SUNDAY OBSERVER Sunday Observer - Magazine
Sunday, 6 April 2003  
The widest coverage in Sri Lanka.
Features
News

Business

Features

Editorial

Security

Politics

World

Letters

Sports

Obituaries

Archives

Silumina  on-line Edition

Government - Gazette

Daily News

Budusarana On-line Edition





Long trial for fast food

by Preethi Sirimanne - von den Driesch

The procedure lasted six long years, 313 court room days, produced 40,000 documents on evidence and 20,000 transcripts.

A stunning exposition of allegations and shrewd argumentations came together in the live drama of the McLibel trial, with the internet as the force of ubiquity. For the defendants it was a moral victory and paramount success where publicity was concerned. Paradoxically the case was a PR disaster for the giant food-chain McDonald's.

The contrasts of the two parties were unparalleled. The plaintiff was a multinational corporation having 26,000 burger restaurants in 104 countries serving 38 million customers daily, earning billions of dollars a year. A highly celebrated legal team represented it. The defendants were two unemployed activists, having no other weapon to fight other than moral convictions and individual commitment. Legal aid being denied, the two had to represent themselves.

It all started in 1986, when the London Greenpeace group produced a six page leaflet titled: "What's wrong with McDonald's ? Everything they don't want you to know." The fact-sheet stated that McDonald's abuses the market regulations through deceptive advertisements, is guilty of animal cruelty, responsible for the disappearance of rain forest and pays low wages and hinders unionisation among their workers.

Until the McLibel trial appeared, McDonald's remained undaunted. The multinational corporation had been successfully responding to anyone who criticised them even institutions such as BBC, The Guardian, student and environmental groups.

Most of the parties withdrew apologizing. As this manoeuvre had been successful throughout years, McDonald's sued five volunteers of the Greenpeace group in London, after having observed the organisation's inside activities. During the trial it came out that seven spies had infiltrated the Greenpeace group on behalf of McDonald's.

Mike Love, McDonald's top PR-Manager UK, said: "A lot of people trust McDonald's. The allegations in the leaflet challenge that trust. If we do not stand up, then it will be seen as if there is some truth in the allegations", he said.

Defendant Helen Steel recalls how she was served the legal orders: "I just got a lift from a friend. It was dark as I stepped out of the van. There was a guy standing in front of me and he said: Helen ? I did not answer as I did not know him. He threw the envelope at my feet. It was the libel writs. In it was a letter from McDonald's solicitors saying that there would be a court case unless we apologised."

Legal advisers asked the five to apologize and withdraw from a court case. "Libel procedures are highly complicated, involve a lot of money and the chances of getting past legal obstacles are very little," they said. Three of the volunteers followed the advice and withdrew reluctantly. Helen Steel stunned everyone by refusing to apologize to McDonald's saying: "It is a unique opportunity.

In the witness box they cannot turn around and walk away, ignore your questions and avoid telling your what is going on." Dave Moris joined her.

Court procedure

Right at the beginning of the preliminary hearings McDonald's lawyers refused to disclose their inside documents arguing that the defendants would not be able to produce necessary evidence. The judge gave three weeks time to the defendants to bring forward attestations.

With the help of the McLibel Support Campaign which raised enough money to cover airfares and expenses on experts, Steel and Moris were able to bring forward 65 statements. McDonald's was dumbfounded and engaged the best libel lawyers in Britain, Mr. Richard Rampton, offering him 2,000 Pounds a day and a six figure briefing fee.

Star lawyer Rampton started arguing that a normal jury would not be able to comprehend the scientific evidence regarding diet and disease. Judge Bell ruled in favour of McDonald's going against the normal court procedures. This was a big blow to Steel and Morris as a jury would have been more in favour with environmental and health issues than a single judge.

During the cross-examination on the nutrition section, some of the most embarrassing testimonies were revealed to the court. An internal document of McDonald's said: "McDonald's does not sell nutrition and people do not come to McDonald's for nutrition". This contradicted their own advertising at their restaurants which said: "Every time you eat at McDonald's you'll eat nutritious food." McDonald's expert on cancer, Dr. Sydney Arnott, agreed to what the fact-sheet stated: that a diet high in fat, sugar, animal products and low in fibre, vitamins and minerals is linked with cancer of the breast and bowel and heart disease.

As the case was now backfiring, two top executives flew to London and proposed to Steel and Morris that they are ready to drop the case if the defendants agree not to criticize the corporation in the future. Steel and Morris insisted that McDonald's should stop threatening people with legal measures and apologize to all those persons previously sued. The negotiations failed.

Marketing strategies of the McDonald's were dealt with next. The internal operations manual of McDonald's said: "Remember children exert a phenomenal influence when it comes to restaurant selection. This means that you should do everything possible to appeal to children. They are virgin grounds as far as marketing is concerned, they are considered as key-decision makers, concerning eating habits. Birthday parties at McDonald's generate added sales and profits. It is our policy to make children loyal supporters of McDonald's."

The rain forest question was the most controversial issue in the whole process. The fact-sheet claimed that vast areas of rain forest disappeared in Central and South America to provide land for feeding the cattle. McDonald's admitted importing beef from Costa Rica and Brazil from cattle reared on land which previously was rain forest.

The defendants argued that indigenous people in Brazil, who previously owned 40 percent of the land, are now left with only 1 percent, due to cattle ranching. Rampton then masterminded the argument on the definition of "rain forest" rather than providing facts.

By now a torrent of inside information appeared on McSpotlight in the Internet. Alleged fallacies, discoveries, blunders and idiosyncrasies of a major corporation reached millions of people all around the wold in 14 languages. The labyrinth of the McWorld was fully exposed to the media.

Trying to rescue their image McDonald's once again met the defendants hoping to call off the court procedure. In vain.

Allegations of animal cruelty were examined next. The fact-sheet stated that animals reared for McDonald's food live their lives in entirely different, artificial conditions in huge factory farms with no access to air or sunshine and having no freedom of movement.

McDonald's experts admitted that chicken reared for McNuggets and McChicken Sandwiches are kept in huge windowless sheds, that 44% of them developed leg abnormities and other health problems, that young chicken were routinely dosed with antibiotics. The expert witnesses found these conditions as "pretty comfortable" and argued that "as a result of the meat industry, the suffering of animals is inevitable".

On the examination of the labour issue, 30 ex-employees, trade union officials and activists around the world testified against McDonald's hostility to unions and low wages.

McDonald's resources Manager acknowledged that "the basic McDonalds starting rate is below the averages of similar kind of work." Regarding unions, McDonald's argued that all problems of workers can be solved internally without the interference of a third party.

At the final judgement, judge Bell announced that the defendants had not proved allegation against McDonald's on rainforest, heart disease, food poisoning and bad working conditions, but proved that McDonald's exploits children with unethical advertising, falsely advertises their food as nutritious, is culpable of animal cruelty and pays low wages to their employees.

The McLibel trial showed how multinational corporations exert their powers in societies.

www.peaceinsrilanka.org

www.crescat.com

www.srilankaapartments.com

www.eurbanliving.com

www.2000plaza.lk

www.eagle.com.lk

www.helpheroes.lk


News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries


Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager


Hosted by Lanka Com Services