---------------------------------------------------------------------
  US McLibel Support Campaign,
  c/o Vermonters Organized for Cleanup,  Box 120,  E.Calais VT 05640
  802-586-9628    dbriars@world.std.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Months' Summary of the McLibel Trial   January 1995
	Nutrition
	Expansion and Subversion
	Just what do they mean by 'Nutritious' ?
	Additives
	Advertising
	Destruction of Rainforests
	Employees and Trade Unions
	Packaging, Recycling, and Waste
	Animals
	Moving the Goalposts
---------------------------------------------------------------------

6 Months' Summary of the McLibel Trial   January 1995

 The High Court libel trial brought by the $24 billion a year McDonald's
Corporation against two unemployed London Greenpeace Supporters began in
June 1994 and is now expected to last until December 1995.  It looks
certain to become one of the longest libel trials ever.

The libel is alleged to have occurred in 1989/90.  Approximately 170
witnesses from the UK and around the world are giving evidence in court on
all the issues in the case, namely:

The connection between multinational companies like McDonald's, cash crops
and starvation in the third world.

The responsibility of corporations such as McDonald's for damage to the
environment, including destruction of rainforests.

The wasteful and harmful effects of the mountains of packaging used by
McDonald's and other companies.

McDonald's promotion and sale of food with a low fiber, high fat, saturated
fat, sodium and sugar content, and the links between a diet of this type
and the major degenerative diseases in western society, including heart
disease and cancer.

McDonald's exploitation of children by its use of advertisements and
gimmicks to sell unhealthy products.

The barbaric way that animals are reared and slaughtered to supply products
for McDonald's.

The lousy conditions that workers in the catering industry are forced to
work under, and the low wages paid by McDonald's.

McDonald's hostility towards trade unions.

Here follows a summary of some of the evidence from the first 6 months of
the trial:

NUTRITION

"Kiss of Death" - The Defendants asked Dr Sydney Arnott (McDonald's expert
on cancer) his opinion of the following statement: "A diet high in fat,
sugar, animal products and salt and low in fiber, 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
characterized 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

McDonald's expert witness Professor Verner Wheelock, a consultant engaged
by the company since 1991, admitted that there is a considerable amount of
evidence that diseases such as obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure,
heart disease (which he said was the "number one health problem of the
nation"), stroke and some forms of cancer are related to a diet high in
fat, saturated fat salt and sugar and low in dietary fiber.  He agreed that
"We have now reached the point where we can be very confident that diet is
the primary factor in the development of most of the degenerative diseases
in many industrialized countries" (including cancer).  He also agreed with
government dietary recommendations based on such views. He admitted that a
typical McDonald's meal was high in fat, saturated fat and sodium content
(Paul Preston McDonald's UK President had earlier admitted that McDonald's
products were low in fiber) and would not come within dietary
recommendations and further that it was "not sensible" to encourage the
eating of foods high in fat, saturated fat, sugar and sodium (salt) and low
in fiber. He accepted that people were attracted to high levels of sugar
and salt and found it hard to give up the taste.

McDonald's claims to support official 'Health of the Nation' dietary
initiatives to improve the population's health but John Hawkes, Chief
Marketing Officer, admitted this had had no effect on their marketing
department.  McDonald's does not have a department responsible solely for
nutrition.  Edward Oakley, Senior Vice President of McDonald's UK, admitted
that "it is not felt to be an important enough issue to have a separate
nutritional department like McDonald's have marketing or communications
departments".

Geoffrey Cannon, Chairperson of the National Food Alliance of consumer
organizations, and scientific director of the World Cancer Research Fund,
was called by the Defendants as an expert on public health policy.  He
stated that the US government, European Union, and World Health
Organization all recommended reducing consumption of fatty foods and
increasing consumption of fruit, vegetables and other foods containing
fiber in order to prevent a significant proportion of the large number of
deaths each year from heart disease (200,000 in the UK ) and cancer
(160,000 in the UK).

The 1990 World Health Organization (WHO) Report stated "dietary factors are
now known to influence the development of...heart disease, various cancers,
hypertension...and diabetes. These conditions are the commonnest 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, fiber-containing foods).

Mr Cannon agreed that for those seeking to improve the population's health
it was "not sensible or responsible to encourage people to eat foods
nutritionally worse than the dietary guidelines". Such food could "be
reasonably considered as being unhealthy" and a "negative contribution" to
the diet.

