Day 309 - 03 Dec 96 - Page 64
1 by use of paper. It is very difficult for the meanings to
2 do so.
3
4 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It is, if one is just talking about packaging
5 as such, but the nub of this, you say, is really D is it
6 not? The mention of fast-food packaging material, if it
7 has a relevance, is really to say you cannot go around
8 destroying the rainforests, if that is what it is applying
9 to, as opposed to general forest, just to start packaging
10 fast-food as a result.
11
12 MR. RAMPTON: That is absolutely right.
13
14 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Therefore it is wanton if you bring down the
15 rainforest for that purpose, if that is what it means.
16
17 MR. RAMPTON: Of course, I have always said, and I hope I am
18 right, that the principal sting of that is related to
19 destruction of the rainforest. It a big sting because it
20 is 800 square miles of rainforest annually, just for the
21 paper packaging, never mind the cattle ranching. But it
22 does carry with it, which may not be defamatory at all,
23 some sort of implication about the number of trees that
24 McDonald's use, whether rainforest trees or other trees
25 were used annually for their packaging. That is why we
26 addressed it in the evidence. I dare say we did not really
27 need to, but we did.
28
29 MR. JUSTICE BELL: If I focus for the moment on meaning D.
30
31 MR. RAMPTON: Yes.
32
33 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Can I take account of any deception about
34 recycling or non-recycling polystyrene foam in this context
35 when the leaflet refers to recycled paper?
36
37 MR. RAMPTON: All I can say, yes. I mean, I think your Lordship
38 can do that. If there were widespread deception about
39 recycling of polystyrene foam, and your Lordship were a
40 jury and I were the Defendants' counsel, I would be saying
41 you cannot give them much for this allegation about
42 recycled paper, it may not be true of the paper but it
43 certainly is true of the polystyrene foam, whereas if
44 I were the Plaintiffs' counsel in that case I would be
45 saying to the jury, "That is absolutely pathetic, they put
46 paper into their leaflet and all they can go on about is
47 polystyrene foam". That is not a very satisfactory answer,
48 but it is about as far as I believe that it can be pushed.
49 It has some weight, yes, it does, but one or two statements
50 about the recyclability of polystyrene foam could not
51 justify an allegation that McDonald's have, and it must
52 mean persistently, persistently tried to fool people about
53 the recycled content of their paper.
54
55 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Thank you. The next matter is the relevance
56 or otherwise of CFCs and HCFCs, and I understand what you
57 say so far as the claim is concerned. I have got questions
58 to ask in relation to damage to the ozone layer, and the
59 counterclaim. Query whether it is convenient to ask them
60 at this stage or when I have the counterclaim submissions.
