Day 083 - 06 Feb 95 - Page 04

     
     1        are being poisoned by food.
     2
     3        I would say also that, in fact, BSE has been mentioned by
     4        two other of our witnesses; it is mentioned in the
     5        statement of Alan Long which was served in July 1993, and
     6        also by Marla Lisa Hovey.
     7
     8        Furthermore, Mr. Rampton has brought the issue into the
     9        case on day 66, which is Wednesday, 14th December 1994, on
    10        page 14 starting at line 28.  Mr. Rampton asked Dr. Gomez
    11        Gonzales about whether BSE was transmissible to humans.  He
    12        actually asked him whether he had studied the question of
    13        whether the existence of BSE in cattle presents any
    14        significant hazard to human health.
    15
    16        Dr. Gomez Gonzales asserted that research that has been
    17        documented supports the fact that there is no direct link
    18        or risk associated with the consumption of beef that comes
    19        from animals that have BSE, that there is no risk to
    20        humans.
    21
    22        Mr. Rampton, obviously, felt it was a relevant issue at the
    23        time and was happy for it to be part of the case then,
    24        because we did not appear to be calling any evidence to
    25        rebut what Dr. Gomez Gonzales said about transmissibility
    26        to humans.  Mr. Rampton cannot pick and choose which issues
    27        are to remain in the case, depending on whether it looks
    28        like the evidence is going his way or not.  Obviously, it
    29        would be grossly unfair if he was able to do that.
    30
    31        I am not sure what the position is on the Crush v. New
    32        Zealand case which was mentioned by Mr. Rampton in relation
    33        to this.
    34
    35   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  If I understand Mr. Rampton's point
    36        correctly, it is this, that you should not be able to plead
    37        facts justifying an allegation which is not capable of
    38        being defamatory at all.  It is not defamatory to say that
    39        someone sells a product which is bad or not good in
    40        itself.  It must reflect in some way on, for instance, the
         good faith or honesty or competence of the Plaintiff.
    42
    43   MS. STEEL:   If that is the case, then I would argue that the
    44        Plaintiffs should not be able to sue over something which
    45        is just about a product rather than about a company.
    46        I would draw your attention to the fact that the entire box
    47        on food poisoning does not mention McDonald's once.
    48
    49        Despite the Plaintiffs' misrepresentation of this issue,
    50        this part of the leaflet is simply saying that meat 
    51        products carry the greatest risk of food poisoning.  They 
    52        have chosen to sue over this part of the leaflet and, 
    53        therefore, we should be entitled to defend the leaflet by
    54        whatever means.
    55
    56        Mr. Rampton said he thought it was only the last four
    57        paragraphs of Mr. Dealer's statement that related to
    58        McDonald's, but in fact the whole statement is about the
    59        risks to human health of eating beef.  Clearly, Mr. Dealer
    60        considers that there is a risk that people will be harmed