In June 1994 the McLibel case finally came to trial, following a lengthy period of pre-trial hearings. This case, referred to by those who have since been following the proceedings as "the best fun to be had in the courts in decades" features McDonalds suing two London Greenpeace members, Helen Steel and David Morris for handing out leaflets entitled "What's wrong with McDonalds". The twist in the tale though is that Steel and Morris are concurrently counter-suing McDonalds for libelling them in the leaflet McDonalds produced in response to the original! And because McDonalds claimed that the issues involved would be "too complex" for the average person to understand" Helen and David have been refused a jury trial, as well as having to conduct their own defence as libel cases do not qualify for legal aid.
The "McLibel" leaflet, "What's Wrong with McDonalds", outlines how the multi-national corporation will apparently do anything to increase their profits. This includes the standard claims of starving the poor, polluting the environment and exploiting both staff and customers. However, what has readlly come to light during this trial is the extent to which McDonalds has manipulated and deceived the public, and the extent of the corporation's ignorance or reticence about basic issues of nutrition, the environment and the role of the media.
For instance, when McDonalds' "expert witness" Verner Wheelock was asked to defend the company's description of its food as "nutritious", the consultant defined the word as meaning "has nutrients". When confronted with the term "junk food" he said that it was "whatever a person doesn't like" (in his case semolina). Dr Tim Lobstein, co-director of The Food Commission, gave evidence for the defence, stating that McDonalds' line that their food "can be used as part of a balanced diet" was meaningless and that you could eat a roll of sellotape as part of a balanced diet!
The absurdity of all this aside, can McDonalds really be singled out for supplying consumers with less-than-healthy meals? Surely every fast food chain does the same? True, but we are forgetting the extent to which McDonaldism has spread around the world, with outlets everywhere, from Singapore to New Zealand to Russia. McDonalds is also the world's largest user of beef and it is not only nutritional issues which are raised by this point: in order to rear the required amount of cattle, ex-rainforest land is used for pasture, preventing the regeneration of forests. Also meat production is highly wasteful in end-product terms - 145 million tons of grain fed to livestock produces only 21 tons of meat. The methane released by such vast quantities of cattle is also a major cause of evironmental problems. Clearly McDonalds does carry a burden of responsibility for some of these issues.
Another disturbing aspect of McDonaldism that has come to light during the trial is the targeting of children with the promise of "free" toys and other such gimmicks. Behind the face of Ronald McDonald lies something a lot more insidious. Extracts from the corporation's official "Operations Manual" were read out, outlining the company's strategy: "Children are often the key decision makers concerning where a family goes to eat." Toys are "one of the best things ... to make them loyal supporters." Birthday parties are "an important way to generate added sales and profits." Charts showed that the company's advertisements, which appear on TV most weeks of the year, particularly target 0-8 year olds, the group which McDonald's marketing officer John Hawkes termed the most "brand loyal", and the Senior Vice President described rather more sinisterly as being "of Ronald age".
This also stresses the importance of "Pester Power" - with such ploys as featuring collectable toys in their adverts rather than the food products. This kind of advertising has been banned in Denmark, and in Sweden the use of cartoon characters in advertising has been prohibited. In 1977 the UK government's Annan committee recommended a ban on advertising during children's programmes, but the fear of revenue loss by the TV companies ensured that such legislation was never effected.
Another criticism levelled at the adverts was that they took advantage of young children's natural credibility, hiding the fact that the products came from once living creatures. Example cited included "Hamburger Patch" commercials which portrayed happy burgers growing on plants and "dancing nuggets that sing and are happy to be eaten". When questioned, the Senior Vice President of McDonalds UK/Ireland revealed that the extent of their animal welfare policy is merely to comply with the laws of the land in which they are operating. "We do not go beyond what the law stipulates", he admitted.
There is a curious paradox operating during the trial which can be summed up in the words of the Chief Marketing Officer who claimed that advertising was "a key element of free speech in this country". (Obviously Norway and Sweden are fascist dictatorships!) Throughout the trial McDonalds has been seen to invent its own version of the truth, redefining such key concepts as "healthy nutritional food" (which by their definition includes everything except water and black tea/coffee), and "excess waste" which the Senior Vice President deemed a benefit, "otherwise you end up with lots of vast empty gravel pits all over the country", asserting also that it was beneficial to the environment to dump waste in landfill sites. The McTruth is truly stranger than fiction. Advertising is free speech, yet campaigning in the street is libellous. Perhaps the biggest paradox of all is why a company so successful and coldly calculating would bother taking two unemployed environmental protesters to court, raising much more awareness of the issues involved than the original leaflet could ever hope to do. For the first time McDonalds may have underestimated the power of the public's desire to know the truth.