Day 057 - 29 Nov 94 - Page 07


     
     1        make a significant contribution to the kind of diet which
     2        in a certain proportion of the population may cause heart
     3        disease.
     4
     5        You have got a big concession on that, and also your
     6        witnesses have said (and sought to give chapter and verse
     7        for) cancer of the breast and colon.  Nothing I am saying
     8        about meaning and amendment is designed to underestimate
     9        what your witnesses have said at all.
    10
    11   MS. STEEL:  I think the Plaintiffs should have to explain what
    12        they mean by "cause" and what they mean by "meals", what
    13        they are trying to say in their amended pleadings.  We have
    14        been asked to explain what we mean by "link", so they
    15        should have to explain what they mean by "cause", because
    16        there have been occasions when Mr. Rampton has actually --
    17        I think when Mr. Crawford was being cross-examined, he
    18        tried to insinuate that "promotion" did not mean "cause".
    19        If he feels he did not say that, then perhaps they would be
    20        willing to clarify what they are saying by what they mean
    21        by "cause" and what they mean by "meals" as well.
    22
    23        It is also a possible scenario in relation to link that
    24        link could be medically accepted, and that the medical
    25        profession thinks that that link is causal, but that would
    26        not necessarily mean that cause itself was medically
    27        accepted.  So, I think there is a difference there as well.
    28
    29   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You have put your submissions very clearly,
    30        if I may say so.  Is there anything more you want to say in
    31        relation to F or which Mr. Morris wishes to say in relation
    32        to F -- I am not suggesting there should be.
    33
    34   MR. MORRIS:  Just a very final thing on the subject is we do not
    35        think their amendment clarifies the issue.  We think it
    36        actually confuses the issue which is the deliberate intent
    37        of it, because they basically conceded our case, their
    38        witnesses conceded our case and Mr. Rampton conceded our
    39        case, on links between diet and disease.  Also, on the
    40        subject of causation, we do not know obviously what you are
    41        thinking on the strength of the evidence.
    42
    43        We feel in any event we have proved causation of links
    44        between diet and disease, but if that is going to be the
    45        issue, then we would certainly want to reinforce the
    46        evidence that we have already brought to absolutely nail it
    47        down.
    48
    49        On the meaning of the leaflet, we would argue that it is
    50        not possible that someone could, depending on what 
    51        Mr. Rampton, of course, explains what he means by cause, 
    52        read in that sentence that "link" means "causation", must 
    53        mean "causation".  Secondly, it is definitely not possible
    54        to read into this section that McDonald's meals are
    55        causally linked.  McDonald's food fits into that kind of
    56        diet which is absolutely crystal clear in that section
    57        exactly what the meaning of the person writing the leaflet
    58        is intending.  The word "diet" is used with perfect
    59        clarity, that the reference to McDonald's meal is an aside
    60        explaining how a McDonald's meal fits into the kind of diet

Prev Next Index