Dr Neal Barnard, President of the US Physicians' Committee for Responsible
Medicine and an expert on nutrition and health, said on behalf of the
Defendants "many products sold at McDonald's are high in fat and
cholesterol, and low in fiber and certain vitamins", and as a result these
products "contribute to heart disease, certain forms of cancer and other
diseases" (including obesity, diabetes, and hypertension). The links
between diet and these now epidemic diseases are, he said, "established
beyond any reasonable doubt", and were causal in nature.  During Dr
Barnard's evidence, Richard Rampton QC (for McDonald's) conceded that "we
would all agree" that there is a link between a high fat, low fiber diet
and cancer of the breast and colon.

Dr Barnard pointed out that, in addition to the problem of consuming too
much fat and too little fiber in the diet, there is also increasing concern
in the US about the carcinogenic mutagens which form on the surface of
grilled and fried meat.

Dr Barnard stated that "McDonald's products clearly contain significantly
more fat than government guidelines and health authorities recommend".
Evidence had shown that "fatty foods tend to be habituating" and "increase
the likelihood of continued high fat intake".  "McDonald's food remains
part of the problem, rather than part of the solution".  He quoted the
director of a major study into heart disease, Dr William Castelli who said
"When you see the Golden Arches you're probably on the road to the pearly
gates."

Professor Michael Crawford, an expert on dietary fats and their relation to
human health, and a consultant to the World Health Organization gave
evidence for the Defendants.  He emphasized the association between a high
fat diet and increased risk of cancers of the breast, colon and prostate
cancer.  This is particularly evident from 'population studies' of
different countries with varied diets and disease rates, from 'migration'
studies (showing that immigrant populations soon adopted the diet and
disease rates of the country of settlement), and from the large increase of
heart disease and cancer in countries such as Japan where the modern
western diet is fast replacing traditional, healthier diets.  He stated
that "not only are McDonald's encouraging the use of a style of food which
is closely associated with risk of cancer and heart disease whilst health
professionals are trying to reduce the risks to Western populations, but
they are actively promoting the same in cultures where at present these
diseases are not a problem".

Expansion and Subversion

Peter Cox, former marketing consultant, and also former Chief Executive of
the Vegetarian Society, gave evidence for the Defense as an expert on the
marketing of food.  He quoted from 'Behind the Arches', a book authorized
by McDonald's in 1987, as evidence that McDonald's were engaged in 'a
strategy of subversion' by trying to alter the dietary preferences of whole
nations, 'very often for the worse'. Mr Cox read the following quotes from
'Behind the Arches':

In Japan, McDonald's faced "a fundamental challenge of establishing beef as
a common food".  Their President, Den Fujita, stated "the reason Japanese
people are so short and have yellow skins is because they have eaten
nothing but fish and rice for two thousand years"; "if we eat McDonald's
hamburgers and potatoes for a thousand years we will become taller, our
skin become white and our hair blonde".  The book says that Fujita "aimed
virtually all his advertising at children and young families", and that he
stated "we could teach the children that the hamburger was something good".
The company also changed eating habits in Australia.  Peter Ritchie
(McDonald's Australian president) said he "attributes that change to the
influence McDonald's has on children".  The book concludes that rather than
adapt to local tastes and preferences "McDonald's foreign partners made
major changes in marketing in order to sell the American system".

Professor Crawford explained how "modern beef production has become
distorted from the wild nature of food to which we are physiologically
adapted" in that modern cattle are intensively reared for fast weight gain,
resulting in unnaturally high levels of fat, particularly saturated fat.
Meat from modern domestic cattle was in excess of 25% carcass fat, compared
to 2-5% in wild animals.

Dr Tim Lobstein, co-director of the Food Commission, a consumer
organization, gave evidence for the Defense as an expert on food policy
issues. On studying eight suggested typical McDonald's 'meal combinations',
he concluded that they are "generally imbalanced with regard to their
nutrient content". He said they are "excessively fatty and salty", and
correspondingly low in "nutrient density" of several essential nutrients
such as vitamins and minerals. A Food Commission survey in 1987 had found
that 31% of people questioned at fast food stores in Peckham ate fast food
every day, and that 9% of the total sample ate burgers every day. Dr
Lobstein concluded that there were sections of the population eating an
very unbalanced diet - this view was backed by reference to other surveys.
He was particularly concerned by the diets of school children, and also by
the expansion of McDonald's promotions in schools and hospitals.

McDonald's line that their food can be eaten as part of a balanced diet
was, according to Dr Lobstein, "meaningless".  He said "you could eat a
roll of cellophane tape as part of a balanced diet".  Rather than using the
word 'balance', he would suggest greater consumption of healthy foods.
"McDonald's tends to take the basic food ingredients and add fat, salt and
sugar, so encouraging their customers to eat a worse diet."

