Day 002 - 29 Jun 94 - Page 08

     
     1        may have mistakenly been disclosed, since we did get a
              letter from the plaintiffs asking us to hand some
     2        documents back.  However, we understand that once they
              have disclosed documents, they waive their right to
     3        privilege which is quite helpful because it is a very
              revealing document.
     4
         MR. RAMPTON:  That is not a privileged document.
     5
         MISS STEEL:  It is stated in this letter that meat comes from a
     6        vesty company through their UK agents, W. Wedal and
              Company, and refers to a letter from Vesties dated 6th
     7        June 1983.  We asked McDonald's to disclose that letter
              but they have refused do so.  This document is a direct
     8        contradiction of the claim by the plaintiffs that there is
              no room for any suggestion that McDonald's in the United
     9        States or anywhere else in the world uses, or ever has
              used, beef from rainforest countries.
    10
              They forced the BBC, amongst many others, to give an
         apology which was false, which would mislead the public
              about McDonald's responsibility for rainforest
    12        destruction.  I dare say that if we had sufficient
              resources to fly around the world to take statements and
    13        gather other documents that there would actually be a
              great deal more evidence to show that McDonald's have lied
    14        continually to the public over this issue.
 
    15        We have further evidence in this area which, as I say,
              I think Mr. Morris will go into.
    16
              I will move on to packaging now.  We are being sued for
    17        saying that McDonald's only used a tiny percentage of
              recycled paper in their packaging.  Mr. Rampton told the
    18        court yesterday that in the United States of America 50
              per cent of their paper packaging was made from recycled
    19        paper.  Of course, he did not tell the court what
              percentage was used world-wide.  More importantly, he did
    20        not tell the court that in 1989, which is more relevant as
              it is the time of the alleged libel, in the USA, which was
         the most advanced country in terms of their recycling
              policies, they were using paper packaging containing only
    22        7 per cent recycled paper.
 
    23        On the issue of packaging the plaintiffs have continually
              focused on the situation as it is now instead of the
    24        situation as it was at the time of the alleged libel.  We
              will invite the court at a later stage to take the view
    25        that the changes McDonald's have made were in response to
              campaigns by groups such as London Greenpeace. 
    26 
              I am going on to nutrition now.  Yesterday it was said in 
    27        court that the plaintiffs' experts were going to say that
              it was irresponsible to link cancer with diet.  I want to
    28        ask the plaintiffs whether they are saying does that mean
              they consider that the Health Education Authority and the
    29        Cancer Education Co-ordinating Group of the UK are
              irresponsible?  Or even McDonald's themselves?  Our
    30        experts refer to the publications of the Health Education
              Authority.  That is this document called:  "Can you avoid