💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › SPUNK › sp000957.txt captured on 2022-03-01 at 16:44:56.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
US McLibel Support Campaign Press Office
c/o Vermonters Organized for Clean-up, Box 120, East Calais VT 05650
802-472-6996 or 802-586-9628, dbriars@world.std.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8th January, 1994
The Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Sixteenth & Seventeenth Weeks Of The Trial
(14th November - 9th December 1994).
CONTENTS:
The Mclibel Trial Continues
Background
Edward Oakley, For Mcdonald's, Purchasing Ractices And Policies
Fraudulent Recycling Scheme
'Excess Waste Is A Benefit'
'Nutrition Not Important'
Animals
Rainforest Beef And Soya
Political Influence?
Susan Dibb, For The Defendants, On Advertizing And Public Health
Requests Regulatory Action Against Child Ads
Pester Power
Toys And Gimicks
Use Of Characters In Ads
Government Attempts To Curb Child Advertizing
Terence Mallinson, For Mcdonalds, Use Of Forest Resources
Plantation Forestry
Casper Van Erp, For Mcdonalds, Packaging
Polystyrene And Paper
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8th January, 1994
The Mclibel Trial Continues
After several years of pre-trial hearings, the McDonalds libel case
against two environmentalists - who were allegedly involved in distribution
in 1989/1990 of the London Greenpeace leaflet "What's Wrong With McDonalds"
- began at the end of June 1994. It is set to run until DECEMBER 1995.
Background
A total of approximately 180 UK and international witnesses will give
evidence in court about the effects of the company's advertising and the
impact of its operating practices and food products on the environment, on
millions of farmed animals, on human health, on the Third World, and on
McDonalds' own staff. They will include environmental and nutritional
experts, trade unionists, McDonald's employees, animal welfare experts and
top executives.
McDonalds have claimed that wide-ranging criticisms of their operations, in
a leaflet produced by London Greenpeace, have defamed them, so they have
launched this libel action against two people (Dave Morris & Helen Steel)
involved with the group.
Prior to the start of the case, McDonald's issued leaflets nationwide
calling their critics liars. So Helen and Dave themselves took out a
counterclaim for libel against McDonald's which will run concurrently with
McDonald's libel action.
Helen and Dave were denied their right to a jury trial, at McDonalds'
request. And, with no right to Legal Aid in libel cases, they are forced
to conduct their own defense against McDonald's team of top libel lawyers.
The trial is open to members of the press and public (Court 35, Royal
Courts of Justice, The Strand, London WC2) and is set to run until DECEMBER
1995.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Sixteenth & Seventeenth Weeks Of The Trial (14th
November - 9th December 1994).
Edward Oakley, For Mcdonald's, Purchasing Ractices And Policies
Edward Oakley, Chief Purchasing Officer and Senior Vice-President of
McDonald's UK and Ireland, gave evidence about the company's purchasing
policies and practices. He is responsible for both the purchasing and
quality assurance departments, including for Northern Europe.
Mr Oakley claimed that McDonald's have a consciousness of environmental
considerations and referred to the company's 'environmental task force' and
a corporate environmental policy. He stated he did not know when this
policy was published, but he had seen it 'on a wall' at their head office.
He said the policy 'had not had any direct effect on the Purchasing
Department', but 'it certainly did on the Communications [PR] Department'.
Fraudulent Recycling Scheme
When questioned about the company's so called "Environmental initiatives",
Mr Oakley denied that these were in the main a propaganda exercise.
However, one of their nationally available 'McFact' cards publicized a
scheme to recycle polystyrene waste from Nottingham stores, where customers
were asked to put polystyrene packaging into a separate bin, "for recycling
into such things as plant pots, coat hangers and insulation material for
use in homes, even fillings for duvets". Mr Oakley admitted that despite
the scheme continuing for several years, the company did not recycle any of
the waste, and in fact the polystyrene was 'dumped'.
Mr Oakley denied that the production, transportation and disposal of
packaging was damaging to the environment. When asked why McDonald's
didn't make use of reusable plates and cutlery, Mr Oakley replied 'I do not
think it would be as safe' and asserted that disposable packaging was more
energy efficient and that 'you would certainly pollute the air through
cleaning and washing reusables. So, I think in balance take-away packaging
is better'. He admitted that the company had not seriously looked into
reusables in this country.