Peter Cox referred to a company document from 1985 (not available in
stores) which made it absolutely clear that the company was aware even then
of the links between diet and diseases - it specified heart disease,
cancer, diabetes and obesity.  It was his opinion therefore that the effect
of the company's efforts to promote their products as 'good, nutritious
food' over the years was "to debase the concept of 'healthy eating' to no
more than a cynical sales promotional ploy".

Mr Cox explained that the company's claim to be concerned about healthy
eating was not borne out by the products sold.  Even their salads (still
only available in some stores) had a 'ludicrously high' fat content (over
50% calories from fat) He told how the company were now promoting their
newest menu item - the "Mega Mac" which comprises 4 meat patties and
contains huge amounts of fat and saturated fat.  He said there was a huge
'credibility gap - the difference between the image portrayed...and the
reality of the food sold'.  He believed that the few positive steps made
had been taken 'perhaps rather grudgingly' as a result of public pressure.

Advertising Deceit

Stephen Gardner, former Assistant Attorney General of Texas, gave evidence
for the Defense.  He explained how in 1987 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
neutralize 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."

The court heard that an internal company memo, reporting on a high level
meeting in March 1986 with public relations advisors prior to this
advertising campaign stated "McDonald's should attempt to deflect the basic
negative thrust of our critics.....How do we do this?  By talking
'moderation and balance'. We can't really address or defend nutrition.  We
don't sell nutrition and people don't come to McDonald's for nutrition".

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, none of the four ads they said had been run after the
threats were the specific ads referred to in the complaints and none
mentioned "nutrition", "balance" or "McDonald's good food".

Mr Gardner stated that to the average consumer the word nutritious "conveys
a sense of a healthy product that is not deleterious to one's physical
well-being.  Specifically, a product that is nutritious is one that does
not contain excessive amounts of nutrients that should be avoided, such as
fats, sodium and the like"

Just what do they mean by 'Nutritious' ?

There seemed to be agreement amongst McDonald's representatives as to what
nutritious meant.  Edward Oakley, Chief Purchasing Officer and Senior Vice-
President of McDonald's UK, is responsible for the nutrition guides
currently available in McDonald's stores.  When asked what 'nutritious'
means in the guide he stated "foods that contain nutrients.  Asked if there
was any food he knew of that is not nutritious he said "I do not know if
you would call it food or not, but you could put up an argument for black
coffee or black tea or mineral water".  Asked "what about Coca Cola?", he
said "Coca Cola has a good source of energy, no question of that", he was
then asked if he thought it was nutritious, to which he stated "yes, it can
be".  David Green, Senior Vice-President of Marketing (USA), had a similar
view on what nutritious meant.  He also thought Coca Cola was nutritious,
he said that it was 'providing water, and I think that is part of a
balanced diet'.

Even Professor Wheelock, McDonald's, consultant on nutrition, defined the
word nutritious to mean "contains nutrients". He then accepted that all
foods have nutrients.  When asked to define 'junk food' he said it was
'whatever a person doesn't like' (in his case semolina).  With disbelief
mounting in the courtroom, Richard Rampton (McDonald's Q.C.) intervened to
say that McDonald's was not objecting to the description of their food as
'junk food'!

Additives

Dr Erik Millstone, an expert on food additives raised concerns about the
safety of nine additives used by McDonald's.

Sunset Yellow (E110) - a synthetic colorant, which can provoke allergic
reactions and hyperactivity; and increased incidence of tumors in animals;
banned in Norway.

Amaranth(E123) - a synthetic colorant, which can provoke asthma, eczema and
hyperactivity; it caused birth defects and foetal deaths in some animal
tests, possibly also cancer; banned in the USA, Russia and at least 5 other
countries.

Sodium Nitrite (E250) and Potassium Nitrate (E252) - preservatives and
color fixatives, which may provoke hyperactivity and other adverse
reactions; potentially carcinogenic; their use is severely restricted in
many countries.

BHA (E320) & BHT (E321) - synthetic antioxidants, which may trigger
hyperactivity and other intolerances; serious concerns over carcinogenity;
BHA is banned in Japan; in 1958 & 1963 official committees of experts
recommended that BHT be banned in the UK, however due to industry pressure
it was not banned; McDonald's eliminated BHT from their US products by
1986.

Carrageenan (E407) - stabilizer and thickening agent; linked to toxic
hazards, including ulcers and cancer; the most serious concerns relate to
degraded carrageenan, which is not a permitted additive.  However, native
carrageenan, which is used, may become degraded in the gut.
Monosodium Glutamate (621) - flavor enhancer, which can cause intolerant
reactions and effect chemistry of the brain.

