I have been monitoring a list on First Amendment issues to which one of the discussants posted the following "blow-by-blow" of a lawsuit brought by McDonalds in London. I thought many of you would find it of interest. By the way, if you are interested in subscribing to the list address your subscription to [log in to unmask] with the message: subscribe AMEND1-L Here is the post, and it is long! Keith Maxwell University of Puget Sound >For your reading pleasure > >Subject: McLibel trial in London > > >[Summary: McDonald's is suing for Libel against some people who said > McDonald's food is bad for you. WWW links at the end point to stuff > including the original text that casued the hulabaloo.] > > > 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. Prof. Keith A. Maxwell | Voice: 206 756 3703 Legal and Ethical Studies in Business | Fax: 206 756 3500 1500 N. Warner | Internet: [log in to unmask] University of Puget Sound |--------------------------------------- Tacoma, WA 98416 | "Brevity is the soul of wit." | |