top
International
International
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

McLibel: British Activists Sued for Distributing McDonald's Flyers Win Court Case

by Democracy Now
Two activists sued by McDonalds in Britain won their case against the British government, in a case that could change UK libel law forever. The European Court of Human Rights said the UK legal system breached the right to a fair trial and freedom of expression. Activists David Morris and Helen Steel were sued by McDonalds in 1990 for handing out leaflets called "What"s Wrong with McDonald's", accusing the company of paying low wages, cruelty to animals used in its products and dozens of other malpractices.
McDonald's won and was awarded £40,000 in libel damages. But the so-called "McLibel Two" refused to pay at the end of a trial. Yesterday, they won their claim that the libel trial was unfair - in the longest civil or criminal action in English legal history. David Morris spoke outside a McDonalds in Britain moments after the ruling

* David Morris and Helen Steel, speaking on Feb. 15
LISTEN ONLINE
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/16/156254

AMY GOODMAN: As we look at McDonald’s in Britain and the United States, major lawsuit against activists, a former postman, a former farmer in Britain and then we’ll look at the case of the use of trans fats by McDonald’s in the United States. We'll be speaking with people who sued them here. We're going to go back to our guests in Britain right now. Again, who won a major legal victory. Can you talk about what was in the pamphlet you gave out to people who were going to McDonald’s?

HELEN STEEL: Well, basically, the leaflet criticizes McDonald’s for promoting unhealthy food, exploiting their workers through low pay and through the fact that they're hostile to trade unions. The damage to the environment through masses of unnecessary packaging, cruelty to the animals reared for the meat products, and it criticized their massive advertising budget and the targeting of children through the advertising. I mean, they're all basically common sense criticisms that are actually made quite widely now. You know, London Greenpeace wasn't actually the first to make those criticisms in any event. It just kind of brought all of the different criticisms together to take a kind of overall look at the effects of multinational corporations on society.

DAVID MORRIS: I think also, it's fair to say that it wasn't just McDonald’s that was under the spotlight, it was basically McDonald’s as a symbol of what the whole fast food industry and multinationals together, the whole economic system is doing in terms of its domination over our lives and our environment.

AMY GOODMAN: And so then, explain exactly what happened. You're giving out pamphlets. How many days did you do it and what happened? How did McDonald’s approach you when they sued you?

DAVID MORRIS: Well, London Greenpeace had started a campaign against McDonald’s and the whole fast food industry and the leaflets that were being given out were fantastically well received by the public, because McDonald’s spends $2 billion every year through their advertising, in practically forcing their views on the public, and people were crying out for an alternative point of view. So, the group was quite enthusiastic about the way things were being received, but of course, McDonald’s had a different idea about it, and the first contact that members of the group had with McDonald’s were the writs, which were served saying there's going to be a court case.

AMY GOODMAN: And so at the point where you lost the case, on what grounds or you won on some points, lost on others? What grounds did you win on and then lose on?

HELEN STEEL: Well it, was a mixed verdict. You know, remarkably, the judge managed to find that they weren't responsible for litter or environmental damage, but he actually found that they were -- that their food is pretended to have positive nutritional benefit -- sorry the advertising had pretended to a positive nutritional benefit, which their food didn't match, and that they exploit children with their advertising strategy, that they were responsible for animal cruelty, that they paid low wages, helping to depress wages in the catering trade, and then we also won further points on appeal about basically that if you ate enough of McDonald’s food, your diet might well become high in fat with a very real risk of heart disease and also further points about employment conditions.

DAVID MORRIS: So pretty much their core business practices were found to be, you know, strongly lacking. These were devastating -- probably the worst judgments ever made against a multinational corporation. We didn't win on all points. We didn't win on concerns over food safety issues. We didn't win over the McDonald’s direct involvement in destruction of rain forests even though the beef industry as a whole has been very strongly responsible for some of the devastation of Amazonian forests. So, you know, it was our continuing arguments, and we went to appeal and then we took it to the European court.

AMY GOODMAN: And so now, what happens? Do you get paid back for your -- what is this -- 15 years of legal struggle?

DAVID MORRIS: Well, really it's not about money, is it? It's about matters of principle. We really felt actually we had already won, we had beaten McDonald’s in the actual trial. But most importantly, not just inside the courtroom, but outside the courtroom, leaflets are now being given out to millions all over the world, criticizing the company, but more important than that, there's a vibrant public debate, and increasing concern to challenge the promotion of unhealthy food, to look at what multinationals are doing to our lives, as a whole anti-capitalist movement that's grown up in the last ten years, which I think the McLibel campaign helped to stimulate. And I think people are looking for a real alternative. Obviously, there's still a lot of work to do. Multinationals and governments still dominate our lives for their own interests. We're part of, you know, a number of different groups and campaigns that are trying to change things for the better. Mostly in the area where we live, which is in North London.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you both for being with us, David Morris, and Helen Steel. Who were sued by McDonald’s, and -- report McDonald’s has said -- the McDonald’s U.K. Office, that the case related to a claim made against the British government, it was therefore inappropriate for the company to comment on this case, or its outcome. The company said it's impossible to note the allegations related to practices in the 1980's. The world has moved on since then, and so has McDonald’s. David Morris, I'll give you the final world.

DAVID MORRIS: I don't think they’ve moved on at all. I think that it's more of the same. Nothing has changed. I don't think that multinational corporations, in fact, can change, because they’re only interested in one thing, which is making profits for their shareholders. And really, things are going to change. It will be because people, wherever they live, wherever they work, get organized and stand up for their rights and speak out, and really try to create a different kind of society, based on people's needs rather than, you know, the power of multinationals and governments.

AMY GOODMAN: David Morris, Helen Steel, thanks for joining us from Britain.

LISTEN ONLINE
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/16/156254
McDonalds has settled a lawsuit over its use of trans fats, a dangerously unhealthy oil. The hamburger chain must pay $8.5 million for advertising claims that it cut trans fat from its French fries. The company announced the switch to healthier oil in September 2002, but five months later said there was a delay. [includes rush transcript]

The suit was filed by the consumer advocacy group bantransfat.com. It accused McDonald's of failing to inform customers that the heart-clogging oil was still being used. Of the 8.5-million dollar payment, $7 million goes to the American Heart Association to educate the public about trans fat in foods. As part of the settlement, McDonald's is also required to spend $1.5-million publicizing that it didn't follow through on its 2002 pledge.

We are joined on the line by Kathy Fettke, the Plaintiff in $8 million settlement with Mcdonalds as well as Stephen Joseph. He is the founder and President of BanTransFats.com and the attorney for Plaintiff BanTransFats.com in its representative action against McDonald's for injunctive relief. He is also the attorney for Plaintiff Katherine Fettke in the separate class action against McDonald's for damages.

* Stephen Joseph, founder and President of BanTransFats.com and the attorney for Plaintiff BanTransFats.com in its representative action against McDonald's for injunctive relief. He is also the attorney for plaintiff Katherine Fettke in the separate class action against McDonald's for damages.

* Kathy Fettke, plaintiff in $8 million settlement with Mcdonalds

LISTEN ONLINE
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/16/157200
Add Your Comments
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$190.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network