Day 293 - 04 Nov 96 - Page 07
1 MR. MORRIS: And all the rest of non-Persico, what I was saying
2 is that all the non-Persico material needs to be added in
3 when we are calculating the total paper usage. Which that
4 took us quite a lot of while of cross-examination before we
5 understood what that was all about, that the figures were
6 inadequate.
7
8 Yes, 58 was another point that none of the food product
9 transportation packaging was included in the figures. And
10 he said on page 58, line 39, volume of transport packaging
11 for food items was "much greater than the transport
12 packaging for the packaging items" , which is not
13 surprising, you would expect. It did not give a figure,
14 and you would have expected it to be much greater for the
15 food items, the packaging around the food items that are
16 delivered to the stores, and that is not considered in any
17 of the calculations because presumably it is not delivered
18 by Persico.
19
20 59, the chart shows nearly all Euro items recycled. I
21 could not find the chart in my documents but we referred to
22 it and it was accepted that virtually all the European
23 items 1991, 1992, if they had any recycled content it was
24 post industrial, i.e., it was not, we consider, recycled.
25
26 Then it says, 66.4, "judge can see our point on difference
27 between post-consumer and post-industrial for what the
28 customer expects". I am quite relieved to go through the
29 notes to see there is nothing too embarrassing in them, I
30 did not do them for handing over.
31
32 67, no law required, there is no law opposing recycled
33 paper or polystyrene next to food except in Scandinavia.
34 That deals with that.
35
36 I might as well carry on going through this. Day 63, just
37 the first one, page 7, they say that 90 percent of in-store
38 waste is recycled in Holland. We say that only emphasises
39 the fact that it is possible to do it in all their
40 countries. Then over the page, day 13, page 13, there was
41 an admission - I can't remember what document it was,
42 McDonald's US was preempting laws on the non-post-consumer
43 logos. There was basically an admission that they were
44 aware that laws would be brought in to prevent the use of
45 recycled logos when it did not contain substantial amounts
46 of post-consumer content.
47
48 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What do you mean preempting laws?
49
50 MR. MORRIS: They actually used the word themselves. I can't
51 remember which document it was. It is obvious from the
52 text. What I am saying is that they ----
53
54 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What they got in first with their name you
55 mean?
56
57 MR. MORRIS: They wanted to get in first before it became law
58 presumably so they could claim moral high ground, which
59 I think is also a kind of industry tactic, to argue for
60 voluntary codes rather than laws, which obviously gives
