Hilbert College	Issues in Mass Communication McLibel with Cheese	- Home - Students - Tutorials - - Student Papers -
(Note: This paper was written at the University of South Carolina) by: Jess Matthews 23 November, 1999 In early September, an email from Bruce Friedrich circulated, detailing worldwide protests of McDonald's, Inc. (Friedrich 1999). The theme of the protest was to have bloody animals on signs with slogans such as "McDonald's: Cruelty to Go" and other similar phrases. Behind the protests was a history about 14 years in the making, of libel, censorship, multinational imperialism, false advertising, and more. It all started with an idea in 1985, from an animal rights group, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). They wished to expose foul play in the McDonald's Corporation, which led, in their opinion, to starvation in third world countries and depletion of the rain forests. They also asserted in this leaflet that McDonald's was responsible for the slaughter of 10% of the world's cattle, that their food was unhealthy and led to cancer and heart disease and that Ronald McDonald ads exploited children and enabled them to use "pester power" (Ronald McDonald Ad Ban Bid - You Can Help 1999) to coerce their parents into taking them to the circus-like restaurant. It also made the claim that McDonald's did not practice humane slaughter methods and that employees were subjected to terrible working conditions, in addition to low wages.(What's Wrong With McDonald's 1986). The main points were Third World Starvation, imperialism, destruction of rain forests, cancer and heart disease, exploitation of children, lack of work standards, food poisoning, and cruelty to animals (The McLibel Trial Story). Of course, this publication was upsetting to McDonald's. They sent spies and seven private investigators (McSpotlight Photo Album) to London Greenpeace meetings to find out what else was going on (The McLibel Trial Story). Finally, in 1990, after the campaign had died down, writs were issued to five activists, including David Morris and Helen Steel (Interview with Helen Steel and David Morris, Defendants in the McDonald's Libel Lawsuit 1994) At this point, the activists' loyalty was put to the test. The British High Court takes a guilty until proven innocent approach; it was up to PETA to prove that the statements were true instead of McDonald's having to prove them false (The McLibel Trial: Evidence). In addition, PETA was only rewarded 2 hours of legal aid, the British court "deliberately mystifies procedures so that ordinary people don't stand a chance", and the defense was weak with little evidence (Interview with Helen Steel and David Morris, Defendants in the McDonald's Libel Lawsuit 1994). Three of the activists were overwhelmed by the risks involved in the trial, so they apologized to McDonald's, leaving Morris and Steel to defend themselves. Steel and Morris stayed because they were convinced it was a clear cut issue of free speech against multinational corporations. There was no turning back at this point. McDonald's hired top libel lawyer Richard Rampton, QC, for two thousand pounds a day along with his junior barrister, solicitor Patty Brinly-Codd, at least five other solicitors, and some assistants from city law firm Barlow, Lyde, and Gilbert. Morris and Steel defended themselves with unofficial help from Keir Starmer and thirty -five thousand pounds given by the public to help them in the trial.(The McLibel Trial Story). Since Morris and Steel were unwaged, McDonald's would have to pay for the trial. The corporation used this fact early on to insure that PETA would not get a jury trial because that would be a larger expense to them. However, McDonald's knew before the writs were issued that Morris and Steel were unwaged, so this appeared to be a manipulative move on the corporation's part. PETA's opinion of this was that there is no fair trial unless people can pay for it (Interview with Helen Steel and David Morris). In the pretrial stages, some strange things took place. For example, the judge (not yet Justice Bell) overturned normal procedure and required the witness statements before the documents (The McLibel Trial Story). Documents HAD already started to be collected, so this increased the difficulty for the activists. McDonald's dragged its feet in producing relevant documents; in fact, they withheld the relevant documents and brought many irrelevant documents to waste Steel and Morris' time. McDonald's hoped to dishearten them by frustrating them with the stress of the trial. So the Discovery (document) section of the pretrial was being held up, but McDonald's requested that witness statements be accepted at the original date (Interview with Helen Steel and David Morris, Defendants in the McDonald's Libel Lawsuit 1994). PETA pulled through, despite the confusion, with 65 witness statements on time (The McLibel Trial Story). The trial was ready to start. Justice Rodger Bell, who had never heard a libel case as a barrister or