Potassium Bromate (924) - used as flour improver, banned in 1989 as a
dangerous carcinogen; previously widely used in bread products, including
McDonald's buns.

Dr Millstone said that as regulatory bodies judged the safety of additives,
and consequently their regulatory status largely by reference to tests on
animals, they should be consistent in interpreting results and any adverse
effects shown should be taken seriously.  However in several cases where
additives had produced adverse effects (including cancer) in animals, the
additives were nonetheless permitted for use (including many of the 9
additives in issue).  In contrast if an additive did not produce adverse
effects in animals it was officially assumed it would be harmless to
humans.

He believed that where there were doubts over the safety of additives the
benefit of the doubt should be given to the consumer, not to the compound
or the industry.  He said "if the object of the exercise was the protection
of public health rather than helping companies negotiate their way through
regulatory hurdles" then the approach he advocated would be adopted.

Dr Millstone's view was that the additives listed should be banned because
of doubts over their safety, but in the meantime it was essential for
additives to be properly labeled.  He said he could see 'no particular
difficulty at all for McDonald's in providing comprehensive ingredient
listing' on the packaging.

ADVERTISING

McDonald's Annual Report records that in 1993 worldwide expenditure for
advertising and promotions totalled $1.4 billion, about 6% of sales.  $870m
is spent annually in the USA alone. McDonald's UK spend approx #35m per
year.

John Hawkes, McDonald's UK Chief Marketing Officer, said the purpose of
advertising is 'communication', and 'persuasion', to foster 'brand
awareness' and 'loyalty', in order to increase sales. 'You have to keep
your name in front of people's minds.' Without advertising, he said, 'you
might see the company decline completely'. He considered that advertising
was 'a key element of free speech in this country'.

He said that McDonald's concentrate on TV as 'the most powerful advertising
medium'.  In the UK the company advertises on TV to children, in particular
2 to 8 year olds, most weeks of the year. Mr Hawkes,  hoped that teaching
them McDonald's songs would "keep the memory of McDonald's at the forefront
of their minds so they can again ask their parents if they can come to
McDonald's".  The company didn't target 8 to 15 year olds so much, Mr
Hawkes said. 'At that age they do not pester their parents to go to
McDonald's. It does not work in the same way'.  He stated that when
McDonald's was launched in a new region or country (this included Scotland
a few years ago), the company would at first advertise exclusively to
children. He said "one of the tactics is to reach families through
children".

Incredibly, Paul Preston McDonald's UK President claimed that the character
Ronald McDonald was intended not to "sell food" to children, but to promote
the "McDonald's experience".  However, he did agree that Ronald "is a
useful marketing tool".  It was revealed in court that Geoffrey Guiliano,
the main Ronald McDonald actor in the 1980's had quit and publicly
apologized, stating "I brainwashed youngsters into doing wrong.  I want to
say sorry to children everywhere for selling out to concerns who make
millions by murdering animals".
Extracts from the corporation's official and confidential 'Operations
Manual' were read out giving an insight into the company's strategy:
"Children are often the key decision-makers concerning where a family goes
to eat".  Offering toys is "one of the best things..to make them loyal
supporters".  Birthday parties are "an important way to generate added
sales and profits". Ronald McDonald "is a strong marketing tool".  "Ronald
loves McDonald's and McDonald's food.  And so do children, because they
love Ronald.  Remember, children exert a phenomenal influence when it comes
to restaurant selection.  This means that you should do everything you can
to appeal to children's love for Ronald and McDonald's."

McDonald's internal code for their ads states that an aim is to make people
feel 'a warm empathy towards the commercial' and therefore, he agreed,
'feel an empathy towards the company'. David Green, McDonald's Senior Vice
President of Marketing in the USA denied this was 'manipulating people's
emotions'. He also denied 'brainwashing children with Ronald McDonald' or
having a 'hidden agenda' in the use of Ronald. However, he recognized that
McDonald's 'could change people's eating habits' and that children were
'virgin ground as far as marketing is concerned'.

He agreed that community and charitable activity was 'a benefit to the
company' and 'good business' which gained 'free publicity', and he related
how 'educational' promotions in schools "generate better feelings" towards
McDonald's and lead to more 'patronage'.

 Mr Green stated that McDonald's didn't propose that people could sensibly
eat the company's food 'as part of a diet composed largely of that kind of
food'.  He said 85-95% of Americans visit McDonald's, although a quarter of
their customers ('heavy users') made 75% of all visits.  11% of visits were
from 'Super Heavy Users', who ate there 4 or more times per week.  Mr Green
said their marketing strategy was to target heavy users to increase their
frequency of visits.

