Day 025 - 16 Sep 94 - Page 04
1 I am trying to make?
2 A. Yes, your Lordship. I am afraid I can offer little
3 help. I do not believe that we were shown an analysis
4 from 1985. I believe (and this is working on memory) that
5 the only analysis we saw was from 1986. I know that it
6 was using data from Hazelton. I have a memory that the
7 format of the report given to us at that time was either
8 identical or very similar to the format of the report from
9 Hazelton that is dated 1986.
10
11 As far as the assertions made in the 1987 letter, they
12 would be correct; if the data were from 1986 it said that
13 salt had not -- sodium, rather -- had not been lowered in
14 the previous year from 1986 to 1987. What had happened in
15 1985 was not part of our investigation. We were comparing
16 the advertisement that appeared in 1987 to the data we had
17 been supplied by McDonald's in the previous year, whatever
18 the date of that analysis had been done. We were using
19 their data supplied to us in 1986; I believe that to be
20 the Hazelton report which is also dated 1986, but I do not
21 know.
22
23 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That is really why I am asking whether there
24 is any indication of when the analysis, the Hazelton
25 analysis, was actually done, because if it was done -- it
26 seems to me there might be a difference in the validity of
27 the point if it was done, say, in the middle of 1986, and
28 that is when, soon after, the ads were being prepared
29 because McDonald's might say: "There you are"; they might
30 say: "Well, the sodium did go down from a period before
31 then". On the other hand, if the 1986 analysis published
32 in 1986 was done in 1985, and much later at the beginning
33 of 1987 they are saying it is down, then I see the
34 validity, or the possible validity, of the point.
35 A. From our stand point at the time, one of the things we
36 looked for in determining whether or not an advertisement
37 is deceptive is whether or not any change is a recent
38 change. We would not, as I said, have been interested in
39 what had historically been the case but, rather, what had
40 been recently the case. What this ad conveys to consumers
41 is that recently McDonald's has lowered the sodium, not
42 that it has been lowered for some period of time. One
43 year is really on the outside of what is reasonable to
44 make a claim of novelty in product development. That was
45 what we were looking at and that is what we were
46 commenting on, but at least for the previous year there
47 appeared to have been no change; again relying solely on
48 data that McDonald's supplied, all consumers in the 1987
49 advertisement and supplied to the public and to us in
50 1986.
51
52 MS. STEEL: I do not think there is any evidence about when
53 this was produced other than on the front page it does say
54 "Copyright 1986". So we will have to go on that.
55
56 MR. JUSTICE BELL: You had no come back from McDonald's saying,
57 in fact, sodium was reduced in regular fries,
58 cheeseburger, McNuggetts and milk shake as from such and
59 such a date?
60 A. No, your Lordship. The only come back we had was
