RMB Newsletter Vol 2:2    Cover up causes more trouble than the crime     May 2002

Dear Reader, How’s 2002 been treating you? – well I trust. Here in Australia lots has been happening on the raw meaty bones front. The main event, for me, was the visit to the University of Western Australia, Extension to deliver a lecture and workshop. More than two years ago Kim Roberts, the director of the UWA Extension, was standing in the coffee line whilst at an education conference in New York. As often happens in these situations he struck up a conversation with another delegate, Debbie Ravenscroft from the University of Sydney Post Graduate Foundation in Veterinary Science. The upshot of that conversation was Debbie’s recommendation to Kim to check out www.rawmeatybones.com. Kim took Debbie’s advice and followed up with an invitation to me to deliver a lecture. More than two years later and after endless changes of schedule it finally happened. I’m especially grateful to Kim and the team at UWA Extension for their efficiency, excellent facilities and warm welcome. Hopefully there will be many more such events, but the first one will always be special. A couple of Western Australia newspapers published articles and the Perth ABC radio recorded an interview. To view the articles go to ‘Media Articles’ at www.rawmeatybones.com The radio interview is under ‘RMB Articles’. (You’ll need the free version of Real Player which can be downloaded from the site.) 1.) The main story in this edition of the RMB Newsletter concerns the shredding of documents by the tobacco industry. Are there lessons in this story for any industry, but particularly the artificial pet food industry? What do we need to do in the light of this court case? 2.) Catherine O’Driscoll, the publisher of the Canine Health Concern Newsletter works tirelessly for the good of dogs and their owners. http://www.asr-svcs.dircon.co.uk/wwwchc/ Catherine published a letter together with my reply in her recent CHC Newsletter and I have reproduced them below. Here’s hoping this finds you and your pets in the peak of good condition. Until next time, Best wishes, Tom Lonsdale and the Raw Meaty Bones crew ______________________________________________________________ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Cover up causes more trouble than the crime Mrs Rolah Ann McCabe, a seriously ill smoker, sued British American Tobacco Australia (BATA). The case seems set to create an important precedent -- BATA and their lawyers destroyed or concealed evidence that Mrs McCabe should have been able to use in her case against the company. Jonathon Liberman, barrister and anti-smoking campaigner, has been following the case and provided a summary published by Crikey Media 12 May 2002. The first couple of pages of the summary are reproduced below. For the full Crikey version go to: http://www.rawmeatybones.com/Crikey/Crikey_Whistleblower.htm Background: The plaintiff Rolah Ann McCabe is a 51 year old woman "seriously ill with lung cancer". She "has a life expectancy of, at best, months, possibly only weeks. She claims compensatory, general [ie pain and suffering] and exemplary [called "punitive" in the United States] damages for personal injuries." [4] (Note: the claim for exemplary damages was abandoned on 4 April, in part because the plaintiff's health was such that she may not last through a trial of the length that would be required to make the case for exemplary damages.) The defendant "The defendant [British American Tobacco Australia Services Limited] is the successor to W.D. & H.O. Wills (Australia) Limited (hereafter referred to as "Wills"), which was in existence between September 1958 and March 2000." [8] Consequences if the plaintiff were to die before verdict - damages available to estate restricted "In the event that the plaintiff were to die before verdict then a successful verdict for damages for the benefit of her estate would not include general or exemplary damages and pecuniary loss damages would be significantly restricted." [6] The nature of the case "The plaintiff's statement of claim alleges that from her early teens (having commenced smoking at age 12) she became addicted to cigarettes [Capstan and Escort [173]] manufactured by the defendant, and that as a result of that addiction and the properties of the cigarettes, she contracted lung cancer. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, itself or through its predecessor and affiliated companies, knew that cigarettes were addictive and dangerous to health, and by its advertising targeted children to become consumers. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, knowing the dangers of addiction and to health of consumers, took no reasonable steps to reduce or eliminate the risk of addiction or the health risks, and ignored or publicly disparaged research results which indicated the dangers to health of smoking." [7] The importance of the defendant's documents to the case In cases such as this one, questions as to what the defendant knew, when it knew it, and what it did with its knowledge are critical. "It is clear that the plaintiff's case against the defendant will direct attention to the question of what was known to the defendant as to the risks of smoking, the addictive properties of cigarettes, the considerations and knowledge which bore upon the defendant's decisions as to the manufacturing process, and advertising campaigns concerning its products, and, in