He denied there was a 'huge credibility gap' between the reality of
McDonald's food and the way they portrayed it.

Alistair Fairgrieve, McDonald's UK Marketing Services Manager, stated "it
is our objective to dominate the communications area...because we are
competing for a share of the customer's mind".  He outlined some of the
research undertaken by the company to discover what customers were thinking
and the effects of advertising.  He 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'.

During 1991, worried that customers were visiting less frequently, the
company conducted a survey.  This revealed that such customers
characterized the company as being "loud, brash, American, successful,
complacent, uncaring, insensitive, disciplinarian, insincere, suspicious,
arrogant".

Juliet Gellatley, former Director of Youth Education and Campaigns of the
Vegetarian Society, currently Director of VIVA (an educational charity),
gave evidence for the Defense about the effects on young people of
McDonald's advertising.  As Director for Youth Education she gave talks to
about 30,000 children of all ages at 500 classroom debates, and also to
thousands of adults as well on vegetarianism and related issues.  Following
the talks children discussed changing their diets. On many occasions, of
those interested in "going vegetarian" some felt they couldn't because they
would be the "odd one out" or "be laughed at" if they couldn't go to
McDonald's. They often indicated that this was "because of the hype" and
when questioned further they talked about McDonald's advertisements which
they had seen. She stated she had been surprised that "McDonald's was the
only burger chain specifically mentioned" in any of the talks, and that it
came up "so often".

Ms Gellatley stated that McDonald's claim that they don't exploit children
because "children are never encouraged to ask their parents to bring them
to McDonald's" was "farcical". "Clearly the main purpose of advertising
aimed at 2 to 8 year olds is precisely to encourage children to ask their
parents to take them to McDonald's, otherwise what would be the point in
advertising directly to such young children". How could young children, she
said, "differentiate between what is real and what is not", "what is good
for them and what is bad", and "between being sold to and not being sold
to". "I think McDonald's play on that as much as they possibly can...this
is what I mean by exploiting children." She related how the younger kids
"kept mentioning...Ronald McDonald" who they "obviously looked up to" as
"just a pure and positive and fun character and something quite real to
them".  She said, "younger children seem to think it did not matter how
much of McDonald's products they ate", it was "healthy and was good,
because Ronald McDonald told them  that was so".

Many of the adults Ms Gellatley had talked with had also mentioned the
influence their children had in getting them to take them to what they
termed "a junk food place like McDonald's", which advertising had succeeded
in portraying as a "treat".  "A lot of parents think their children eat too
much junk food", she said.

 Sue Dibb, employed by the National Food Alliance to research the effects
of food advertising to children, gave expert evidence for the Defendants.
To protect children's health, the NFA had called for a ban on advertising
of sugary and fatty foods at times when large numbers of children were
likely to be watching television. (Other countries, for example Norway and
Sweden have severe restrictions on advertising to children and in some
instances, outright bans.)  In her view, "the cumulative effect of much
food advertising does result in harm to children, in the sense that it
encourages inappropriate nutritional practices which will have implications
for children's health and their health in later life".   She believed that
in the debate over the future of food advertising "public health should be
given priority" over the wishes of advertisers.

Children, described by one marketing company as an 'advertisers dream',
were effectively encouraged to wield 'pester power' over their parents.  In
a recent survey nearly half of the parents of children aged over 5 said
they often gave in to buying foods they would not otherwise buy as a result
of that pester power.  Almost two thirds of those questioned felt there
should be tougher restrictions on advertising of food and soft drinks to
children.

 Ms Dibb had attended a seminar organized by and for those in the
advertising industry entitled "Pester Power - how to reach kids in 1994",
which discussed the most effective techniques for advertising to children.
McDonald's, she said, use all such techniques in their ads - seeking to
'draw children into the McDonald's world".  Use of characters (such as
Ronald McDonald) was a major trend in children's food and drink marketing
and could be said to 'play on children's affection and loyalty' to those
characters and 'exploit their emotions' (despite this being against the
Independent Television Commission's (ITC) advertising code). Sections of
McDonald's own operations manual, said Ms Dibb, "appeared to be a direct
exhortation to managers to use children's emotions and particularly their
love for Ronald McDonald to bring them into the store".  Asked if she had
concerns about this Ms Dibb said 'I do not think it is ethical'.

Ms Dibb criticized McDonald's 'misleading' attempts to associate its
products with health, fitness and sport.  She was also concerned about the
"underlying promotional message" in McDonald's links with schools,
dentists, etc, and in their increasing sponsorship activity, stating that
whilst it appeared to be altruistic it was "advertising in a covert way".

