Day 025 - 16 Sep 94 - Page 57


     
     1        was it not?  There is no argument about that.  If you turn
     2        to page -- it is in your affidavit.  It is Exhibit 1.
     3        I have put it into the file immediately after tab 38.
     4        A.  Yes, sir.  It is conceivable there was a letter before
     5        that -- I sure do not believe so, before May 6th 1986
     6        letter.
     7
     8   Q.   I do not think this letter indicates anything of that
     9        nature?
    10        A.  It does not indicate it. It indicates to me that this
    11        was, indeed, the first.  The reason why I qualify myself
    12        in that regard, is simply I do not have the entire file.
    13        To the best of my knowledge, this is it.
    14
    15   Q.   The letter -- perhaps we can not waste time on it -- from
    16        its own internal evidence reads rather like the first
    17        approach, does it not?
    18        A.  Yes, sir.  I agree with you that it appears to be.
    19        The best testimony I can give is that it is.
    20
    21   Q.   Then I think sometime in May there was a meeting in
    22        California, was it, with, amongst others, McDonald's?  If
    23        we look at page 186 C in the bundle, the letter of June 3,
    24        1986?
    25        A.  It is vaguely possible that one or two of the meetings
    26        occurred on June 1 and 2, but I tend to doubt it.
    27
    28   Q.   Very early in June.  It says:  "We want to thank you for
    29        your courtesy and co-operation in meeting with us to
    30        address the issue of food ingredients and nutritional
    31        labelling by quick service restaurants".  It is addressed
    32        to Mr. Cotton at Dewey Valentine who are, of course,
    33        McDonald's attorneys.  Various proposals are set forth
    34        within the text of the letter which, perhaps, you would
    35        agree, 186D, 1A and B, do you see that?
    36        A.  This is on page 2 of that letter?
    37
    38   Q.   Yes.  I am sorry if you are using a different number than
    39        mine.
    40        A.  The sub-paragraphs towards the bottom of page, 1A and
    41        B.
    42
    43   Q.   Yes, that is my fault.  1A and B, for example.
    44        A.  Yes.
    45
    46   Q.   They are not asking or this letter does not ask -- it
    47        comes from California but it is written on behalf of your
    48        office as well -- for nutritional and ingredient
    49        information to be put on the actual products, are they?
    50        A.  That is correct. 
    51 
    52   Q.   That is right, is it not? 
    53        A.  Yes, sir.
    54
    55   Q.   Then go over for a moment to page 188 which is a letter of
    56        21st July 1986 from Dewey Valentine to, if I may call them
    57        this, Texas and California.  The tone of the letter we
    58        just looked at was, sort of, friendly in character, was it
    59        not, the one back in June?
    60        A.  Yes.

Prev Next Index