In recent years, the company had moved to increase their use of recycled
paper in packaging. When asked 'to what extent was the move toward
recycled content a consequence of McDonald's desire to create for itself a
user-friendly image in the public mind', Mr Oakley said 'It was a
consideration without a doubt, it was not the prime mover'. The prime
mover was a 'commercial consideration', 'the more virgin paper you use the
less is available generally, if we all only ever used virgin paper, the
price would rocket'.
Questioned about the environmental impact of paper versus polystyrene
packaging, Mr Oakley said it was six of one and half a dozen of the other.
He said McDonald's preferred to use polystyrene because they could recycle
it, but admitted that the only polystyrene being recycled was some of the
packaging from a scheme involving five stores in Manchester (the company
has over 550 stores in the UK). He claimed the company aimed to expand the
scheme, but agreed that the company 'had gone nowhere with that for the
last two years or so'.
He admitted that when McDonald's UK introduced CFCs in their polystyrene
packaging in 1986 they were aware of the ozone damage caused by CFCs in
aerosols. Press reports revealed that in 1987 Friends of the Earth had
called for a boycott of McDonald's products over the use of CFCs. The
following year, the company abandoned CFC usage, but Mr Oakley denied that
the boycott was a consideration.
'Excess Waste Is A Benefit'
In some countries, the company had abandoned or limited the use of
polystyrene packaging, in part because it was not biodegradable and took up
a lot of space in landfill sites. Mr Oakley stated that there was 'no
landfill problem in the UK'. When asked whether he believed that 'as long
as there is room in the dumps, there is no problem with dumping lots of
McDonald's waste in the ground?', Mr Oakley stated 'and everybody else's
waste, yes, that is true'. He said 'I can see [the dumping of waste] to be
a benefit, otherwise you will end up with lots of vast, empty gravel pits
all over the country'. Asked if he was 'asserting it is an environmental
benefit to dump waste in landfill sites', he stated 'It could be'.... 'yes,
it is certainly not a problem'.
Mr Oakley admitted that, with the exception of the five Manchester stores,
all post-consumer waste in the UK either ends up as litter or gets dumped
in landfill sites. Defending McDonald's use of large quantities of
packaging, he said that the use of colorful cartons with company logos was
'to put the brand across directly to the customer'....'for image, brand
image'.
'Nutrition Not Important'
McDonald's was on the record as saying it supported the dietary
recommendations (to improve the population's health) in the 'Health of the
Nation'. Mr Oakley said that the company was moving 'to lower levels of
usage' of fat and salt in the company's products. He added that reducing
salt and sugar content was 'a responsible thing to do' as it would be
'healthier for the customers'.
However, when quizzed about why McDonald's didn't oven bake its fruit pies
rather than deep frying them, Mr Oakley said that the cost of setting up
the ovens could not be justified as 'the baked apple pie does not sell any
more than the fried apple pie'.....'so why spend the money?'. When it was
suggested that the company install the ovens 'for concern for your
customers health', Mr Oakley said 'we do not see it as a concern'. He was
asked 'you do not see reducing the fat content as a concern?' and replied
'No. Why do we need to?'.
When asked if the company had considered selling fruit as an initiative to
support the 'Health of the Nation', Mr Oakley stated 'We found it was not
very practical. We are not quite sure how we would serve it. It does not
really fit in with the way we do business'..... 'If you put a fruit bowl in
there, there could be mayhem at the front counter, frankly'.
Mr Oakley said he had responsibility for the nutrition guides currently
available in McDonald's stores. When asked what 'nutritious' means in the
guide, he stated 'foods that contain nutrients'. Asked if there was any
food he knew of that is not nutritious, he said 'I do not know if you would
call it food or not, but you could put up an argument for black coffee or
black tea or mineral water'. Asked 'what about Coca Cola?', he said 'Coca
Cola has a good source of energy, no question of that'. He was then asked
if he thought it was nutritious, to which he replied 'yes, it can be'.