DESTRUCTION OF RAINFORESTS

The Rainforests section of the Trial is due to begin in July. However,
during the Defendants opening speeches, internal company documents were
read to the court in which McDonald's admitted the purchase in the UK in
1983 of beef imported from Brazil, a rainforest country - something which
the company had always denied.  When the Defendants attempted to question a
witness from McDonald's about these documents, Mr Rampton QC made an
objection claiming that the documents could not be used in court because
they had been 'disclosed by mistake'.  Two weeks later, after the witness
had left court,  just before there was to be a legal argument over this, Mr
Rampton withdrew his objection!'

Mr Oakley, Chief purchasing officer and Senior Vice President of McDonald's
UK and Ireland said he was aware that the company had purchased Brazilian
beef.  He claimed it was for a relatively short period of time but said he
was not sure how long exactly. He said that McDonald's claimed policy of
not using beef which originated outside the EC Union was not brought in
until "around the mid-80's -- maybe 1986".

A letter from the US Corporation to a member of the public in the UK in
1982 stated 'McDonald's has a long standing policy of buying all of our
products from suppliers in the host country where we are doing
business'.......'as a result we can assure you that the only Brazilian beef
used by McDonald's is that purchased by the six stores located in Brazil
itself'.  Mr Oakley said he thought the letter was referring to the
finished products (hamburgers), it was not "talking about raw ingredients"
He denied that the purchase of Brazilian beef for use in the UK was in
breach of McDonald's policy saying "No, it was not.  We still bought the
hamburgers locally.  We did not buy the ingredients locally".

 Despite objections by the corporation's highly-paid barrister, during the
opening speeches an extract from the TV documentary 'Jungleburger' was
shown, in which McDonald's beef suppliers in Costa Rica, stated that they
also supplied beef for use by McDonald's in the USA.  On top of this
McDonald's had admitted that in Costa Rica their stores used beef reared on
ex-rainforest land (deforested as recently as 10 years previously) contrary
to their own propaganda.

EMPLOYEES AND TRADE UNIONS

The Employment section of the Trial, probably the largest section, is due
to begin in March, but last July, Paul Preston, McDonald's UK President,
said he did not consider the current starting wage of #3.10 an hour for
crew members to be low pay.  However, when asked, he refused to reveal his
own salary.  When asked why the company couldn't pay higher wages to crew
members out of the $1 billion dollars profits it made last year, he claimed
that "people are paid a wage for the job they do", even though he had
earlier agreed that crew members worked hard and their job was more
physically demanding than his own.  When asked if the company could use its
$1 billion advertising budget to pay higher wages he stated that without
advertising the company would have "no business".

A taster of the abundant evidence to come on McDonald's attitude to trade
unions was provided by Robert Beavers, Senior Vice-President of the
corporation in the USA.  He agreed that in the early 70's, at a time when
trade unions were trying to organize in McDonald's in the US, the company
set up a "flying squad" of experienced managers who were despatched to a
restaurant the same day that word came in of an attempt by workers to
unionize it.  Unions made no headway in the company.

Paul Preston said that if employees wanted to then "they should join" a
trade union.  However, in two incidents in London in the 1980's when staff
had expressed an interest in joining trade unions, managers had called
McDonald's UK head of 'Human Resources' to the stores to "talk" to the
discontented staff.

 PACKAGING, RECYCLING & WASTE

Paul Preston, McDonald's UK President, asserted that styrofoam packaging is
less environmentally damaging than using plates, knives and forks!  He also
said that if one million customers each bought a soft drink, he would not
expect more than 150 cups to end up as litter.  Photographs were then put
to Mr Preston, which showed 27 pieces of McDonald's litter in one stretch
of pavement alone (the company has over 550 stores in the UK and serves a
million customers each day).

Edward Oakley, Chief purchasing officer and Senior Vice-President of
McDonald's UK, claimed that McDonald's have a consciousness of
environmental considerations and referred to the company's 'environmental
task force' and a corporate environmental policy. He stated he did not know
when this policy was published, but had seen it 'on a wall' at their head
office   He said the policy "had not had any direct effect on the
purchasing department", but "it certainly did on the Communications [PR]
department".

He denied that the company's so called "Environmental Initiatives" were, in
the main, a propaganda exercise.  However, one of the company's nationally
available 'McFact' cards publicized a scheme to recycle polystyrene waste
from Nottingham stores, where customers were asked to put polystyrene
packaging into a separate bin, "for recycling into such things as plant
pots, coat hangers and insulation material for use in homes, even fillings
for duvets".  Mr Oakley admitted that despite the scheme continuing for
several years, the company did not recycle any of the waste and in fact the
polystyrene was "dumped".  (Note: Recent press reports from New Zealand
indicate that a similar scheme was in operation there, which was also
exposed as a sham).

