Day 001 - 28 Jun 94 - Page 45


     
     1        McDonald's animals, that is shorthand for the animals used
              by McDonald's, are reared are in any sense inhumane or
     2        cruel.
 
     3        Those, as your Lordship knows, who keep and slaughter the
              animals for McDonald's in this country will be coming to
     4        court to explain, not only about the hygiene of their
              premises but, perhaps just as important, to explain how
     5        their animals are kept and killed and they will attest to
              their concern of the welfare for their animals.
     6        Dr. Pattison, Mr. Bowes and Mr. Chambers.
 
     7        In addition to them, Dr. Neville Gregory -- reference
              yellow bundle IX/10 -- who is Senior Research Fellow in
     8        the Department of Meat Animal Science at the University of
              Bristol's School of Veterinary of Science and is in charge
     9        of the department's work on animal welfare has visited
              each of the companies concerned and inspected their
    10        operations.  His report confirms that each of the
              companies observes the highest standards of animal
    11        welfare.
 
    12        My Lord, once again this is not at all surprising.  The
              reasons for it are quite simple:  First, an animal which
    13        has been badly kept has a reduced value in the market.
              Second, an animal which becomes frightened or stressed may
    14        damage itself or the humans who are looking after it.
              Third, stress in animals causes amino-acids to be released
    15        into the muscle which spoils the meat and will often mean
              that it has to be rejected.
    16
              In addition, as in the case of food poisoning, in most
    17        countries of the world each establishment is subject to
              strict regulation and to supervision and inspection by
    18        government officials -- MAFF in this country and the
              United States Department of Agriculture in America, for
    19        example.
 
    20        But, my Lord, in fact, McDonald's do not leave the matter
              there.  They do not leave their suppliers to
    21        self-regulation or regulation by government agencies.
              They themselves insist that their animals are reared and
    22        slaughtered in accordance with local regulations and as
              humanely as possible.  Your Lordship will find the second
    23        plaintiff's, that is the English company's, statement of
              their position on animal welfare at yellow bundle IX/1.
    24        I will not read it now.
 
    25        In addition, what happens in this country and attitudes
              which McDonald's maintain in this country are the same in 
    26        America.  That is to be found in the first statement of 
              Fernando Gonzales Gomez at yellow (sic) bundle IX/2, and 
    27        Paul Simmons, yellow bundle XII/1.  The first reference to
              these statements as to the position on animal welfare is
    28        pink, not yellow, my Lord.
 
    29        Then I pass to employment.  The issue I pose here is:  Do
              the plaintiffs cynically exploit their workforce for the
    30        sake of a fast buck?  I break the issue down as follows:
              Are the plaintiffs' rates of pay unduly low?  The answer

Prev Next Index