Day 008 - 07 Jul 94 - Page 25


     
     1        being much lower than the usables.
 
     2   Q.   Yes.  That brings me back to something you said earlier
              today, it occurred to me, is a possible explanation.  You
     3        must tell us whether it might be right or not.  It is
              this:  You were telling us this morning about the
     4        additional packaging requirements which you see to be
              imposed on you by the concerns of the environmental health
     5        officers, for example, public health officials, you might
              call them.  Might it be that the disposables arm of this
     6        industry has got more careful about hygiene as the years
              have passed?
     7        A.  That is very possible, because I do not know about the
              reusable sit down restaurant industry, but I can speak
     8        towards our industry, is that over the years our training,
              our sophistication with dealing with our employees in
     9        dealing with the sanitation issue has become stronger and
              stronger over the years.
    10
         Q.   Whereas, as the other problem, one should not perhaps draw
    11        the inference but one might suppose that the reverse
              effect had been seen and they were getting more careless?
    12        A.  That would be possible.
 
    13   Q.   I do not ask you to draw that inference.  Can I turn now
              to something different.  At the next tab on in this file
    14        I come to -- sorry, two tabs on No. 4 -- I am coming back
              to No. 3 in a moment -- we see a document headed
    15        "McDonald's Corporation Environmental Defence Fund, Waste
              Reduction Task Force Executive Summary April 1991".  Yes?
    16        A.  Yes.
 
    17   Q.   Will you please tell his Lordship what this document
              represents, what is it?
    18        A.  This document represents the culmination of a six
              months very formal partnership with a leading
    19        environmental group in the United States called the
              Environmental Defence Fund.  What we set in motion in
    20        August 1990 was this very special partnership that was
              basically the first of its kind in the United States,
    21        where a leading company like McDonald's joined in a formal
              relationship with an environmental organisation.
    22
              Our tasks at the onset was to examine the waste management
    23        practices of the McDonald's system, which included
              restaurants, distribution centres and suppliers; look at
    24        the global system of McDonald's in the United States and
              then to make recommendations as to what can be done to
    25        reduce the waste impact, the solid waste impact, at
              McDonald's. 
    26 
              So this report summarises six months of intensive work. 
    27        We had four people representing McDonald's and three
              people representing the Environmental Defence Fund.  It
    28        spent close to 100 per cent of their time during those six
              months to examine the issues, explore the options and end
    29        up making the recommendations that are set forth in this
              document.
    30
         Q.   We see from the next page in the document -- I am afraid I

Prev Next Index