Information from the McLibel Support Campaign, c/o London Greenpeace, 5 Caledonian Road, London N1 9DX, UK (Tel/fax +44-171-713 1269). 3 October, 1994 +++++THE MCLIBEL TRIAL CONTINUES+++++ After several years of pre-trial hearings, the McDonalds libel case against two unwaged campaigners - who were allegedly involved in distribution in 1989/1990 of the London Greenpeace leaflet "What's Wrong With McDonald's" - finally began at the end of June. ++++++REMINDER OF THE BACKGROUND++++++ A total of approximately 170 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 McDonald's own staff. They will include environmental and nutritional experts, trade unionists, McDonald's employees, customers and top executives. McDonald's 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 McDonald's request. And, with no right to Legal Aid in libel cases, they are forced to conduct their own defence against the McDonald's team of top libel lawyers. The trial is open to members of the press and public (Court 35, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2 - nearest Underground Temple or Holborn) and is set to run until at least March 1995. ++++++++++++ NOW READ ON............ ++++++++++ ++++++++++THE SIXTH AND SEVENTH WEEKS OF THE TRIAL (weeks beginning 12 and 19 Sept) were taken up with McDonald's witnesses on DIET & CANCER, ADDITIVES, DIET & DIABETES, and MARKETING; and with a Defence witness on ADVERTISING and NUTRITION.+++++++++++++++++++ DR SIDNEY ARNOTT: On 12 & 13th September, Dr Arnott (McDonald's expert on cancer) returned to be cross-examined by the Defendants. He argued that although there had been a great deal of research into cancer the exact causes were not proven. He was not convinced by the evidence linking a high fat/low fibre diet to cancers of the breast and bowel, although he accepted that a high fat diet was linked to heart disease, diabetes and also obesity (which he agreed might increase the risks of some forms of cancer). MODERN DIET LINKED TO CHRONIC DISEASES - The Defendants referred him to the conclusions and recommendations of a wide range of authoritative medical, scientific, advisory and governmental bodies including the major 1990 World Health Organisation (WHO) Report which stated "dietary factors are now known to influence the development of ... heart disease, various cancers, hypertension ... and diabetes. These conditions are the commonest cause of premature death in developed countries. ...The 'affluent' type of diet that often accompanies economic development is energy dense. People consuming these diets characteristically have a high intake of fat (especially saturated fat) and free sugars and a relatively low intake of complex carbohydrates (from starchy, fibre-containing foods). Such diets are well established in developed countries, and are now becoming more common in most developing countries. ...This change in diet can now be linked to the increasing incidence of chronic diseases and of premature death. Evidence suggests that many of these premature deaths should be preventable by changes in diet and in other aspects of lifestyle. ...Their prevention or reduction is both a social responsibility and an economic necessity." Dr Arnott reluctantly admitted that the World Health Organisation was "probably" the most influential health organisation in the world. The Defendants quoted similar views linking diet with cancer from one of McDonald's own booklets from 1985 (not displayed in their stores), which Dr Arnott said was "reasonable" and "sensible" advice. "KISS OF DEATH" - In addition, the Defendants asked Dr Arnott's opinion of the following statement: "A diet high in fat, sugar, animal products and salt, and low in fibre, vitamins and minerals, is linked with cancer of the breast and bowel and heart disease." He replied: "If it is being directed to the public then I would say it is a very reasonable thing to say." The court was then informed that the statement was an extract from the London Greenpeace Factsheet. This section had been characterised at pre-trial hearings as the central and most "defamatory" allegation, which if proven would be the "kiss of death"(*) for a fast-food company like McDonald's. On the strength of the supposed scientific complexities surrounding this issue the Defendants had been denied their right to a jury. (* -- Richard Rampton QC for McDonald's, Court of Appeal, 16th March 1994.) STEVEN GARDNER: On 15th & 16th September Stephen Gardner, former Assistant Attorney General of Texas, gave evidence for the Defence. Mr Gardner told how, in April 1986, a number of States including Texas held meetings with the major fast-food companies in order to force them to comply with food labelling regulations. They were told to provide ingredient and nutritional information to customers about each product sold. He said that McDonald's had been the most "recalcitrant" and "had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the fold". Eventually general agreement was reached and it was planned to make announcements to the press that the information was available from all the major chains. McDonald's told the