a judge, presided (Curriculum Vitae: Mr. Justice Rodger Bell). At this point, PETA counter claimed, so the burden of truth was not only on them - McDonalds had to prove that the statements in the booklet were false, in addition to Steel and Morris having to prove they were true. The first witness was Paul Preston, the President of McDonald's UK. During the trial, UK Parliament Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn, in the Early Day Motions talked about McDonald's and Censorship, and the house opposed the use of libel writs as censorship. The trial was fairly uneventful, and PETA was the obvious underdog, until September 12th, 1994, when McDonald's expert cancer witness Dr. Sydney Arnott admitted that one of the most contentious statements in the trial was "a very reasonable thing to say" (The McLibel Trial Story). The trial could have possibly ended when Senior Vice Presidents of McDonald's Corporation Shelby Yastrow and Dick Starman flew from Chicago to negotiate. McDonald's was prepared to pay PETA for the trial and some additional money if PETA would stop publicly criticizing McDonald's. Steel and Morris would have agreed to end the case if McDonald's stopped suing people who criticized the corporation, apologize to people involved in past lawsuits, and improved conditions. No agreements were reached, so the trial continued (The McLibel Trial Story). Day 102 rolled by, making McLibel the longest trial in UK High Court history (A HREF="#mcstory">The McLibel Trial Story). At about this time, another hidden document came into play. In February, 1996, 60 Minutes wished to cover the story. They contacted Peter Ritchie, Head of McDonald's Australia for comments. McDonald's PR strategists sent a memo to Dick Starman (Senior Vice President of McDonald's Corporation), Mike Gordon, Mike Love (Head of Communications, UK), Peter Ritchie (Head of McDonald's Australia), and Public Relations professionals Kyle Smith and Peter Lazar. The memo gave these arguments for Peter Ritchie not to communicate with 60 Minutes: It was not an Australian issue; it was a UK issue. There would be local media follow-up if Ritchie spoke. McDonald's would worsen controversy by adding their opinion. They should keep the issue at arm's length to avoid guilt by association. A positive relationship with 60 Minutes was not a priority because of the nature of the program. Peter Ritchie's replies when 60 Minutes called him back were: It was a UK issue. He considered a phone interview, but it would no longer be appropriate since he would have been the only one to speak. He did not want to fuel a debate. It would not be a positive story for McDonald's Australia. In this memo McDonald's also decided to deal with each situation separately and minimize negative publicity and set up a plan for press statements (Highly Confidential 60 Minutes Strategy McDonald's Australia 1996). October 16th began the hearings n employment practices. McSpotlight began on February 16th, to inform the world about the trial. McDonald's ran into trouble proving that Steel and Morris had printed the pamphlet, and relied heavily on the spies that had attended the meetings. Since the spies had also distributed the pamphlets, the defense argued that McDonald's had consented to publication of the pamphlets (The McLibel Trial Story). The verdict was finally reached June 19th, 1997. In an eighteen page verdict paper, Justice Rodger Bell ruled for McDonald's, but Steel and Morris won a partial victory when he admitted that "The sting of the leaflet to the effect that the Plaintiffs exploit children by using them, as more susceptible subjects of advertising, to pressurize their parents into going to McDonald's is justified. It is true." "The First and Second Plaintiffs are culpably responsible for cruel practices in the rearing and slaughter of some of the animals which are used to produce their food." "A diet high in fat (including saturated fat) and animal products, and low in fiber, sustained over many years, probably does lead to a very real risk of heart disease in due course." "The Second Plaintiff [McDonald's Restaurants, Limited] does pay its workers low wages, thereby helping to depress wages for workers in the catering trade in Britain. To this extent the defamatory charge in the leaflet is partly justified." (Bell 97). Of course, the end of the trial was not the end of the story. Two time Environmental Journalist of the Year award winner John Vidal reports on the trial, and how public scrutiny of the trial made McDonald's the one on trial, not PETA (Vidal 1997). PETA waited for two years to meet with McDonald's to discuss improvements in the area of animal welfare, to no avail. In a meeting on June 22, 1999, Bob Langert of McDonald's, Dr. Temple Gradin, and Dr. Steve Gross of PETA met. Langert claimed he had no items to discuss. A plant had failed Gradin's inspection, and Langert did not know what steps would be taken. Only four out eleven plants passed a 1996 USDA audit. Langert was opposed to these unannounced audits. Most of the plants, according to Gradin, failed because the lines were moving too quickly to stun the animals properly, and that this could be accomplished by hiring one more person (Gross 1999). Meanwhile, on their website, McDonald's boasts that "A Commitment to Quality Includes a Commitment to Animal Welfare (McDonald's Commitment to Quality Includes a Commitment to Animal Welfare). Temple Gradin reports that, in 1996, prior to her work with McDonald's, in a study with the Department of Agriculture, ten plants were audited. Only three of these plants were in compliance with American Meat Institute guidelines. In 1999, however, Gradin audited 19 plants with the McDonald's food safety team, and compliance had risen to 74%. 