Day 011 - 12 Jul 94 - Page 09

     
     1   Q.   Why is that?
              A.  Well, the construction of a house is an entirely
     2        different matter than the production and use of a
              disposable food package.  Disposable food package has a
     3        much shorter lifetime and it has only marginal value or
              utility to society, in my view, and the house -- and the
     4        foam used in the house again has a much longer life-span,
              is much more of value to society than disposable food
     5        package.
 
     6   Q.   Basically, we can say that packaging is only in use for a
              period of 10 minutes or something like that, whereas a
     7        house lasts for a considerable number of years?
              A.  It can last over a century -- my house in Pennsylvania
     8        was built in 1860.
 
     9   Q.   Going on to CFCs, you were asked about whether you thought
              your campaign was responsible for McDonald's decision to
    10        phase out CFCs.  It is right, is it not, that the CFC
              issue had been raised for some time in the United States
         prior to August 1987, and that when your campaign started
              in August 1987 that would not have been the first time
    12        McDonald's would have heard of this issue?
              A.  That would have been my contention, yes.
    13
         Q.   It is also right to say, although your specific campaign
    14        only started five days before they announced their phasing
              out of CFCs, a considerable amount of publicity had gone
    15        out in the weeks prior to that?
              A.  That is correct.  I would say in the months prior to
    16        that; it would be my contention that McDonald's was well
              aware of that material and the rise of that campaign.
    17
         Q.   Right.  You were also asked about the statement of support
    18        by those three environmental organisations for phasing out
              of CFCs.  You were asked for your views on the statement
    19        and on the organisation.  I think you said that you had
              respect for those organisations but with reservations, and
    20        you were not saying those organisations had been conned.
              What were your reservations about the statement and the
         issue generally?
              A.  There are two parts to the reservations we had at the
    22        time and which I continue to have.  First of all, these
              organisations' endorsement of the alternative blowing
    23        agent as a gas to be used in the production of fastfood
              packaging ignored completely the arguments that were
    24        raised by community activists across the country, that the
              package itself was the issue and not simply the gas used
    25        in the production of the package.  So that by endorsing
              the use of this gas, we felt they were also endorsing the 
    26        use of foam food packaging by McDonald's. 
  
    27        Secondly, our reservations arose because we were not
              convinced that the general body of scientific knowledge,
    28        as Mr. Rampton has put it, which held that HCFCs was only
              five per cent as damaging to the ozone layer as the other
    29        CFCs, we were not convinced that that knowledge, that that
              body of scientific knowledge, was, in fact, correct and,
    30        as it turns out, our reservations were borne out.