Day 253 - 21 May 96 - Page 06

     
     1        arguing for it.
     2
     3   MS. STEEL:  OK.
     4
     5   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  So, it is just that.
     6
     7   MS. STEEL:  Just this point.
     8
     9   MR. JUSTICE BELL: -- that narrow point, as I have described it,
    10        that you need address me on.
    11
    12   MS. STEEL:  If I just say how it appears to me, obviously,
    13        bearing in mind it was Mr. Morris's questions, so he knows
    14        what it was specifically directed at, but to me the
    15        situation is that it was a general question about Western
    16        diet and developing countries, not specifically about
    17        McDonald's, and that people can argue whether or not
    18        McDonald's food fits into the Western food, Western-type of
    19        food, and in what way, based upon the evidence of other
    20        witnesses, Mr. Rampton can say it does not, based upon the
         evidence of his witnesses and we can say "it does" based on
    22        the evidence of our witnesses.  So, that is just a general
    23        question, not a specific one, about McDonald's.
    24
    25        The other thing that concerns me is that Professor Naismith
    26        has been sitting here while this argument has been going
    27        on.
    28
    29   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That is perfectly normal.
    30
    31   MS. STEEL:  The problem is that, effectively, it has been
    32        communicated to the witness that he should not...   You
    33        know, he should say that this does not apply to McDonald's.
    34
    35   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I see no harm in that, I have to, throughout
    36        this case, assess people's good faith and I have to make my
    37        own assessment as to whether anything Professor Naismith
    38        hears would make him give an answer which was not true in
    39        his conscience.
    40
    MS. STEEL:   If Mr. Morris wants to say something?
    42
    43   MR. MORRIS:  The only thing I have to say is that the whole of
    44        the evidence, of course, is related to McDonald's food,
    45        because that is part of the equation.  Therefore, all the
    46        evidence about links between diet and cardio-vascular
    47        disease are obviously relevant and the argument will be:
    48        but how does that relate to McDonald's food?
    49
    50        The point is that that is the reason that they called the 
    51        witness, and that was the reason he was prevented from 
    52        talking about McDonald's food because that had all been 
    53        gone over before.  Everything to do with the McDonald's
    54        nutritional content was gone over by previous witnesses in
    55        detail and was specifically excluded from this questioning,
    56        and we did our very best not to touch on it at all and we
    57        did not mention the word "McDonald's" once.  Thus, those
    58        two passages are just the same as the rest of the
    59        evidence.  It does not say, does not even talk about,
    60        burgers or anything; it just talks about, you know, is it a