50% of the beef and pork suppliers have been audited, and chicken plants are next on the agenda (Gradin 1999). On the site as well are links to the American Meat Institute. AMI counters PETA's claims that vegetarianism is sweeping the nation with hard numbers. Consumption of meat has been on the rise in America since 1967, increasing at an average of 8.53 pounds of meat per person each decade (American Meat Institute). In addition, they justify the lack of stunners with religious provisions for slaughter of animals. The ones included on the site are Jewish and Muslim. Jewish people must eat kosher meat, which means that the slaughter is performed by a specially trained religious official, known as a "Schochet", that uses a long, razor-sharp knife called a chalef that renders the animal insensitive to pain with a single cut. This method does not involve, or need, a stunner, an argument for McDonald's. The Muslim Koran uses Hallal slaughter and forbids consumption of blood pork, animals that died from strangulation falls, or other animals, or animals that were dedicated to other religions. Muslims can slaughter animals on their own by invoking the name of Allah, but their methods do not allow for stunning, either. Both the Kosher and Hallal have used the "shackle and hoist" method, in which the animal is hoisted prior to being rendered insensible by a cut to its neck. Hoisting the animal while conscious causes stress from the animal trying to right itself. Standing restraint devices are gaining acceptance, since the "shackle and hoist" method is growing increasingly rare. Muslims are also starting to allow for "reversible head" or temporary stunning, which is not permanent, but makes the animal insensitive to pain (American Meat Association). Did McDonald's link to this site to justify the lack of stunners to PETA, or does the corporation really cater to the religious needs of the customers? So began the newest chain of events. According to Dr. Steven Gross of PETA, in order for McDonald's ability to honestly to claim "commitment to animal welfare" would involve I. With regard to Temple's category one issues: 1.Suppliers would be given specific criteria such as those spelled out by Temple. 2. Since meeting these criteria is simple, suppliers would be given a short time-frame to meet the criteria (one month). 3. A one-warning system would be implemented. 4. Unannounced audits would be a regular ongoing part of the animal welfare process. 5. Plants found to be out of compliance would be subjected to at least one unannounced audit per month until the plant had demonstrated compliance for six consecutive months. 6. Failure to pass an audit after one warning would result in termination as a McDonald's supplier. II. In order to implement these standards, a few additional steps would be taken: 1. Project personnel would include experts in the field of animal science. A good example would be Ph.D.'s in animal science, such as Dr. Gonzales. 2. Authority would be given to these people to require compliance with standards that end egregious practices such as inadequate stunning, animals still conscious on the bleed rail, conscious animals being placed in scalding tanks, etc. III. More generally: 1. Public statements regarding to McDonald's commitment to animal welfare would include criteria, time frames, and consequences for failure to comply. 2. McDonald's would negotiate in good faith with PETA. For example, questions would be addressed in a timely manner that reflects the urgency of the issues discussed. McDonald's staff would be prepared for meetings. McDonald's staff would be proactive and partner with PETA, rather than reactive and reluctant to "talk with us". The focus would be on solving animal welfare problems, not providing public relations statements, e.g., "McDonald's is a leader." Conversations with PETA would be given the time accorded to serious issues. Periodic face-to-face meetings would be scheduled (Gross 1999).   