McDonald's Linked to Rainforest Destruction
6/1/96
*******************************
RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:
The McLibel Trial
World Rainforest Report
Rainforest Information Centre
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
McDONALD'S LINKED TO RAINFOREST DESTRUCTION
We have followed the saga of the McLibel trial in the last two issues of
WRR. Now, dynamite testimony on McDonald-s connections with rainforest
destruction is emerging in this mammoth legal trial, now well into its
second year in London.
Teh McLibel trial is a mammoth legal battel between the $26 billion a year
McDonald's fast food conpany and two supporters of London Greenpeace --
Helen Steele ( 30) and Dave Morris (41) who between them have an income of
less than 7,000 pounds sterling a year. McDonald's are suing Steele and
Morris for libel over a factsheet produced by London Greenpeace, entitled
"What's Wrong With McDonald's?" , which McDonald-s allege they distributed
in 1989/90.
The Trial began on 28th June 1994 and became the longest civil case in
British history in December 1995. A total of approximately 180 UK and
international witnesses are giving evidence in court about the effects of
the companys operations on the environment, on human health, on millions of
farm animals, on the third world, and on McDonalds own staff. They include
environmental and nutritional experts, trade unionists, animal welfare
experts, McDonald-s employees, top executives, and four infiltrators
employed by McDonald-s. The Trial is set to run until Summer 1996.
Testimonies to Destruction
The section of the McLibel Trial on the connections between McDonald's and
rainforest destruction (particularly in Central and South America) began on
22nd February, with the testimony of Ray Cesca (Director of Global
Purchasing of the McDonald-s Corporation). McDonald's has been enmeshed in
controversy over its global promotion of beef consumption. The company
spends $1.5 billion annually on advertising and promotions, and is the
world's largest user of beef.
One of the reasons for the widespread opposition to the cattle industry is
the huge damage that cattle ranching has inflicted on tropical forests. The
Corporation has already had to recognise such damage (McDonald's letter 26
July 1982) but has tried to fob off its critics with claims that around the
world, they have never used any meat from cattle raised in former
rainforests (as stated in public announcements and official private
letters, in the hands of the defendants, dated from 22 Feb 1983 to Sept
1992).
At the start of the McLibel Trial, Richard Rampton QC (for McDonald's)
claimed that no beef had ever been exported to McDonald's anywhere in the
world from rainforest countries . The defendants argue that these are
blatant untruths and will be proven to be so.
The defendants are seeking Mr Cesca's explanation for the following:
(1) Central American Beef Imports
The Marketing Director of Co-op Montecillos (McDonald-s sole hamburger
processing plant for their Costa Rican stores) stated in a filmed interview
in 1982:
"We export meat to the US, 70% of the meat goes to food production outlets
such as restaurant chains like McDonald's...
Q. Which fast food chains do you supply?
A. We supply McDonald-s and Burger King. (From film Jungleburger , shown in
court).
(2) Ex-Rainforest Land Used in Costa Rica
Richard Rampton QC (for McDonald-s) admitted on the first day of the
McLibel Trial: "In Costa Rica, when the first McDonald-s restaurant was
opened in 1970, some of the land on which the beef was raised had been
rainforest up to the 1960s.. , ie. destroyed less than 10 years before".
(From official court transcript.)
(3) Row with Prince Phillip
McDonald's UK secretly imported 5 consignments of Brazilian beef in 1983/4,
as admitted by the company's witnesses during the trial. This followed a
blazing row in 1983 between George Cohon (McDonald-s Canadian President)
and Prince Philip (President of the World Wildlife Fund) over Brazilian
beef. (As described in the witness box by David Walker, Chairman of McKeys,
McDonald-s supply plant.) Brazilian beef has also been exported for
McDonald's use in Switzerland and Argentina in the 1990s (admitted by Dr
Gomez Gonzales, McDonald-s International Meat Purchasing Manager, in the
witness box).
(4)Damage Caused by Brazilian Beef
McDonald's Brazilian stores have been supplied with beef from regions where
ranches have damaged the environment and caused the eviction of peasant
farmers. Displacement of small farmers is recognised by McDonald's to be a
major cause of rainforest destruction as they have little alternative but
to move into the Amazon region to seek new land (by cutting the trees).
