Day 285 - 23 Oct 96 - Page 19
1 system, then what chance has a policy got, especially a
2 confused one and contradictory one, and it could be
3 argued, and we do argue, that such a policy is for public
4 consumption, not for any purpose other than that.
5 Generally I think it would be fair to say that McDonald's
6 policy on local use is something that they say in every
7 country because it makes people feel better in those
8 countries that McDonald's is not this faceless
9 international US based corporation but they are committed
10 to the local economy and that kind of stuff. It does not
11 have any relevance whatsoever to environmental protection
12 or....
13
14 And I think my next point is that the import specification
15 in the US which McDonald's pray in aid is just that kind
16 of specification. It is some kind of -- well, maybe
17 nationalistic is not the right word; we want to show our
18 customers that we are using US beef, but, of course, as we
19 all know, and I will going into it later, that does not
20 necessarily mean anything because of the labelling
21 system. And at least for certain until a definition was
22 sent to raw material suppliers in 1989 specifying what
23 that meant and that McDonald's maybe was getting serious
24 about it, maybe.
25
26 And I do think that McDonald's, no doubt Mr. Rampton will
27 pray in aid policies throughout his submissions to you and
28 if policies -- I mean, they do have a role in the evidence
29 in this case, we would say not the role that McDonald's
30 have given to them, and if they can be shown to be
31 worthless or just for public consumption or contradictory,
32 it does say something about what the role of such policies
33 are in terms of public perception, and that they cannot
34 use them, Mr. Rampton will not be able to use them as
35 protection because a policy is no evidence that something
36 has not happened.
37
38 So what if McDonald's have a specification for 1978 saying
39 no imported beef? Where is the evidence brought by the
40 plaintiffs that in fact they did not have any imported
41 beef in 1978? And that is where Mr. Beavers comes in,
42 that even if they did have any kind of policies or
43 specifications, they had to -- you know, the most
44 important ones such as the fat content and ice in the
45 patties, they had to discontinue a number of suppliers
46 that they found out about because he said they had an
47 impossible task of trying to police the supply chain,
48 which is the reason they got the numbers down in the
49 eighties to five companies. And I will try and get those
50 references later on today or whenever.
51
52 Now, Dr. Gonzalez did give four reasons, in any event, for
53 when policies could be pushed aside or put to the one
54 side. And I think the four reasons he gave, on day 68,
55 page 11, line 30, were regulations, presumably national
56 laws, religion, economics and customers.
57
58 Now, regulations, there is nothing they can do about; that
59 is the law, it does not apply to this issue. Religion
60 does not apply to this issue. Customers are very much, if