Mr Oakley said McDonald's did not have a department responsible solely for
nutrition. He stated that 'it is not felt to be an important enough issue
to have a separate nutritional department like the company have marketing
or communications departments'.
Animals
As part of the Quality Assurance remit, Mr Oakley said he had a
responsibility for animal welfare. He claimed that the company 'had a very
real feeling that animals should be kept and slaughtered in the most humane
way possible' and so had published an animal welfare statement two years
ago. When questioned about this so-called policy, Mr Oakley admitted that
the 'animal welfare policy is, in fact, just a policy to comply with the
laws of the various countries in which McDonald's operate', and added 'we
do not go beyond what the law stipulates'.
McDonald's eggs are supplied from battery units. Mr Oakley said the
company had thought about switching to free range eggs, but, not only were
battery eggs '50% cheaper', but, he claimed 'undoubtedly, hens kept in
batteries are better cared for, they are less open to predators, they
certainly are less open to rodents than on free range, and they are less
open to disease'. He said he thought battery cages were 'pretty
comfortable'.
Rainforest Beef And Soya
Mr Oakley said 10-20% of their UK beef supplies are from outside the UK.
He admitted that the company had purchased beef from Brazil (in 1983/4).
He claimed that it was for a relatively short period of time, but said he
was not sure how long exactly. A letter from the US Corporation to a
member of the public in the UK in 1982 stated "McDonald's has a long
standing policy of buying all of our products from suppliers in the host
country where we are doing business"......."as a result we can assure you
that the only Brazilian beef used by McDonald's is that purchased by the
six stores located in Brazil itself". Mr Oakley said he thought the letter
was referring to the finished products (hamburgers), it was not 'talking
about raw ingredients'. He denied that the purchase of Brazilian beef for
use in the UK was in breach of McDonald's policy saying 'No, it was not.
We still bought the hamburgers locally. We did not buy the ingredients
locally'.
The Defendants referred to the controversy over Brazilian sources of soya
feed for cattle. Mr Oakley admitted that cattle from the UK and elsewhere
are fed with soya, and he claimed that McDonald's had 'no policy' on soya
feed - however, this was contradicted by a 1991 Corporation policy document
which Mr Oakley claimed he had never seen.
Political Influence?
Mr Oakley stated he had had dinners with government ministers 'from time to
time', for 'informational' purposes or, for example, to get 'advice' if
they had 'planning problems for new sites'. He also accepted that Margaret
Thatcher had opened the company's Headquarters, that her former election
agent is now Head of the Communications Department, and that her former
press secretary, Bernard Ingham, is now a non-executive Director.
Susan Dibb, For The Defendants, On Advertizing And Public Health
Susan Dibb, researcher and author of reports on food advertising to
children, gave expert evidence for the Defendants on the nature and effect
of such advertising. On behalf of the National Food Alliance (NFA), which
campaigns to protect and improve the public's health, she had examined the
impact of advertising on children's food preferences and choices and had
made submissions to the Independent Television Commission (ITC) for
restrictions on food advertising to children. She had found 'that the
majority of food and drink advertisements screened during children's TV
programming are for foods/drinks that are high in fat and/or sugars - the
kind of foods which are unlikely to promote healthier eating'. There were
virtually no ads for 'fruits and vegetables and other foods which we are
being encouraged to eat more of to improve the nation's health'.
Requests Regulatory Action Against Child Ads
She believed that in the debate over the future of food advertising 'public
health should be given priority' over the wishes of advertisers. The
National Food Alliance, backed by 50 national organizations, had called for
action by regulatory bodies to restrict the content and frequency of food
advertising to children. She felt the ITC did not enforce its existing
codes effectively and it failed to consider the cumulative effects of
advertisements. To protect children's health, the NFA had called on the
ITC to ban advertising of sugary and fatty foods at times when large
numbers of children were likely to be watching television. In her view,
'the cumulative effect of much food advertising does result in harm to
children, in the sense that it encourages inappropriate nutritional
practices which will have implications for children's health and their
health in later life'.