McDonald's has been supplied by a meat packing plant at Cuiaba* (inside the
official Amazon region and virtually bordering rainforest areas of
Rondonia, a region devastated by cattle ranching).
(5)Guatemalan Beef from Former Rainforest
The General Manager of McDonald-s hamburger supplier in Guatemala (Procasa)
has admitted that they use beef from regions deforested in the 1940s and
early 1950s . (Statement 7 June 1993.)
(6) EC Cattle fed on Brazilian Soya Feed
Brazilian exports of soya for cattle feed are controversial due to
destruction of tropical forests for soya production. McDonald-s have
accepted that Germany in the 1980s was the main importer of Brazilian soya
feed, most of which went to feed cattle in Bavaria - the source of
McDonald-s German beef supplies. (Statement of McDonald's witness.) German
beef has also been regularly supplied for McDonald's UK use (as accepted by
David Walker of McKeys).
Defence witnesses include:
- Charles Secrett, Director of Friends of the Earth, who participated in
meetings in 1985 between
FoE and McDonald-s regarding rainforest destruction.
- David Rose, a journalist for the Observer who interviewed a McDonald's PR
representative in 1993 concerning Costa Rican rainforest destruction.
- George Monbiot, an expert on Brazilian Amazon deforestation.
- Jean Carriere, an expert on Costa Rica.
- Douglas Shane, an expert from the USA on how the US beef labelling system
allows imported beef to be relabelled domestic beef and then sold on to
others including fast food chains.
- Ronnie Cummins, an expert from the USA on Guatemala and Costa Rica.
- Howard Lyman, former cattle rancher of 20 years experience, from Montana
(USA). He will give evidence on the methods and effects of cattle ranching
in the USA.
Other issues raised by the McLibel trial:
* Steel & Morris were denied their right to a jury trial and, with no right
to Legal Aid in libel cases, are forced to conduct their own defence
against McDonald's team of top libel lawyers.
* After McDonald's issued leaflets nationwide calling their critics liars,
the defendants Helen Steel and Dave Morris took out a counterclaim for
libel against McDonald's which is running concurrently with McDonald's
libel action.
* At the time of the first anniversary of the trial (June 1995), it was
widely reported that McDonald-s had initiated secret settlement
negotiations with Steel & Morris. They twice flew members of their US Board
of Directors to London to meet with the defendants to seek ways of ending
the case. McDonald's are clearly very worried about the way the case is
going for them and the bad publicity they are receiving.
* Over 1.5 million "What's Wrong With McDonald's" leaflets have been handed
out to the public in the UK alone since the action was started and
thousands of people have pledged to continue circulating the leaflets
whatever the verdict. It's clear that McDonald-s aim of suppressing the
leaflet has totally backfired.
Source: U.S. McLibel Support Campaign, Press Office, PO Box 62, Craftsbury
VT 05826-0062, USA. Phone/Fax 802-586-9628 Email dbriars@world.std.com
http://www.interlog.com/eye/Misc/McLibel
http://student.uq.edu.au:80/~s002434/mcl.html
WWF Pandas to McDonald's
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
McDonald's stores in Australia sell what they call "Happy Meals". The
colourful meal container carries pictures of a Tasmanian Tiger, a white
seal pup, a panda and a white rhinoceros - and underneath the World Wide
Fund for Nature (WWF) logo, the following announcement:
"You can help WWF save threatened species. Join WWF through this McDonald-s
Happy Meal and you will receive 50 wildlife stamps free! When you join you
will receive an enamel panda badge, a sticker and our quarterly magazine.
Just mail your name, age and address details with a cheque for $35 to
WWF/McDonald-s Stamp Offer, Locked Bag 21, Hawthorn, Vic 3122 or call 1800
032 551. Remember to mention this Happy Meal to receive your free stamps."
