Day 002 - 29 Jun 94 - Page 32
1 particular, to the States; not because we feel that they
do not do any other importing or exporting from one
2 country to another, but because, bearing in mind the
resources we have had, we have had to throw focus on
3 specific countries as an example.
4 It will be our case that if McDonald's has a policy, that
policy is either completely not adhered to and they are
5 reckless in their drafting of policies and their imposing
of them, or that it is a standardised policy that applies
6 everywhere.
7 Therefore, if when they opened in 1970 (as they have
admitted and they will admit at trial) that they were
8 using land as recently deforested as, say, seven or eight
years before, because we are talking about the early 60s,
9 bearing in mind the cycle of destruction of a particular
area of forest before it becomes possible to use it for
10 hamburger production, then that is clearly -- although it
was denied by McDonald's -- if that is what was, in fact,
11 happening (as it now has been admitted it was) and no
action has been taken about that, or was taken about that,
12 as far as we can see, certainly no discovery about that,
then it is clear that they either had no policy, in which
13 case they were reckless as to the effect their business
had on the rainforest, considering it was happening, or
14 they had a policy and it allowed for the destruction of
rainforest or it was not. We do not know what their
15 policy was in 1970 because they only had a rainforest
policy, as far as we can see, from May 1989 onwards, just
16 before they brought this case.
17 So, I did not put that as best as I wanted to, but what
I am trying to say is that we are focusing on Costa Rica
18 and Guatamala as an example of the reality of McDonald's
use of ex-rainforest land for their burgers and also of
19 whether their policy on imported beef, no imported beef,
is, in fact, plausible or implausible.
20
We will also be calling a witness from the States who is
21 an expert on US beef labelling policies. He will be
demonstrating that all fastfood corporations -- it is not
22 possible for a corporation to say that they have never
used imported beef in the States because of the anonymity
23 of the imports once they are imported into the States.
24 If McDonald's did have a policy from May 1989 onwards of
requiring certificates from suppliers on this subject,
25 then it is completely implausible that they say they had
an unwritten rule about sources of beef and ex-rainforest
26 land, and things like this, before that time, if they had
no written policy -- as far as we can see, they did not
27 have any policy.
28 That sketches that particular subject. The next part of
that section is in brackets because it is a separate
29 point. It is about their use of recycled paper, saying
that only a tiny per cent of their paper is recycled. As
30 we have heard from Helen, in the States in 1989, although
they have avoided in general any discovery to do with