particular, its knowledge as to the consumption of cigarettes by children. It is also clear that contemporaneous and historical documents held by the defendant relating to scientific research, not only that held in the public domain but also research conducted by scientists acting on its behalf, on behalf of other tobacco producers, and also research conducted by outside agencies on behalf of the defendant or the tobacco industry, would be of very great importance to the plaintiff's case. Equally important might be any internal memoranda reflecting the defendant's response to such research and its knowledge and actions as to relevant issues." [12] Plaintiff's application that the defence be struck out On 25 January 2002, counsel for the plaintiff applied for an order that the defendant's defence be struck out. [1] [The application sought that the defence be struck out such that the defendant would be held liable for the plaintiff's injury, with only the amount of damages to be awarded to be determined by the court.] The grounds for this application included [2]: * The destruction of potentially relevant documents by the defendant, at a time when litigation was apprehended, has rendered it impossible for the plaintiff to have a fair trial; * The defendant, through counsel, solicitors and deponents to affidavits, has misled the court and the plaintiff as to the true situation concerning documents discoverable in the trial; * The defendant's conduct caused severe prejudice to the plaintiff. Plaintiff's application granted by Justice Eames - Defendant's defence struck out, judgment entered for plaintiff, with amount of damages to be assessed. The conduct of BAT and its solicitors, Clayton Utz, had denied the plaintiff a fair trial. This had been their "deliberate intention". That outcome could not now be "cured". "At all times since 1985 when the modified Document Retention Policy was implemented, under the guidance of Clayton Utz [solicitors for the defendant], litigation was either on foot or the defendant considered that future litigation was inevitable." [289] "The defendant intended that by the destruction of documents any plaintiff in the position of the present plaintiff would be prejudiced in the conduct of their action, both generally and, in particular, in the ability to lead relevant evidence or to cross examine witnesses. It was intended by the defendant that any such plaintiff would be denied a fair trial." [289] "The civil litigation system is an adversarial process, but it is a process governed by rules which the judges must administer. The formal rules of procedure [ie including document discovery] complement and acknowledge the inherent powers of the Court which apply with the overriding objective of ensuring that parties to litigation receive a fair trial. Central to the conduct of a fair trial in civil litigation is the process of discovery of documents. That process is particularly important where documentary evidence is likely to be both voluminous and critical to the outcome of the case, and where access to documents is very much dependent on the approach adopted by one party and its advisers. For a fair trial to be assured in such circumstances the approach which that party must adopt may well conflict with its self-interest. The party which controls access to the documents must ensure that its opponent is not denied the opportunity to inspect and use relevant documents, and it must disclose fully and frankly what has become of documents which have been in its possession, custody or control." [383] "In my opinion, the process of discovery in this case was subverted by the defendant and its solicitor Clayton Utz, with the deliberate intention of denying a fair trial to the plaintiff, and the strategy to achieve that outcome was successful. It is not a strategy which the court should countenance, and it is not an outcome which, in the circumstances of this case, can now be cured so as to permit the trial to proceed on the question of liability. In my opinion, the only appropriate order is that the defence should be struck out and judgment be entered for the plaintiff, with damages to be assessed."[384] Continued at: http://www.rawmeatybones.com/Crikey/Crikey_Whistleblower.htm What happens next in the McCabe v BATA case will depend on many factors and what happens in subsequent tobacco related cases will also depend on many factors – lawyers report receiving many more enquiries from smokers who wish to take action against the manufacturers of their poison. And the ABC Radio National Business Report or 20 April 2002 told listeners the US Justice Department is investigating if there is an international conspiracy to destroy documents by members of the tobacco industry. What happens next in the artificial pet food industry will also depend on many factors. But whether their products are cooked or raw, the makers of these artificial concoctions spend a lot of time covering up their cover- ups -- whether or not they destroy their documents. In some ways the artificial pet food companies may be faced with problems greater than those faced by the tobacco companies. The extent of tobacco poisoning is well known; companies don’t need to research further to know how harmful their products are. Pet food companies are different. They are aware, or should be aware, of many of the poisonous effects of their products (the periodontal disease, the immune depression etc) but are actively researching to