In response to a phone enquiry from RIC, a WWF spokesperson said that WWF
did not receive sponsorship money from McDonald's for the deal, and that
the initial approach for the WWF involvement in the "Happy Meals" came from
McDonald's. This promotion is clearly aimed at children and the presence of
the WWF logo is intended to give McDonald's a green image. Given the
McLibel revelations about McDonald's involvement in rainforest destruction,
it is unfortunate that WWF has allowed itself to be used in this way.
A Day in the Life of the McLibel Trial
February 23 1996
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The day began with McDonald's QC Richard Rampton questioning Ray Cesca,
McDonald's Director of Global Purchasing (a new post he took which had been
created to reflect the globalisation of trade ). He described how he spent
two weeks flying over large areas of Guatemala in a small plane marking on
a map which areas he considered suitable for cattle ranching, stopping off
at small airstrips to talk to farmers. He then completed the draft of the
map on his return to the office, defining areas of rain forest ( self
sustainable ), dense forest ( Not self sustainable ), dry forest, savannah,
pampas. People in the office then completed the drafting.
In court, copies of various maps were spread out by both sides and the
judge, and each attempted to ascertain what the others were referring to.
"We need a blackboard and a billiard cue" proffered Rampton helpfully.
Guatemala was represented by various varieties of cross-hatching in bands
across the country for the differing vegetations. It became clear that the
detail of McDonalds operations in the three south american countries,
Brazil, Costa Rica and Guatemala, were not thus being disclosed. Mr Cesca
defined the subsidiary suppliers as medium if turnover was in the order of
one billion dollars, and small if turnover was less than 500 million
dollars!
The judge asked about the availability of information concerning where the
ranches were that supplied McDonalds beef. Ray Cesca said that the
information was readily available -- all he had to do was ask for it from
the suppliers. He explained that they were arranged as co-operatives which
covered defined areas. These co-operatives bought from individual ranches.
There were even lists of invoices which detailed how many head of cattle
came from each ranch, and it would be quite easy to get hold of these too.
They were regularly reviewed in his dealings with the suppliers. A list of
co-operatives for one country for a given year might cover one sheet.
The defendants really wanted annual details of individual ranches going
back to 1988 when Mr Cesca first took up his post. The judge aired the
possibility of the plaintiffs asking for the summary one-sheet information
to be faxed to the UK given that the afternoon in the UK would be the
morning in America, but he didn't want a refusal by McDonald's to do this
to be used against them!
There was some speculation by Ray Cesca as to the size of the document that
would give details of all the ranches that supplied the co-operatives, his
conclusion being about 20 pages per country per year. Ranches would include
even the smallest suppliers to the co-operatives, say the man who brought
in a cow on the back of a pick-up truck. The idea of the one billion pound
company being supplied by little men unloading single cows off the back of
pick-up trucks sounded slightly implausible, but the judge clearly seemed
to regard all this extra paperwork as being far too much to ask McDonalds
to cope with at such short notice, and the idea of supplying the actual
invoices seemed to be positively distasteful!
The defendants made a formal application for disclosure, pointing out that
they had first asked for this three years earlier. Rampton spoke out
against any disclosure. The judge suggested that if the information was so
freely available from the processing plants as Mr Cesca had suggested
perhaps the defendants ought to consider phoning up and asking for it. He
seemed to imply that disclosure of this information would only be allowed
if the defendants had enough evidence without it to prove their side of the
case. He said he would not make his ruling on disclosure until the
following week but it was clear that it would be the summary one-sheet
information if lucky, or nothing.
Richard Rampton was keen to have Brazil excluded as this was not part of
the orginal case, and the judge seemed inclined to agree with this.
Earlier, regarding one map he had annotated, Ray Cesca had been keen to say
that the blue squares represented non-McDonalds meat packing plants in
sensitive areas. An attempt by the defendants to get the day's court
transcript at a reduced rate (less than 350 pounds), led to a wrangle where
Rampton asked for an undertaking that it would not be used outside the
court. Dave refused this, given that the court was open to the public, so
the judge suggested a five minute break to help the defendants prepare
their case.
The judge apparently is taking notes in long-hand as he has declined having
court transcripts if the defendants cannot have them. Could someone in
future question the verdict of a judge that was working with one hand tied
behind his back?
Return to Contents Page