Questioned about the environmental impact of paper versus polystyrene
packaging Mr Oakley said it was six of one and half a dozen of the other.
He said McDonald's preferred to use polystyrene because they could recycle
it, but admitted that the only polystyrene being recycled was some of the
packaging from a scheme involving five stores in Manchester (the company
has over 550 stores in the UK).  He claimed the company aimed to expand the
scheme, but agreed that the company "had gone nowhere with that for the
last two years or so".

Dumping waste 'an environmental benefit'!

In some countries the company had abandoned or limited the use of
polystyrene packaging, in part because it was not biodegradable and took up
a lot of space in landfill sites.  Mr Oakley stated that there was "no
landfill problem in the UK"   Questioned as to whether he believed that "as
long as there is room in the dumps, there is no problem with dumping lots
of McDonald's waste in the ground?" Mr Oakley said "and everybody else's
waste, yes, that is true".  He said "I can see [the dumping of waste] to be
a benefit, otherwise you will end up with lots of vast, empty gravel pits
all over the country."  Asked if he was "asserting it is an environmental
benefit to dump waste in landfill sites" he stated "It could be".... "yes,
it is certainly not a problem".

Mr Oakley admitted that with the exception of the five Manchester stores
all post-consumer waste in the UK either ends up as litter or gets dumped
in landfill sites.  He defended McDonald's use of large quantities of
packaging, and said that the use of colorful cartons with company logos was
"to put the brand across directly to the customer"...."for image, brand
image".

Robert Langert, Director of Environmental Affairs of the McDonald's
Corporation, USA, admitted that very little recycled paper was used in
McDonald's packaging before 1990  He also accepted that CFCs (used in
McDonald's polystyrene foam food packaging) were banned by the US Congress
as an aerosol propellant in 1978, but he said that McDonald's was not aware
of CFC/ozone depletion as an issue until the mid-80's.  Following worldwide
concern over CFCs, McDonald's had phased out use of CFCs and HCFCs.
However, the 'Environmental Affairs' Manager of Perseco (the sole supplier
of McDonald's packaging in over 60 countries), admitted that in 1989 these
were still being used in 29 countries, and that even now HCFCs are used in
the Philippines and Turkey.

 Professor Duxbury, expert witness for McDonald's, agreed that CFCs & HCFCs
caused damage to the ozone layer and that in 1988 McDonald's used
"significant" quantities of these chemicals. He further said that
McDonald's present UK blowing agent, pentane, contributes to smog formation
and the greenhouse effect.

Mr Oakley admitted that when UK McDonald's introduced CFCs in their
polystyrene packaging in 1986 they were aware of the ozone damage caused by
CFCs in aerosols.  He claimed the company was not aware of similar concerns
over the use of CFCs in packaging until later that year.  It then took
until 1988 for McDonald's to cease using CFCs in this country.  Press
reports revealed that in 1987 Friends of the Earth had called for a boycott
of McDonald's products over this issue, but Mr Oakley denied that this was
a consideration in the decision to cease use of CFCs.

Defense expert witness from the USA, Brian Lipsett, explained how the
'McToxics' campaign galvanized thousands of protests and official bans and
forced McDonald's to withdraw their polystyrene foam food packaging in the
US.  He identified the problems associated with styrofoam - toxic wastes,
damage to the ozone layer and smog pollution; the leaching of styrene from
the packaging into the foods packaged in the foam; and the serious disposal
problems - the sheer volume of the material and the lack of a suitable
method of disposal. McDonald's has continued to use styrofoam in many
countries, including the UK.

Professor Walker, McDonald's toxicology expert, 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
metabolized in the body into styrene oxide, which he said appeared to be
much more hazardous to human health.

ANIMALS

The Trial is currently listening to evidence on this topic (until late
February).  Edward Oakley stated that he was also responsible for the
Quality Assurance Department at McDonald's.  As part of his remit he said
he had a responsibility for animal welfare.  He claimed that the company
"had a very real feeling that animals should be kept and slaughtered in the
most humane way possible" and so had published an animal welfare statement
two years ago. When questioned about this so-called policy Mr Oakley
admitted that the "animal welfare policy is, in fact, just a policy to
comply with the laws of the various countries in which McDonald's operate",
and added "we do not go beyond what the law stipulates".