Ms Dibb criticized McDonald's 'misleading' attempts to associate its
products with health, fitness and sport. She was also concerned about the
'underlying promotional message' in McDonald's links with schools,
dentists, etc, and in their increasing sponsorship activity, stating that
whilst it appeared to be altruistic it was 'advertising in a covert way'.
Evidence showed, she said, that 'children are highly influenced by
advertising' (some research showed them to be three times more responsive
than adults) and there was a 'causal link between advertising and food
selection... the higher the viewing for particular advertisements, the
greater the children's requests for these products'.
Pester Power
Children, described by one marketing company as an "advertisers' dream",
were effectively encouraged to wield 'pester power' over their parents. In
a recent survey nearly half of the parents of children aged over 5 said
they often gave in to buying foods they would not otherwise buy as a result
of that pester power. Almost two thirds of those questioned felt there
should be tougher restrictions on advertising of food and soft drinks to
children.
Toys And Gimicks
Ms Dibb had attended a seminar organized by and for those in the
advertising industry entitled "Pester Power - how to reach kids in 1994",
which discussed the most effective techniques for advertising to children.
McDonald's, she said, use all such techniques in their ads - seeking to
'draw children into the McDonald's world'. One such technique, featuring
collectable toys in ads rather than the food products themselves, could be
considered a 'more insidious form of advertising' (this technique is banned
in Denmark).
Use Of Characters In Ads
Concerns have been raised about whether it is right to advertise at all to
young children who cannot fully understand the purpose of ads, but in any
event she said, 'understanding advertising's purpose is no defense against
its influence'. Use of characters (such as Ronald McDonald) was a major
trend in children's food and drink marketing and could be said to 'play on
children's affection and loyalty' to those characters and 'exploit their
emotions' (despite this being against the Independent Television
Commission's advertising code). Sections of McDonald's own operations
manual, said Ms Dibb, 'appeared to be a direct exhortation to managers to
use children's emotions and particularly their love for Ronald McDonald to
bring them into the store'. Asked if she had any concerns about this Ms
Dibb said 'I do not think it is ethical'.
Government Attempts To Curb Child Advertizing
In 1977, the UK Government's 'ANNAN' Committee recommended a ban on
advertising during children's programs, and other restrictions on child-
targeted products, because they were "concerned that advertisements
increased children's desire for products which their parents could not
afford". However, the ban did not come into effect because the TV
companies' "loss of revenue" took precedence. Similarly in the USA in
1979, the Federal Trade Commission proposed a ban on TV advertising to
under 8 year olds, but was defeated by fierce opposition from the
advertising industry. However, other countries, for example Norway and
Sweden, have severe restrictions on advertising to children, and in some
instances, outright bans.
Finally, Ms Dibb stated that, if McDonald's claim to support public health
initiatives was to be believed, she would expect them to look at providing
'a more healthful range of products' and to 'positively promote good
nutrition'.
Terence Mallinson, For Mcdonalds, Use Of Forest Resources
Terence Mallinson gave evidence for McDonald's, as Chair of the 'Forests
Forever' campaign, an organization set up by the Timber Trade Federation
(of which Mr Mallinson was formerly President) to represent the interests
of the forestry and timber industries in environmental issues.
Mr Mallinson defended McDonald's annual use of millions of kilos of paper
for their packaging. He asserted that forests were sustainably managed,
but admitted that until recently this had only meant in terms of a
'sustained yield' of timber. Following pressure from environmentalists
during the 1980's, it was now widely accepted, for the first time, that
forests 'should be sustainably managed to meet the social, economic,
ecological, cultural and spiritual needs of present and future
generations'. This included protection of biodiversity. Mr Mallinson said
that 'ecological sustainability was seldom, if ever, on the agenda of
either government or industrial organizations before the period of 1988/9'.
Plantation Forestry
McDonald's packaging is derived from forests in many countries, including
the UK, Canada, USA, Scandinavia (especially Finland), Germany, Italy,
France and the Czech Republic, mostly from managed forest monoculture
plantations. In the UK, Mr Mallinson agreed that approximately half of all
our natural woodland had been felled since 1945, and the forests planted
since were mostly coniferous monocultures until recently, when
environmental concerns and pressures led to some changes. He said that the
late 80's were a 'crossroads' worldwide regarding changing forestry
practices, with most European and Scandinavian countries now recognizing
the need to diversify forest cover. However, he agreed that cultivated
plantations 'cannot contain all the biological qualities and variations
that are to be found in natural forests'.
