Day 002 - 29 Jun 94 - Page 35

     
     1        saying is they do have an environment effect by being the
              world's largest user of beef, packaging, the effects of
     2        those practices and, therefore, that is fair comment and
              we should not be brought to trial for making that fair
     3        comment.
 
     4        The next section is about nutrition.  Helen has dealt with
              some of the nutrition matters probably much better than
     5        I could ever do.  It is true that McDonald's try to give
              an impression that their food is nutritious, but since
     6        they were threatened with legal action by our witness, the
              Assistant Attorney General of the State of Texas for using
     7        the word "nutritious" who, as he said, Helen said, they
              were fooling the public with those claims, and with the
     8        memo that we have had where they discussed this issue --
              it is an internal memo we managed to get under discovery.
     9        Let me just quote that because it is a particularly
              telling memorandum.
    10
              This was a high level meeting of the corporation regarding
         the public controversy over nutrition and their
              advertising campaign; how they would deal with criticisms
    12        that were being made of them.  The meeting was 17th March
              1986.  The memo was from Al Smedley to Stephanie Sturdey
    13        of McDonald's.  Al Smedley was from a public relations
              company which was hired to fine tune McDonald's
    14        advertising strategy regarding nutrition.  He said at this
              high level meeting:
    15
              "These are the key points we discussed at our meeting on
    16        Monday.  Point 4, initial position:  We all seem to agree
              that, if possible, McDonald's should attempt to deflect
    17        the basic negative thrust of our critics by creating a
              scenario where we take the high road.  How can we do this?
    18        By talking in moderation and balance.  We cannot at this
              stage of the situation really address or defend nutrition.
    19        We don't sell nutrition.   People do not come to
              McDonald's for nutrition".
    20
              They do give an impression of nutrition, that is what they
         were saying in that memo, without actually being able to
              defend it, so it is a fraud.  Helen has pointed out
    22        already that our case we feel is irrefutable on the links
              between diet and ill-health in McDonald's own admission in
    23        their pamphlet, which Mr. Rampton said they have not
              admitted for the purposes of this case -- but they have
    24        already admitted it.
 
    25        We will be calling nutrition experts on heart disease and
              cancer on what the medical establishment think, or 
    26        significant sections of the medical establishment think, 
              on nutrition and health and on food additives, E numbers 
    27        and other related issues, and Steve Gardiner is the former
              Assistant Attorney General of Texas.
    28
              On "Fast = Junk" paragraph -- just a point on that the
    29        previous paragraph, it is just that McDonald's have sued
              us on 16 defamatory meanings which they are saying this
    30        pamphlet means.  I have not it in front of me here.
              I just wanted to point out that for your own, well, for