Day 300 - 14 Nov 96 - Page 39


     
     1        Fairgrieve at the moment.  I might try and put some more in
     2        writing when I have had a chance to read his evidence.
     3        I just wanted to refer to some of the admissions made by
     4        McDonald's.
     5
     6        On 17th May 1993, McDonald's admitted that the artificial
     7        character ronald mcdonald used in advertisements by the
     8        Plaintiffs is well known to children and is intended to
     9        appeal to them.
    10
    11        They admitted -- this is on 25th May 1994 -- that a study
    12        carried out by McDonald's headquarters in the USA in the
    13        '70s found that in three out of four families it was the
    14        children who decided where to eat.  Obviously, the purpose
    15        of that study must have been for the effective targeting of
    16        advertising.  They also admitted in the United Kingdom in
    17        November 1990 the Advertising Standards Authority ruled
    18        that McDonald's advertisement was misleading, which claimed
    19        that chemicals only played a small part in McDonald's
    20        food.
    21
    22        I think, in fact, when Mr. Hawkes was giving evidence we
    23        asked him about this ruling.  Actually, this might have
    24        been Mr. Rampton asked him, I can't remember who asked him,
    25        but, anyway, on day 42, page 14, line 53 he said he was
    26        happy to say that on this occasion McDonald's had got it
    27        wrong, and he agreed that the advert was misleading by
    28        omission.  I think that that can be taken as a recognition
    29        as an example that McDonald's do not tell the public all
    30        the facts when they are claiming that the food that they
    31        sell is nutritious.
    32
    33        I think that is particularly so considering the fact that
    34        they had already been wrapped over the knuckles for exactly
    35        the same thing in America when they put out an
    36        advertisement about their shakes claiming that there were
    37        not many chemicals in them and omitting to mention the ones
    38        that there were in them.  I think it is also a recognition,
    39        the fact that they are trying to hide from the public that
    40        there are chemicals in their food is also a recognition
    41        that there is something wrong with the chemicals, and that
    42        people do not particularly want to eat food with artificial
    43        chemical colourants and flavourings in them.
    44
    45        Just on the bit about deceptive advertisements, obviously
    46        there is the association of McDonald's with sport in
    47        McDonald's advertisements, and also you probably remember
    48        the Ronald and the nutrients clip which I think went round
    49        to schools purportedly giving nutritional advice to
    50        children, but in reality acting as an advertisement for
    51        McDonald's.  We would say that all those things are
    52        deceptive and, you know, misleading the public by trying to
    53        make them think that McDonald's food is a useful and
    54        nutritious part of any diet.
    55
    56        There is a further admission on the same date that in or
    57        around April 1990 a court in Finland banned a McDonald's
    58        television advertisement stating that it exploited the
    59        loneliness of a child and could give the impression that
    60        McDonald's products can replace friends or lessen

Prev Next Index