Day 001 - 28 Jun 94 - Page 38
1
As it happens, a person can safely include a considerable
2 quantity of McDonald's food in his or his children's diet
without causing the slightest risk to his or their health.
3
Next, my Lord, this: Despite the obvious truths that diet
4 and food are two quite separate considerations, and that
the decision as to what food should be included in a diet
5 is the decision of the person who eats it, may it
nonetheless be credibly suggested that McDonald's wish to
6 sell food leads it to deceive people as to the composition
and the health value of the food?
7
My Lord, again, in our submission, the answer to that
8 question is, plainly, no.
9 My Lord, as your Lordship may already know, for some
considerable time now, McDonald's have been producing a
10 wide range of leaflets for their customers which give
detailed nutritional information and advice about their
11 food. This includes not only leaflets about the general
composition of the food and the ingredients and so on and
12 the amounts of protein and fat and so on that is to be
found in the food, but specialist publications as well,
13 for example, advice to diabetics.
14 McDonald's was the first restaurant company ever to do
this. In the opinion of Dr. Arnott and Professor Keene
15 these leaflets are entirely satisfactory. Professor
Wheelock will naturally say something to the same effect
16 because, of course, he helped write them.
17 Third, my Lord, this, ignoring the confusion which the
defendants have made between diet and food, is there, in
18 fact, any credible or reliable scientific evidence of a
causal relationship between, on the one hand, a diet high
19 in animal fat, sugar and sodium, and low in fibre, and, on
the other hand, first, heart disease, second, as the
20 defendants now allege, cancer of the bowel, breast, ovary,
uterus, prostrate and pancreas and, finally, diabetes?
21
The plaintiffs accept (and have always accepted) that
22 there is a recognised association between a diet which is
high in fat and salt and heart disease. That is why in
23 their leaflet they are at pains to advise their customers
to eat McDonald's food as part of a balanced diet, but the
24 plaintiffs do not accept that there is any respectable
body of scientific opinion or evidence to suggest a causal
25 relationship between such a diet and any form of cancer or
diabetes.
26
It is true that there is a body of epidemiological and
27 clinical work which has from time to time appeared to
suggest a relationship or association -- your Lordship
28 will notice that I omit the word "causal"-- between a diet
-- again I emphasise the word "diet" -- which is high in
29 animal fat and low in fibre and certain forms of cancer
and diabetes on the other hand.
30
The clear opinion of all the plaintiffs' experts is that
