all stores (especially in those
2 states currently considering ingredient labeling
3 legislation; or in areas getting a lot of media coverage
4 on this issue)." Why do you think they said that?
5 A. At the time there was a great deal of public attention
6 and a great deal of consumer interest, as I have said, in
7 getting information regarding the nutritional content of
8 foods in general and of fastfoods in particular. From
9 this statement I take it that McDonald's was attempting to
10 either blunt the criticism directed at it for failing to
11 make the information available, or to respond in an
12 enlightened self-interest manner to the potential for
13 stricter laws being enforced against them.
14
15 Q. So the implication is that it is not so important, is it
16 not, in those states which are not considering ingredient
17 labelling legislation or where there is not much media
18 coverage on the issue?
19 A. Well, that is what it says, yes.
20
21 Q. I will read out the rest: "Such voluntary action on our
22 part should help blunt the growing interest of state and
23 federal lawmakers for ingredient labeling legislation."
24 Would you expect a company like McDonald's to welcome
25 interest of state and federal lawmakers for ingredient
26 labelling legislation?
27 A. I would be surprised if McDonald's, or anyone else,
28 welcomed that type of legislation because marketers do not
29 like to have any restrictions placed on them by anybody on
30 what they can say about the products.
31
32 Q. Then it says: "(Also ... we would much rather provide
33 this information voluntarily, than be legislated into
34 taking this -- or any other more severe/costly action --
35 at a later date)." I will not read the rest.
36
37 Having seen this memo now, is this the impression -- this
38 memo is to all their, as they call it, the McDonald's
39 family, the McDonald's system. Is this the impression
40 they were giving to you when they were talking to you
41 about their intentions? Were they saying one thing to you
42 and saying another thing to their company as a whole?
43 A. At the time they sent out this memo (if, indeed, they
44 sent it out) at or around July 3 of 1986, certainly. As
45 of then, they had told us they were not able to tell us
46 whether or not they would be able to agree to our offer of
47 resolution by giving out the brochures. Seeing this memo
48 only confirms the conclusion I reached when I learned that
49 they had gone ahead with the public announcement on July
50 7th that they had intentionally deceived us as to their
51 reasons for the delay.
52
53 This is the type of internal document I would review in
54 order to reach a determination as to whether or not a
55 company had engaged in deceptive behaviour. This tells me
56 that there was an intent to do so. Inferentially I read
57 into the combination of McDonald's telling us they could
58 not, they were not able to give us any word on whether
59 they would be able to get this information out until after
60 the July 4th holiday, combined with whatever significant