Dr Neville Gregory, McDonald's expert witness on the rearing and slaughter
of animals, said that chickens used to make 'Chicken McNuggets' and
'McChicken sandwiches' were crammed into sheds, with less that the size of
an A4 sheet of paper per bird and no access to daylight.  44% of the
chickens had leg abnormalities and other health problems occurred.  Chicks
rejected by the company were dumped into dustbin-sized containers and
gassed.

At age 6-7 weeks birds were transported to the slaughterhouse, where they
were hung upside down before being electrically stunned in water.  Up to
14% of the chickens received pre-stun shocks, which cause distress and can
be painful.  1% of birds (around 1350 per day) were decapitated without
being stunned, which Dr Gregory agreed could cause suffering.  A further 1%
were not dead on entering the scalding tank.  He agreed that the stunning
and killing methods used did not comply with the government's Codes of
Practice, and might lead to distress and pain for the birds.

Mr Oakley claimed that the company "will not purchase from any supplier who
does not conform to the Codes of Practice of this Country".  He said that
if it came to the company's attention that animals were not being properly
stunned before being slaughtered "we would discontinue purchasing from the
supplier".

Dr Gregory said McDonald's egg suppliers kept chickens in battery cages, 5
chickens to a cage with even less space per bird than the broiler chickens
and with no freedom of movement and no access to fresh air or sunshine.  Mr
Oakley said McDonald's had thought about switching to free range eggs, but,
not only were battery eggs "50% cheaper", but, he claimed "hens kept in
batteries are better cared for".  He said he thought battery cages were
"pretty comfortable".

Dr Gregory related that at least 40% of piglets reared for McDonald's
products were raised in indoor breeding units. All pigs had their teeth
clipped and one in four had their tails docked. When they reached 40kg the
pigs were transferred to fattening units, where for the last part of their
lives there was only half a square meter of floor space per pig.

Dr Gregory stated that abattoirs supplying McDonald's beef supplier used
mainly ex-dairy cows. He accepted that dairy cows were subjected to stress,
pain, exhaustion, and disease due to being forced to be almost constantly
pregnant and milked.  When they became unproductive after only a few years
they were sent to be slaughtered for McDonald's burgers. Electric goads
were used to force the cows into stunning pens. Cattle were stunned with a
captive bolt pistol to the head. Dr Gregory stated that "the accuracy of
shooting was not particularly good". Half of the skulls examined showed an
inaccurate aim. Imperfect stunning was estimated at 3.7%.

Dr Gregory said that suppliers in general felt that using more effective
(higher) stunning currents  would affect meat quality, and also that slower
killing lines (allowing increased accuracy) would affect profits.  He
accepted that during inspections slaughter rates are often slowed down
because "people are more careful about what they are doing when they are
being scrutinized".  (Helen & Dave have been unable to independently verify
conditions as their expert witnesses have been denied access to the
relevant establishments.)

MOVING THE GOALPOSTS

After the destruction of McDonald's case on the links between diet and
cancer (see "Kiss of Death" above), McDonald's applied and were given
permission to amend their Statement of Claim (issued in September 1990) in
this area, despite vigorous protests by the Defendants.  The Statement of
Claim is the basis of the action, so McDonald's have been able to move the
goalposts after most of the evidence in this area has been heard.  The
Defendants may now have to prove the statement (not contained in the London
Greenpeace Factsheet) that "McDonald's sell meals which cause cancer and
heart disease in their customers".  Helen and Dave may be forced to recall
some witnesses to be cross-examined again.  In addition to the issue of
diet and cancer, McDonald's have changed their case on the Animals issue.
They are no longer objecting to the terms 'torture' and 'murder' being used
to describe the rearing and slaughter of animals to make McDonald's
burgers, but have widened the issues in dispute in this area of the case.

Before the trial began, McDonald's did their utmost to avoid legal
obligations to disclose relevant company documents and answer the
Defendants' questions.  This has been a continuing controversy during the
trial with McDonald's suddenly producing new documents half way through
their witnesses evidence, but also with numerous arguments to get further
documents which the company does not want to disclose.  An important
document which, when disclosed, had been 95% blanked out by McDonald's QC,
was finally obtained complete after nearly a year of effort, but not until
after the relevant witnesses had given their evidence.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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-McDonald's activities and protests.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. McLibel Support Campaign        
Press Office  c/o Vermonters Organized for Clean-up
Box 120, East Calais VT 05650                       Phone 802-568-9628 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe to the "mclibel" listserve, send email 

     To:majordomo@world.std.com
Subject: <not needed>
   Body: subscribe mclibel

To unsubscribe, change the body to "unsubscribe mclibel"

