Day 255 - 23 May 96 - Page 05

     
     1   Q.   Right, and the bit that you were complaining about was the
     2        statement:
     3
     4        "Hamburger chains like McDonald's and Burger King have been
     5        implicated in tropical deforestation.  For example, the
     6        cattle ranching in some parts of Latin America helping to
     7        turn virgin rainforest into worn out semi deserts"?
     8        A.  Yes.
     9
    10   Q.   Was that the only bit you were suing over in there because
    11        there are other references to McDonald's but I am just
    12        trying to check?
    13        A.  No.  I think ----
    14
    15   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You did not sue?
    16        A.  We did not sue.
    17
    18   Q.   So rephrase it, "the only part you asked to have removed".
    19
    20   MS. STEEL:  The only part you took any kind of action over?
         A.  I cannot remember now, it is so long ago.  Hamburgers
    22        was, that one paragraph was certainly a part of it.  We
    23        certainly were not interested in the article.  I think that
    24        was probably the main part that we were concerned about.
    25
    26   Q.   Because you have been sitting here all the time, you have
    27        heard all evidence, and you have heard that there has been
    28        various admissions that you do use beef from cattle reared
    29        on ex-rainforest land, so what is said there is basically
    30        true; is it not?
    31        A.  No, I do not think it is.  It says here we have been
    32        implicated in tropical deforestation and I do not think we
    33        have.
    34
    35   Q.   If someone is implicated in something, it does not actually
    36        have to mean that they carried it out themselves, just that
    37        they had some kind of connection to it?
    38        A.  Well, no, I think it goes further than that.  I think
    39        it is saying that we have been involved in the
    40        deforestation of rainforests.  As I say, John Elkington was
         quite happy to remove that paragraph and rephrase it, which
    42        he did.
    43
    44   Q.   If he had not agreed to do so, then presumably you were
    45        threatening to sue him for libel?
    46        A.  No, we were not threatening.  We said that if he did
    47        not, then we would have to consider our next course of
    48        action.
    49
    50   Q.   Which might include suing him for libel? 
    51        A.  Which might include taking him to court certainly. 
    52 
    53   Q.   Right.  We go to tab 3?
    54        A.  Yes?
    55
    56   Q.   Do you remember this pamphlet?
    57        A.  Yes, I do indeed.
    58
    59   Q.   It says this was published in September 1987 and the date
    60        of action was November 1987?