Even after the memos, McDonald's did not comply with PETA's demands, and still did not meet with them. Fed up with the lack of progress, Dr. Gross cut off negotiations on August 12, 1999. He accused McDonald's of lying about commitment to animal welfare on its website when the corporation STILL had not hired another stunner, and lying about their actions in assigning animal welfare to their public relations department. This was the beginning of PETA's current crusade against McDonald's(Gross 1999). Bruce Friedrich, PETA's Vegetarian Campaign Coordinator followed Gross' memo with one of his own, questioning the meaning of "delisting" a slaughterhouse that did not comply with standards. He also shoots down McDonald's attempt to meet face-to-face because they would not meet with PETA for two years (Friedrich 1999). Marketing (a UK magazine) printed an article on September 16, 1999 stating that McDonald's was still facing a backlash from McLibel, and that it was probably the conversation at the gathering in Chicago celebrating 25 years of UK business (Marketing 1999). PETA declared October "Slam McDonald's Month", with worldwide protests, billboards, advertisements, and pamphlets galore. The sign was a picture of a bloody cow head with the words "McCruelty to Go" above it (Peta Declares October Slam McDonald's Month 1999) David Morris also began an effort to ban advertising to children, with the possibility of going to court again if the Independent Television Commission rules against him. He calls for the public to flood the ITC with complaints and includes a form letter on his website (Ronald McDonald Ad Ban Bid - You Can Help). PETA also began their "Jesus was a vegetarian campaign in October, with a man dressed as Jesus appealing to workers to honor Saint Francis by not killing animals on October 4th, his feast day (Jesus was a Vegetarian 1999). In addition to the vegetarianism campaign, PETA is currently running campaigns against Proctor and Gamble, fur, circuses and animals in entertainment, premarin, fishing, animal experimentation and PETA is also running a college action campaign (Campaigns). Is McDonald's beating down yet another underdog, or does McDonald's need its break today? Public relations, media coverage, and biased sources betray the truth behind the case. Bibliography: American Meat Institute. "New Developments in Humane Handling". Online. Available www.meatami.org/animal_kit_ritual_slaughter.htm. American Meat Institute. "Vegetarianism". Online. Available www.meatami.org/animal_kit_vegitarianism.htm. (November 1999) "Anti McDonald's Campaign News". Online. Available www.mcspotlight.org/media/press/msc_nov99.html. Bell, Justice Rodger. (1997) "Judgment: Justice Bell's Verdict. Online. Available www.mcspotlight.org/case/trial/verdict/vedict.html. "Campaigns". Online. Available www.petaonline.org/cmp/index.html. "Curriculum Vitae: Mr. Justice Rodger Bell". Online. Available www.mcspotlight/org/../people/biogs/bell.html. Friedrich, Bruce. (September 12, 1999) "Join in the Campaign Against McDonalds". Email. Friedrich, Bruce. (October 18, 1999) "PETA Responds to McDonald's PR Pronouncements". Online. www.meatstinks.com/mcd/prememo.heml. Gradin, Temple. (1999) "McDonald's Animal Welfare Progress Report". Online. Available www.mcdonald.com/corporate/info/welfare/progress/index.htmls. Gross, Dr. Steven Jay. (August 12,1999) "Memo Cutting off Negotiations". Online. Available www.meatstinks.com/mcd/memocutoff.html. Gross, Dr. Steven Jay. (June 25, 1999) "Third Memo Detailing McDonald's Meeting. Online. www.meatstinks.com/mcd/thirdmemo.html. (February 1996) "Highly Confidential 60 Minutes Strategy McDonald's Australia. Online. Available www.mcspotlight.org/company/statements/60min.html. (February 12, 1994) "Interview with Helen Steel and David Morris, Defendants in the McDonald's Libel Lawsuit. Online. Available www.mcspotlight.org/../people/interviews/dave_morris1.html. (October 1, 1998) "'Jesus' Visits Slaughterhouse to Deliver Vegetarian Message: Ad calls on Christians to Give Meat the Boot". Online. Available www.petaonline.org/news/jesusva1098.htm (1999) "McDonald's Commitment to Quality Includes a Commitment to Animal Welfare". Online. Available www.mcdonalds.com/corporate/ingo/welfare/index.html. "McSpotlight Photo Album". Online. Available www.mcspotlight.org/album/index/html. (September 16, 1999) "McDonald's Still Facing McLibel Backlash", Marketing Online. Available www.mcspotlight.org/media/press/marketing_sep99.html (September, 1999) "PETA Declares October Slam McDonald's Month". Online. Available www.meatstinks.com/mcd/month.html. (October 10,1999) "Ronald McDonald Ad Ban Bid - You Can Help". Online. Available www.mcspotlight.org/campaigns/current/itcadban_99.html. "The McLibel Trial Story". Online. Available www.mcspotlight.org/case/trial/story.html. "The McLibel Trial: Evidence". Online. Available www.mcspotlight.org/case/trial/evidence.html. Vidal, John. (1997) McLibel: Burger Culture on Trial. Macmillan. (1986)"What's Wrong With McDonald's". Online. Available www.mcspotlight.org/case/factsheet.html.

This page design copyright 1999 by Steve N. Jackson.

Contents copyright 1999 by Steve N. Jackson and Authors.

Student enrolled in Journalism 110 are actively encouraged to use

the code from this page.

Version 7.09 (19 July).