Friends of the Earth Birmingham Action Briefing Aug-Sept 97

What's wrong with McDonalds?
the legal system? the world?

A review of "McLibel, the Burger Culture on Trial", by John Vidal.

In January 1985 half a dozen people from London Greenpeace stood outside the McDonalds on the Strand handing out a fact sheet which asked "What's wrong with McDonalds?" They alleged that McDonalds chopped down rainforests, risked poisoning their customers, contributed to cruelty to animals, treated their workers poorly, exploited children in their advertising, served food of limited nutritional value and misled the public over the extent of recycled paper use.

In September 1990 David Morris and Helen Steel, along with three other members of London Greenpeace received letters from McDonalds threatening them with legal action if they did not apologise for the contents of the fact sheet, not the first occasion when the burger giant had attempted to use the legal system to silence those who threatened its reputation. In June 1994 the trial began.

On June 19th 1997 at the end of the longest libel trial in legal history, the judge found in favour of Morris and Steel on the issues of advertising and animal welfare and stated that the McDonalds did pay low wages. On the other issues he found in favour of McDonalds and the company was awarded £60,000 in damages.

'McLibel' inevitably contains plenty of descriptions of the courtroom drama. This in itself is surprisingly fascinating as it reveals to a limited extent the complexity and occasional hilarity of the trial . Morris and Steel and various expert witnesses argue endlessly over what exactly a 'rainforest' is; a McDonalds representative states without a hint of irony that McDonalds food must be nutritious because it contains nutrients; the vice-president of McDonalds UK tells the court that he is not a cow and that he can't talk to chickens. The sections focusing on the court also go some way to explain the extreme length of the trial, which was due not only to the intricate nature of the case but also the enormous gulf, culturally and ideologically, between Steel and Morris on one hand and the McDonalds representatives and their lawyer on the other. As Steel says "...two alternative worlds are here on show". Neither side really seemed to understand where the other was coming from.

However, the book is about much more than what went on inside Court 35. It is about the immense personal sacrifices made by Steel and Morris, some of which are familiar because they have already been printed in The Guardian, but most of which are not. The extent of their commitment, not just to this cause (by no means at the top of either of their priorities) but to a whole host of others including anti-Poll Tax protests, Aboriginal Land Rights, and demonstrations against the World Bank, is quite inspiring.

Another focal point is the unfairness of the British legal system. Two ordinary people are sued for defamation. They are given no legal aid, the European Convention on Human rights can do nothing to help them, and then they are denied a jury trial on the basis that ordinary people could not understand the issues involved. As a result they have to acquaint themselves with one of the most complex areas of English law, the libel laws. They are then required to fight their corner against one of the top libel lawyers who is being paid £2,000 a day. Steel and Morris have to rely on the voluntary efforts of the McLibel Support Campaign to gather the information needed in the case, the opposition can afford to employ any number of researchers.

Perhaps the most important sections of the book are those in which Vidal takes a broader view. He examines the development of modern free market economics, the impact of the World Bank, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the power of trans-national companies. In the Chapter entitled 'And it's not just Morris and Steel' the cases of Ken Saro Wiwa, the Zapatistas in Mexico who took up arms against land reforms designed to benefit American and Canadian companies, and rioters in Korea protesting against market driven cuts in government spending, are all used as examples to highlight the point that the health, happiness and lives of people all over the planet are being affected by companies like McDonalds.

All in all, the book, like the trial itself is interesting on a number of different levels: environmental, legal, and human, and because of that it never loses the readers interest. Although its outward appearance is slightly dauntingly thick it is a quick read, so read it!

G. Brentnall