McVerdict - vegetarian activists lose case against McDonald's Corp

Vegetarian Times, Sept, 1997 by Sharon Bloyd-Pashkin

WRAPPING UP THE LONGEST trial to ever tie up a British court, United States-based McDonald's corporation has won a hollow victory over British vegetarian activists Helen Steel and Dave Morris. In 1990, Steel and Morris received a writ accusing them of libel for pamphlets they had distributed outside McDonald's chains in Britain in the late 1980s. The pamphlets accused McDonald's of abusing animals, exploiting workers and spoiling the environment.

The trial, which became known as the McLibel case and has now been branded by some as "McBlunder," began in 1994. Three years and an estimated $16 million dollars later, the fast-food giant was awarded damages of approximately $98,000 in a judgment that ironically acknowledged that several of the activists' claims were, in fact, true. McDonald's is not expected to collect the money from the activists, whose annual joint income is said to be less than $12,300.

The judgment was based on the court's finding that McDonald's was "wrongly defamed" by the accusations of destroying rain forests and moving Third World farmers off their land in order to make room for cattle ranches; serving "unhealthy" food that is likely to cause food poisoning; lying about how much recycled packaging is used; and maintaining bad working conditions and an anti-union policy.

McDonald's regards the ruling as a victory. The official statement issued by Paul Preston, chairman and chief executive officer of McDonald's Restaurants Ltd. (U.K.), reads: "We are, as you can imagine, broadly satisfied with the judgment... we wanted to show these allegations to be false and I am pleased that we have done so." Corporate representatives refuse to comment further.

However, Steel and Morris, who acted as their own legal council, contend the victory is theirs. They say the drawnout litigation effectively put McDonald's on trial and validated several of their claims, including the corporation's culpability in cruel treatment of laying hens and chickens; paying low wages and sending workers home early to lower their pay even further; and exploiting children through advertising. The case also resulted in international media coverage, a book, McLibel: Burger Culture on Trial (Macmillan, 1997), a British television documentary and a much accessed Internet web site -- which have resulted in extra-ordinary publicity for the activists' anti-McDonald's views and support for their David-and-Goliath battle.

Still, the fact remains that McDonald's sued a couple of activists, and the resulting trial took over their lives for several years. Some fear that the specter of McLibel will have a chilling affect on activism both in the U.K. and here in America. What message should American activists glean from this episode?

"I think that what it says is that you have to be very meticulous about what you put into print and what you say," says Bruce Friedrich, vegetarian campaign coordinator for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the largest animals-rights organization in the United States based in Norfolk, Va.

PETA doesn't shy away from protests or pamphlets. But, notes Friedrich, "We're very, very careful because a lot of interests with a lot of money would like to see PETA go out of business." Much more careful, he claims, than Steel and Morris were. "If you look at the original pamphlet, it was pretty inflammatory," he says. "We would never put on a leaflet that you can't digest McDonald's food." PETA and other U.S. activists also have another thing going for them that Steel and Morris did not: The First Amendment, which requires a plaintiff (in this case, McDonald's) to prove statements are both false and negligent.

"The First Amendment offers protections for U.S. critics that critics in Great Britain do not enjoy," explains Thomas E. Baker, professor of constitutional law at Texas Tech University in Lubbock and author of The Most Wonderful Work: Our Constitution Interpreted (West Publishing Company, 1996). "Issues like cruelty to animals and diet and health are issues of public concern, and in the U.S., the defendants would wrap themselves in the First Amendment and get greater protection for their speech."

In fact, there have been a few attempts in the United States at so-called "trade libel" suits. Such cases are based on statutes passed by state legislatures to protect an agricultural industry against critics of the industry's products or processes. For example, a group of feedlot operators in Texas are currently litigating against Oprah Winfrey after the popular talk show host aired a show discussing mad cow disease. The operators are claiming the show defamed their product without sufficient scientific proof.

However, there is an important difference between the Winfrey and McDonald's cases. "There are state laws that would protect agricultural interests but not a corporation's [interest]," Baker notes. In other words, state law may protect the beef industry but not a company that sells a product made with the beef. Moreover, Baker points out that the constitutionality of such laws has yet to be tested. "None of them have reached the Supreme Court, so we don't have a sure answer about what the Constitution says about these cases," Baker says. "Many have yet to play out in the lower courts."