Day 059 - 01 Dec 94 - Page 35


     
     1        A.  Yes, that is correct.
     2
     3   Q.   -- go on using Isopentane?
     4        A.  Until 1986.
     5
     6   Q.   Then they started using what?
     7        A.  They started using CFCs.
     8
     9   Q.   Why?
    10        A.  Because (a) there was no evidence at that time of any
    11        destruction of the ozone layer by CFCs, and (b) the product
    12        is commercially better to use from a cost point of view and
    13        is certainly less flammable in production in the factory.
    14
    15   Q.   So it is safer for the people who are using it; is that
    16        right?
    17        A.  It is said to be, yes.
    18
    19   Q.   What is used now to blow the foam for McDonald's packaging?
    20        A.  Isopentane which was the original blowing agent and is
    21        a hydrocarbon.
    22
    23   Q.   Why did McDonald's suppliers stop using CFCs?
    24        A.  After the announcement that CFCs were destroying the
    25        ozone layer, many meetings and discussions took place,
    26        including the Montreal Protocol.  I personally thought it
    27        prudent that we should get out of the use of CFCs as a
    28        blowing agent in our foam packaging.  I persuaded the UK
    29        senior management that this would be right for McDonald's,
    30        and I am not sure anybody directly believed it was a real
    31        problem at that time, but they authorised me to go ahead
    32        and make the change.
    33
    34        I approached Lin Pac and told them I would like them to go
    35        back to using Isopentane as a blowing agent, and they were
    36        totally horrified because they said it would cost them a
    37        lot of money to make the change back, and CFCs were much
    38        easier to use in the factory than Pentane from a
    39        flammability point of view.  Therefore, they were very
    40        reluctant to make this change.
    41
    42        After a number of trials in our restaurants when packaging
    43        produced from Pentane did not perform particularly well, we
    44        finally got it right, the packaging was as good as the
    45        packaging produced with CFCs, and ultimately we switched
    46        our whole market in July 1988 back to foam packaging blown
    47        with Isopentane instead of CFCs.
    48
    49   Q.   So it cost them something to go back from CFCs to
    50        hydrocarbons? 
    51        A.  Yes, it did. 
    52 
    53   Q.   Had it cost them anything to change from hydrocarbons to
    54        CFCs in the first place?
    55        A.  Yes, I believe the cost was similar both ways.  If
    56        I remember rightly, in the region of 80, £90,000 to make
    57        each of those changes.
    58
    59   Q.   Lastly, before I ask you to look at some documents,
    60        Mr. Oakley, can you can you remember the year in which CFCs

Prev Next Index