Attorneys General that they needed more time before they were ready. However, the company then issued a unilateral press release claiming they were voluntarily pioneering a unique project to provide this information. The huge public row which followed lead to extensive press coverage attacking McDonald's deception. An internal company memo sent out at that time was read to the court which revealed that McDonald's had produced ingredient brochures "to help blunt the growing interest of state and federal lawmakers for ingredient labelling legislation". ADVERTISING DECEIT - The former Assistant Attorney General continued by explaining how, in the following year, McDonald's began a major, but deceptive, advertising campaign. The company claimed it was an "informational" campaign about the content of their food. However, the company's own internal magazine stated that the aim was "a long term commitment beginning with a year-long advertising schedule" ... "to neutralise the junk food misconceptions about McDonald's good food." The buzz words in almost all the ads were "nutrition", "balance" and "McDonald's good food". After the series of ads hit the news-stands, the Attorney General of Texas, in conjunction with the two other major states, wrote a letter to McDonald's on 24th April 1987 stating: "The Attorneys General of Texas, California and New York have concluded our joint review of McDonald's recent advertising campaign which claims that McDonald's food is nutritious. Our mutual conclusion is that this advertising campaign is deceptive. We therefore request that McDonald's immediately cease and desist further use of this advertising campaign. The reason for this is simple: McDonald's food is, as a whole, not nutritious. The intent and result of the current campaign is to deceive customers into believing the opposite. Fast food customers often choose to go to McDonald's because it is inexpensive and convenient. They should not be fooled into eating there because you have told them it is also nutritious. ...The new campaign appears intended to pull the wool over the public's eyes." Mr Gardener also referred the court to some of the specific examples of inaccuracies and distortions in the 16 individual advertisements. He related how, after the three States had threatened legal action if the ads were repeated, McDonald's promised to stop the ads. At the current trial McDonald's claim that the ads were not dropped and were later printed again. However, of the four ads they said had been run after the threats, three were not the specific ads referred to in the complaints, one was not from the original series of ads at all, and none mentioned "nutrition", "balance" or "McDonald's good food". PROFESSOR RONALD WALKER - ADDITIVES: McDonald's called Professor Walker, their expert on additives and toxicology. The company uses dozens of additives in its food. The Defendants have cited nine of these (E110/Sunset Yellow, E124/Amaranth, E250/Sodium Nitrite, E252/Potassium Nitrate, E320/BHA, E321/BHT, E407/Carrageenan, 621/Monosodium Glutamate, 924/Potassium Bromate) as potentially detrimental to health; most of them are banned in one or more countries. Professor Walker explained that the main basis for permitting additives as "safe" was that they had been tested on animals. (He said tests on humans were unethical.) He admitted that animals had a different metabolism to humans, that the small number of animals used in each experiment would not reflect the vast diversity of human situations, and that the results were not always consistent. However, as a result of these tests an "Acceptable Daily Intake" for humans is usually set. Allergies. The animal tests, Professor Walker admitted, failed to predict allergies and some other "intolerances", and he went on to accept that many people (about "one in a thousand") were allergic to the colouring additives E110 & E124. He stated there was also "anecdotal" evidence that four of the additives provoked hyperactivity in kids. His opinion was that food should be properly labelled so that people could avoid the additives. Professor Walker agreed that one of the nine additives, Potassium Bromate, was known to be carcinogenic. It had been used in the manufacture of all McDonald's bread buns until 1990 when it was banned. Walker also acknowledged that the basis for permitting the use of additives varied from country to country, taking into consideration "the balance of safety and need" (i.e. the food industry's modern processing needs). Styrene migration into food. Finally, Professor Walker agreed that styrene can migrate from polystyrene packaging into food (especially fatty foods). He said that the International Agency for the Research on Cancer had classified styrene as possibly carcinogenic to humans. Also styrene can be transformed in the body into styrene oxide, which he said appeared to be much more hazardous to human health. He said that more styrene from "the polluted urban atmosphere" also gets into the body. He referred to a survey which claimed that "100% of subjects studied in the USA had detectable levels of styrene in their body