further understand the severity of the problems. With each new research project they create more evidence -- damning evidence against themselves. Will they destroy the documents as fast as they are produced? How can they coordinate their cover up activities without creating documentation? Use a computer, do I hear you say? OK, joking aside, perhaps we need to be more proactive. One day we shall likely need the evidence that the pet food manufacturers and their veterinary allies are creating – and much of that evidence is computer based. Perhaps now is the time to start collecting and storing that information. Manufacturers’ websites would be a good place to start. Then there are the websites of vets and veterinary organisations, and any other source of cooked (and raw) pet food industry hype and deception. Information collected now, in ten years time, could be vital -- especially if the companies attempt to erase the record. All of us can use our computers to track and record the pet food company activities, but ideally we need a centralised coordinating body to collate and record the information. Any ideas, anybody? ____________________________________________________________________ 22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222 Dear Catherine, I am a member of CHC and read your newsletters with interest. I have three cats (no dogs) and although I would like to feed them on raw meat, I am not certain from what I have read as to what exactly one should feed to cats, as opposed to dogs, as cats cannot cope with big bones that would be fed to dogs? Also, despite what I have read in your newsletter, I am still uneasy about feeding raw chicken to my cats. I thought you could get some nasty diseases like botulism from eating raw chicken? Also, I am worried about bones getting stuck in their throats. I give them raw lamb as I understand that this is safe, but my vet told me that they can get worms from raw beef? They do catch quite a few wood mice that we have in and around our garden but I cannot get them to eat the mice, they just play with them mainly, and only occasionally eat them. What are your thoughts for cat owners please? Sincerely Jane Graydon Tom Lonsdale’s replied: Dear Jane and all, Catherine passed on your letter for me to reply. Changing your three cats to a natural diet is the single most important thing you will ever do for them. Nature decided that we all need air, water and food and that they should all be fresh. Anything less and we are courting ill health, even death. The fresh air and water should not pose a problem, but what is the best fresh food you wonder? In an ideal world we would feed our pets as they would eat in the wild, or in the same way responsible zoo keepers feed their captive carnivores. For cats that food would be small herbivores, birds and reptiles. In fact domestic cats that turn feral, fit and ferocious, often depend on rabbits for food. Most of my clients were not able to feed this gold-star top-of-the-range diet to their pet cats. And I can understand the difficulties here. However there is a second best that works well -- much much better than the commercial offerings. And that second best diet consists of raw meaty bones and a few table scraps. For cats the best, readily obtainable raw meaty bones are chicken wings and necks, chicken carcasses after the meat has been removed for human consumption, quail, rabbit and whole fish. Let the raw meaty bones comprise 80% plus of the diet and the rest can be whatever your cats would like to nibble on. (Do not chop up the bones, the cats need to do the processing.) Even if you put the right fuel in your car things can still go wrong. Putting the right fuel in your cats cannot remove all risks. Because you are about to embark on the single most important thing you could ever do for your cats, and because you are going to save heaps of money you would otherwise spend on food and vet bills, I suggest you spend a bit of time researching the issues. If you go to www.rawmeatybones.com you will find plenty of information. Better still, invest in the book. There is a *90 day no questions asked money back guarantee that you will be completely happy -- your pets' health depends on it. Best wishes, Tom Lonsdale Raw Meaty Bones: Promote Health can be ordered from www.rawmeatybones.com (*Guarantee available.) Bark Busters UK 01270 522 456 Canine Natural Cures 020 8668 8011 Crosskeys Select Books 020-8590-3604 ______________________________________________________ STOPPRESSSTOPPRESSSTOPPRESSSTOPPRESSSTOPPRESSSTOPPRESS There are some special people on this planet who volunteered to organise the Raw Meaty Bones speaking tour of Germany, UK, USA and Canada. As the schedule takes shape the details will be posted at http://www.rawmeatybones.com The June 2002 UK tour details, including booking arrangements, are posted at http://www.rawmeatybones.co.uk/ ___________________________________________________________ We welcome copies of correspondence/emails/faxes for possible inclusion in future RMB Newsletters. Please circulate, distribute or reproduce this newsletter as you wish. ___________________________________________________________ The Raw Meaty Bones Newsletter is published by: Tom Lonsdale Rivetco P/L PO Box 6096 Windsor Delivery Centre NSW 2756 Australia Phone: +61 2 4574 0537 Fax: +61 2 4574 0538 Email: Web: http://www.rawmeatybones.com To subscribe or unsubscribe go to: http://secureshop.rawmeatybones.com/newsletter