Day 124 - 10 May 95 - Page 06

     
     1   Q.   But you remember that there were criticisms but you do not
     2        remember the detail?
     3        A.  The details, that is correct.
     4
     5   Q.   Do you remember an article, or the controversy following an
     6        article or discussion at McDonald's following an article,
     7        that was published in the San Francisco Examiner on
     8        November 12th, 1972, where Bruce Hammond, an engineer at
     9        the University of Illinois, calculated that McDonald's, it
    10        took the -----
    11
    12   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, really, criticisms by professors of
    13        nutrition in the 1970s, which was the first question, this
    14        is now a question, again it is a double hearsay report of
    15        something that somebody has said.  It has actually been
    16        removed from the Defence.  It has been abandoned.  The
    17        question is not who might have said what when that your
    18        Lordship has to decide, the question is what the facts
    19        are:  How many trees are used annually to make McDonald's
    20        packaging, not what Mr. Bruce Hammond might once have
         thought as reported by these authors who are not witnesses
    22        either.  We are going to be here for ever if Mr. Morris is
    23        going to go through that, putting to the witness rumours,
    24        criticisms and reports of two decades ago; it proves
    25        nothing.
    26
    27   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Approach it from another way.
    28
    29   MR. MORRIS:  Do you remember that even in the early 70s there
    30        were concerns over the amount of square miles of forest
    31        that were needed for a sustained yield to keep McDonald's
    32        in paper packaging?
    33        A.  I do not have any detailed recollection of that, no,
    34        I do not.
    35
    36   Q.   When you say "detailed", do you remember, thought, there
    37        were concerns expressed over how many square miles of
    38        sustained yield would be needed for McDonald's paper
    39        packaging?
    40        A.  I recall that some articles -- I could not articulate
         to you what the substance of those articles were.  You
    42        know, there were a few criticisms about that, but I do not
    43        recall it being a serious issue.
    44
    45   MR. MORRIS:  The point I wanted to make about this is that it is
    46        relevant to this case, because the approach in that article
    47        in 1972 was to look at the sustained yield, the area needed
    48        for a sustained yield, which is the approach taken in the
    49        London Greenpeace fact sheet on the total of square miles
    50        needed for a sustained yield for McDonald's packaging for 
    51        one year.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs do not need to be 
    52        surprised, or to feign surprise, that that is the way the 
    53        calculation is made in terms of evaluating what the square
    54        mileage should be -- do you see what I am saying -- because
    55        that is what the original controversy was about.
    56
    57   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It maybe.  There is a difficulty over that
    58        which you may come across in argument at the end of the
    59        case, that when one looks at the meaning of the publication
    60        one cannot go looking behind the leaflet for extra