Day 010 - 11 Jul 94 - Page 26
1 MISS STEEL: It is the fourteenth page.
2 MR. MORRIS: The fourteenth page of document No. 46,
defendants' documents. We have a spare copy here.
3 (Handed).
4 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Does this mean it is not in my bundle?
5 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, it should be in bundle 2 at tab 46.
6 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I have that file. I just need to be told
where.
7
MR. RAMPTON: It is the fourteenth page. It is a letter to a
8 newspaper by the look of it. It comes from somebody
called David Doniger, the Natural Resources ----
9
MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes, I have it now.
10
MR. MORRIS: Maybe if the court recalls the document that we
11 looked at in detail last week, which was signed by Friends
of the Earth, the Environmental Defense Fund, I believe,
12 and the National Resources Defense Council. Do you
remember that document which was alleged to have
13 sanctioned the use of HCFC-22 as a temporary alternative
to CFCs, and one of these groups was the National
14 Resources Defense Council -- sorry, Natural Resources
Defense Council. Mr. Lipsett, do you want to refer us to
15 anything in that letter specifically?
A. Well, I note that it was published -- the WP stands
16 for the Washington Post -- in December of 1989. The
statement that he makes, essentially, is that we know that
17 the switch from HCFC-22 -- from CFC-22 to HCFC-22 is true,
and the quote I would refer to is the second paragraph
18 from the bottom of the letter, where he refers to -----
19 Q. This is the response to that document we were just reading
before?
20 A. That is correct. If you note, he is referring to
Curtis Moore: "Moore is right" - Curtis Moore being the
21 author of the Washington Post article - "Moore is right to
be incensed by McDonald's 'CFC-free' claim in its place
22 mat advertising, but he is wrong in implying that
environmentalists have sanctioned that claim. The fact is
23 that in our negotiations with the food packagers, we
specifically rejected any description of HCFC-22 as 'not a
24 CFC', precisely because it would mislead people".
25 Q. OK.
26 MR. JUSTICE BELL: He then says "it is still an ozone depleter
and thus only an interim solution", which is what
27 McDonald's have said so far, is it not?
28 MR. MORRIS: Yes. I would draw the court's attention to the
fact that in that process of environmental groups
29 sanctioning in some way that change, they specified that
industrialists, according to Mr. Doniger, that HCFC-22
30 should not be described as "Not a CFC" precisely because
it would mislead people.
