Day 002 - 29 Jun 94 - Page 31

     
     1        that anyway, although he just said the first part was
              false.  The second was nothing to do with McDonald's.  If
     2        Mr. Rampton says it is false, then he is put to burden of
              proof on any matter he says is false.
     3
              I have not really referred you to our witnesses, but just
     4        for the record on that, this whole section we do have
              witnesses, experts on Central American and South American
     5        rainforest and soya production, to the effect that has on
              the social fabric of the countries as well as
     6        rainforests.
 
     7        The next section is:  "Fifty acres every minute".  It is
              not about McDonald's specifically, as Mr. Rampton stated,
     8        and that he regretted the situation.  I am not putting our
              whole coherent case, as you appreciate; I am just
     9        sketching through notes just to summarise the case and
              give a general picture.
    10
              The next point is:  "Why is it wrong for McDonald's to
         destroy rainforests?"  I do want to underline that the
              previous page is not solely, or even partly, necessarily
    12        about rainforests.  The whole of the first page is about
              imperialism and cash crops, food production and social
    13        fabric of countries.
 
    14        Then really under:  "McDonald's and Burger King are two of
              the many US corporations", that paragraph "using lethal
    15        poisons to destroy vast areas of Central American
              rainforest", it is our case that McDonald's specifically
    16        and as part of a whole system of US corporations
              especially are responsible for the destruction of
    17        rainforests, either directly or indirectly, for turning
              into cattle ranches which was the main cause of
    18        deforestation, as far as understand it -- we will be
              calling witnesses on that -- for the 60s and the 70s and
    19        1980s, although soya production and there are other cash
              crops as well that also have an impact on the
    20        rainforests.
 
         It is our case that it is -- not forgetting that we did
              not write this fact sheet -- completely implausible that
    22        that means that McDonald's sends people with their
              McDonald's uniforms with little Ms on to go out and throw
    23        poison on the rainforests.  What it means, of course, is
              that people are doing that, knowing the rainforests are
    24        being cut down, knowing that cattle production is going to
              follow, and a chain is established to which the main US
    25        burger multinationals are a crucial link and, without
              their involvement, the rainforests would not have been cut 
    26        down in that way. 
  
    27        So, we are saying basically that they are responsible for
              that process.  We will be calling witness evidence on
    28        that.  We will be calling evidence from the interviews
              made by the producers of ""Jungle Burger"" and the
    29        original transcripts and tapes -- which, I believe, we
              shall get a Civil Evidence Act notice on that, but we have
    30        not had time to do that, but that is at the end of the
              case so -- of their exporting from Costa Rica, in