Day 024 - 15 Sep 94 - Page 15

     
     1   Q.   Right.  Were they any more or less willing to ----
     2        A.  In that particular meeting, I cannot recollect;
     3        subsequent to that meeting, I can.  As I believe I said
     4        earlier, they were the most recalcitrant.  They were the
     5        ones that said this was the most difficult and they were
     6        the ones who indicated the least willingness to go along
     7        with what we subsequently requested.  They were the last
     8        ones to come within the fold of agreement to give out
     9        these brochures.
    10
    11   Q.   Eventually, anyway, you arrived at a solution, did you
    12        not?  I think you said that was to provide booklets or
    13        posters, is that right?
    14        A.  Yes.  Shortly thereafter, after follow up work by us
    15        in follow up to these meetings, we arrived at a position
    16        that is reflected in the June 3, 1986 letter from,
    17        I believe it is, Albert Norman Sheldon, Deputy Attorney
    18        General with the California Attorney General's office, but
    19        written on behalf of my office as well as the California
    20        office.
    21
    22   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Is that the 3rd June letter?
    23
    24   MS. STEEL:   June 3rd.
    25
    26   MR. MORRIS:  Exhibit 2 in the statement.
    27
    28   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  The next letter in the blue volume.
    29
    30   THE WITNESS:  Yes, it is exhibit 2 to my statement.
    31
    32   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, it is 6A, section C -- sorry, section
    33        38, page 186C.
    34
    35   MS. STEEL:  Would it be fair to summarise as saying that,
    36        although you believed that ingredient and nutrition
    37        information was best delivered on the label of the
    38        package, you agreed to accept the brochures; is that
    39        a ----
    40        A.  Yes.  We made clear in the letter the basis for our
         conclusion that the information should be given out and
    42        also for our conclusion that the solution for delivering
    43        this information to consumers be a mechanism that would be
    44        practical for the fastfood companies to implement and,
    45        therefore, suggested the brochure as a delivery mechanism.
    46
    47   Q.   Was there some reason why you did not try and force the
    48        issue about labelling on the packages themselves?
    49        A.  We promoted the brochure as a compromise in an attempt
    50        to settle and resolve the conflict and the differences we 
    51        did have.  We recognised that on-package labelling was the 
    52        best way.  We also recognised pragmatically that we were 
    53        not going to get that absent, either prolonged discussions
    54        or, more probably, prolonged litigation, because we had an
    55        indication from at least some of the companies that they
    56        would be willing to give out a brochure as we proposed
    57        this as an across the board solution.  As the June 3
    58        letter notes, that letter went to all of the companies we
    59        had met with, as well as to McDonald's.
    60