fat". ALISTAIR FAIRGRIEVE - MARKETING: Alistair Fairgrieve, McDonald's UK Marketing Services Manager, outlined some of the research undertaken by the company to discover what customers were thinking and the effects of advertising, with the aim of increasing the number of customers visiting McDonald's and the frequency of visits. They are part of a fast food "syndicate" which does an annual phone survey of eating habits of 60,000 people. They also do their own "customer profile" questionnaires etc. Mr Fairgrieve explained that questions were asked about seventeen "functional" and "emotional" attributes which were "ranked in terms of importance" to McDonald's. "At the top there are the ones by which we stand or fall." At the bottom were four categories: "Food is Filling", "Good Value For Money", "Use Top Quality Ingredients", and finally "Nutritious Food". Some interesting conclusions were reported for 1994: 91% agreed that McDonald's was a "place kids enjoy", whereas only 47% a "place adults enjoy" (up from 31% in 1992). Only 34% agreed it "offers low price" and only 30% felt that it sold "nutritious food" (up from 19% in 1992). Advertising and "emotional pull". Fairgrieve explained how the company boosted some of the lower percentages by building people's "trust" and their "emotional pull" to the company - this was achieved by "a repositioning of McDonald's as a brand in late 1992 and the launch of a new advertising theme". He later stated "it is our objective to dominate the communications area ... because we are competing for a share of the customer's mind". Further interpretation of various survey results was hampered by a lack of background information and statistics; Mr Fairgrieve was told to return at a later date with such details. PROFESSOR HARRY KEEN - DIET & DIABETES: On the links between diet and diabetes, McDonald's called Professor Harry Keen, former chair of the World Health Organisation's (WHO) Expert Committee on Diabetes. He stated that diabetes and its complications are estimated to affect about 5% of "western" populations. There were two main types of diabetes. The more common type, non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, was usually diagnosed after middle life. He said that obesity was shown to be clearly linked with increased risk of this type of diabetes. He said that "the link between obesity and diabetes development is universally accepted". In general the whole UK population was becoming more obese, and as physical activity falls (with use of cars etc) people need to cut back even more on energy intake (fat is the most concentrated form of energy in the diet). The Defendants referred Professor Keen to sections of the 1990 WHO Report on Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases. One extract suggested that the optimal percentage of food energy obtained from dietary fat should be 15-20%. (UK governmental recommendations are 30% - these were set as an "achievable" target given the average current levels of fat intake which are much higher. McDonald's have admitted that most of their main meals are above even that figure.) Professor Keen said that "dietary factors are now known to be associated with the development of a wide range of chronic diseases", including heart disease, hypertension, cancer and diabetes. His view of WHO reports was that they "represent state of the art and the state of the scientific opinion so they are regarded with considerable respect". +++++++ The case continues. +++++++ +++++++MCLIBEL TRIAL DIARY+++++++++ The court has not been sitting during the week commencing 26th September. EIGHTH WEEK (COMMENCING 3RD OCTOBER) - TO INCLUDE MORE ON DIET & HEALTH, NUTRITION Monday 3rd October: Geoffrey Cannon (Defence expert witness - diet and health) Tuesday 4th October: Professor Michael Crawford (Defence expert witness - diet and cancer & heart disease) Wednesday 5th October: Professor Michael Crawford (continuation) Thursday 6th October: Tim Lobstein (Defence expert - diet and health, and nutrition) Friday 7th October: Tim Lobstein (continuation); Richard Brown (Defence expert witness - diet and heart disease) The trial is open to members of the press and public, starting at 10.30am daily: Court 35, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2. (Please note that the nearest underground station - Aldwych - is no longer even open in the rush hours; as part of the continuing cut-backs in public transport provision in London, the Holborn-Aldwych shuttle service has this month been closed "for good". Please use Temple or Holborn - each is within walking distance of the court.) +++++++ 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. ============================================================== Previous updates are available on the World Wide Web on Chris Harrison's page at http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/~harrison/Environment/Environment.html or via Nick Fiddes pages at http://anthfirst.san.ed.ac.uk/ Please distribute the update far and wide. If you would like to receive weekly updates about the trial please e-mail me at coniberr@cs.man.ac.uk Richard