Mr Mallinson admitted that there were particular problems with coniferous
trees, which could acidify water courses to 'a point where the fish can no
longer survive'. In the USA and Canada particularly, there had been
problems with soil erosion, in some cases leading to the silting up of
rivers
Mr Mallinson had visited two pulp mills supplying McDonald's, using trees
from forests in Scotland and Finland. He admitted that in Finland (a major
source of McDonald's paper supplies), there had been government concern
over the hundreds of animal and plant species threatened by forest
management practices. There had also been environmentalist concern during
the 1980's about plantations in the Flow Country in northern Scotland,
following which further plantations in this area were halted as, he
admitted, they had 'disturbed the balance of nature'.
In the UK, pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers are used during the
establishment phase, in around one third of the planted areas.
Environmentalists were concerned about the leaching of these chemicals into
water courses and rivers. Mr Mallinson admitted that a significant amount
of these chemicals end up in the water table. In some European countries,
use of such chemicals was banned or heavily restricted.
He said the forest industry recognized the environmental and political
pressure to increase the use of recycled paper. 'Environmental pressures',
he said, on companies like McDonald's had affected the industry and led to
a 'change in environmental attitudes'.
Casper Van Erp, For Mcdonalds, Packaging
Casper Van Erp, representing the European section of Perseco, which designs
and supplies most of McDonald's packaging worldwide, gave evidence. He
said that 'McDonald's had quite a bad name and image' in environmental
literature in the 1980's, but had 'succeeded... to move that around, that
image... to quite a positive one'. He described McDonald's concerns in
terms of a feel-good factor for customers.
Polystyrene And Paper
In comparing the production and disposal of the various types of McDonald's
packaging, he stated that both paper and polystyrene had a 'negative
impact' on the environment, requiring energy consumption to produce, and
creating, for example, water-borne waste, landfill problems, and
atmospheric emissions. In the case of paper clamshells, emissions of 'acid
gases which contribute to acid rain', and in the case of polystyrene,
hydrocarbons (which contribute to smog formation).
When asked about waste disposal problems, he said that, for example in
Germany, 'people do not want new waste disposal sites or incineration sites
close to their place..... so they are running out of landfill space'. In
Germany, McDonald's has abandoned its polystyrene clamshell packaging, as
in several other countries including the USA. In some countries, penalties
have been imposed on companies for use of disposable packaging, and there
have been threats to outlaw such packaging.
Overall, McDonald's paper packaging in Europe contained little recycled
content until the 1990's. Mr Van Erp said there was 'expected to be an
economic advantage' in continuing to increase the amount of recycled paper
used in the packaging. The recycled paper used was predominantly 'post-
industrial' paper waste rather than 'post-consumer'. In the USA, many
environmentalists opposed the use of the term 'recycled' to describe such
paper because it could deceive consumers. McDonald's in the USA now
recognized this. Due to its low 'post-consumer' content, most of the
European packaging would not qualify under McDonald's US guidelines as
'recycled'.
Mr Van Erp agreed that it was not against the law to use recycled paper in
contact with food, contradicting McDonald's UK claims that they were unable
to increase the recycled content of their packaging because it would be
illegal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All quotes are taken directly from the court transcripts. For further
details about any of the above, contact the McLibel Support Campaign.
Campaign Statement: The McLibel Support Campaign was set up to generate
solidarity and financial backing for the McLibel Defendants, who are not
themselves responsible for Campaign publicity. The Campaign is also
supportive of, but independent from, general, worldwide, grassroots anti-
McDonalds activities and protests.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. McLibel Support Campaign
Press Office c/o Vermonters Organized for Clean-up
Box 120, East Calais VT 05650 Phone 802-568-9628
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe to the "mclibel" listserve, send email
To:majordomo@world.std.com
Subject: <not needed>
Body: subscribe mclibel
To unsubscribe, change the body to "unsubscribe mclibel"