Day 159 - 20 Jul 95 - Page 10

     
     1        The point is that if someone is a player in a general
     2        system, then they are part responsible for what is
     3        collectively happening.  It will not be necessary for us to
     4        show each particular tree that was cut down which became a
     5        particular -- which went to which particular supply plant
     6        and which particular insects or diversity was lost because
     7        of that.  I think that it is an absurd point.
     8
     9        Could I just say that in the leaflet, the Fact Sheet, the
    10        "Hungry for Dollars" section refers to farmers being
    11        evicted from their land and unable to grow food for
    12        themselves which relates to colonisation.  Our case is, as
    13        we have outlined, that "investments" refer to the
    14        investments in beef supplies which occupy vast tracts of
    15        land in poor countries and results in the eviction of small
    16        farmers that live there growing food for their own people.
    17
    18        It is also our case in the other section that McDonald's --
    19        never mind Burger King -- are causally linked to damage to
    20        the tropical forest area, whether or not they have
         employees of their corporation with little badges with an
    22        "M" on it going round cutting down trees.  That is not the
    23        way it works because this whole process, as outlined by our
    24        witnesses, is clearly a clear process which all the players
    25        in the process must be aware of.  In fact, McDonald's have
    26        accepted, I think, in their own literature about cattle
    27        ranching being responsible for rain forest destruction.
    28        They claim, of course, that it is not them.  Therefore, as
    29        they are causally linked to that destruction, however it is
    30        carried out, then they are responsible.
    31
    32        The whole pleading, if I may make the extra point, is a
    33        particular in itself of the already existing and accepted
    34         -- I think it is page 2 of the Destruction of the
    35        Environment section -- that we are entitled to raise
    36        particulars as this one is, this whole amendment is and, in
    37        fact, it can only be helpful that this particular is
    38        outlined.
    39
    40   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Just sit down and see if there is anything
         further which you have not said already.
    42
    43   MR. MORRIS:  I think that evidence has been alluded to that the
    44        most significant period, and certainly a very significant
    45        period, of rain forest destruction and tropical forest
    46        destruction occurred in the 60s and 70s, whatever the
    47        Conquistadors may or may not have done.  This was exactly
    48        just the time before McDonald's opened up in Brazil in
    49        1979, based upon the evidence of Dr. Gomez Gonzales that
    50        they are quite prepared to use land, destroyed areas, that 
    51        had forest destroyed just prior to them coming into the 
    52        country. 
    53
    54        So I cannot see any policy problem for McDonald's there
    55        that would work against our case.
    56
    57        Mr. Rampton's references to the map, this Times map, I did
    58        want to say it is quite important.  It is accepted that the
    59        Hinterland for the Barretos plant was something within
    60        1,000 kilometres.  Mr. Rampton has helpfully drawn a line