Day 024 - 15 Sep 94 - Page 12
1 information. I will not read it all out to save time. Is
2 that right, that this was done?
3 A. Yes. We sent, I think, an identical or at least a
4 virtually identical letter to each of the fastfood chains
5 that we were inviting to come to Los Angeles the week of
6 May 19th 1986 to meet with us, but this is the first
7 letter we sent to McDonald's, yes.
8
9 Q. In the third paragraph you give the reasons why you feel
10 ingredient labelling is important; is that right?
11 A. Yes, mam.
12
13 Q. It says: "We are concerned with the possibility of
14 immediate or long term health risks to individuals who are
15 allergic to certain products, with the availability of
16 information necessary to customers with dietary
17 restrictions and with the need and desirability of
18 ingredient and nutrition comparisons. Disclosures of
19 ingredients such as yellow dye #5, saturated fats and
20 monosodium glutamate and nutritional information would
21 allow customers an opportunity to evaluate potential
22 health risks and to obtain valuable dietary information."
23 Then you go on to repeat about having a meeting to discuss
24 these issues.
25
26 Is that paragraph a fairly accurate reflection of what
27 your concerns were and your reasons for requesting
28 meetings?
29 A. Yes. I should say that we did not have as our agenda
30 dictating what Americans could consume or dictating what
31 McDonald's could choose to sell to their customers. Our
32 only concern was, as the law did dictate, that McDonald's
33 and the other restaurants did not deceive customers by
34 misrepresenting the nutritional attributes of their
35 products, and that customers be able to make an informed
36 choice about whether they went to McDonald's or to another
37 restaurant or cooked at home based on information
38 available to them.
39
40 We did not want to make the choices for consumers; we
41 merely wanted to comply with the laws, mandates, of
42 getting the information to the consumers necessary for
43 them to make their own choices.
44
45 Q. Were meetings then held -- I think you said they were.
46 A. Yes. We held meetings, I believe, during the week of
47 May 19th 1986, but I know with McDonald's and the other
48 companies in the offices of the California Attorney
49 General in Los Angeles, California.
50
51 Q. You mentioned you were not trying to tell customers what
52 to eat, but would it be right to say that the meetings
53 were generally to get an idea of some way of approaching a
54 solution to the problem?
55 A. Yes. I mean, consumers had already told us what they
56 wanted to know. We were trying to find a way that was
57 mutually acceptable to us as law enforcement officers and
58 to the fastfood companies as companies desiring to market
59 their products in an unfettered manner, so both of us
60 could have our respective needs met.
