In May 2001, a class action lawsuit was filed against the world's largest fast-food chain McDonald's, in Seattle, US. The lawsuit alleged that the company had, for over a decade, duped vegetarian customers into eating French fries that contained beef extracts. The lawsuit followed a spate of media reports detailing how the French fries served at McDonald's were falsely promoted as being '100% vegetarian.' Although McDonald's initially declined to comment on the issue, the company issued a 'conditional apology,' admitting to using beef flavoring in the fries. The furore over the matter seemed to be settling down, when to McDonald's horror, some of its restaurants in India were vandalized. Activists of Hindu fundamentalist groups - the Shiv Sena, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Bajrang Dal, staged a demonstration in front of the McDonald's head office in Delhi protesting the alleged use of beef flavouring. They submitted a memorandum to the Prime Minister, demanding the closure of all McDonald's outlets in the country. Activists also staged protests in front of McDonald's restaurants in south Mumbai and Thane. Mobs ransacked the outlet at Thane, broke the glass panes and smeared the McDonald's mascot Ronald with cow dung. About 30 people were arrested and later let off on bail. Company officials estimated the loss to the outlet at Rs 2 million. Officials at McDonald's India quickly announced that the vegetarian products served in India did not have any non- vegetarian content (Refer Exhibit I for details). However, despite this reassurance, the anti-McDonald's wave refused to die down. Meanwhile, more cases were being filed against McDonald's - this time in California, US and Canada. It seemed certain that the company would have to shell out millions
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
In May 2001, a class action lawsuit was filed against the world's largest fast-food chain McDonald's, in Seattle, US. The lawsuit alleged that the company had, for over a decade, duped vegetarian customers into eating French fries that contained beef extracts.
The lawsuit followed a spate of media reports detailing how the French fries served at McDonald's were falsely promoted as being '100% vegetarian.' Although McDonald's initially declined to comment on the issue, the company issued a 'conditional apology,' admitting to using beef flavoring in the fries. The furore over the matter seemed to be settling down, when to McDonald's horror, some of its restaurants in India were vandalized. Activists of Hindu fundamentalist groups - the Shiv Sena, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Bajrang Dal, staged a demonstration in front of the McDonald's head office in Delhi protesting the alleged use of beef flavouring. They submitted a memorandum to the Prime Minister, demanding the closure of all McDonald's outlets in the country.
Activists also staged protests in front of McDonald's restaurants in south Mumbai and Thane. Mobs ransacked the outlet at Thane, broke the glass panes and smeared the McDonald's mascot Ronald with cow dung.
About 30 people were arrested and later let off on bail. Company officials estimated the loss to the outlet at Rs 2 million. Officials at McDonald's India quickly announced that the vegetarian products served in India did not have any non-vegetarian content (Refer Exhibit I for details).
However, despite this reassurance, the anti-McDonald's wave refused to die down. Meanwhile, more cases were being filed against McDonald's - this time in California, US and Canada. It seemed certain that the company would have to shell out millions of dollars to settle the class action lawsuit representing the 1 million US based Hindus and 15 million other vegetarians
The Troubled History
McDonald's has had a long history of lawsuits being filed against it. It had been frequently accused of resorting to unfair and unethical business practices - October 16th is even observed as a 'World anti-McDonald's day.' In the late 1990s, the company had to settle over 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns.
Reportedly, McDonald's kept the coffee at 185° - approximately 20° hotter than the standard temperature at other restaurants - which could cause third degree burns in just 2-7 seconds. An 81-year old woman suffered third degree burns on her lower body that required skin grafts and hospitalisation for a week...
The Beef Fries Controversy
With an overwhelming majority of the people in the West being non-vegetarian, products often contain hidden animal-based ingredients. Incidents of vegetarians finding non-vegetarian food items in their food abound throughout the world.
Whether a person has chosen to be a vegetarian for religious, health, ethical or philosophical reasons, it is not easy to get vegetarian food in public restaurants.
According to the manager of a Thai food cafe in the US, "We have a lot of customers already. We don't need to have any vegetarian food."
Commenting on this dilemma, a US based Hindu vegetarian said, "We can't blame anybody. You have to find out for yourself. If you have any doubts, try to avoid it. Otherwise, you just have to close your eyes and try to eat."...
The Aftermath
The courtroom battle had entered the 11th month when McDonald's announced that it would issue a new apology and pay $ 10 million to vegetarians and religious groups in a proposed settlement of all the lawsuits in March 2002...
Overview
The McDonald’s “french fry” lawsuit has become one of the biggest stories in the vegetarian
movement, yet very little about it has appeared in vegetarian publications. The class action suit
originated after it was discovered that the fast-food chain had not told vegetarians that its french
fries and hash browns had beef in them, contrary to the impression some had after a company
press release of July 23, 1990, which stated that McDonald’s fries were cooked in 100 percent
vegetable oil. But alas, many unfortunate vegetarians did consume McDonald’s french fries or
hash browns after July 23, 1990, and in doing so unwittingly consumed minuscule amounts of
beef.
A lawsuit was filed against the company and a $10 million settlement was agreed upon, with $6
million going to vegetarian groups. But then disputes erupted, not only with McDonald’s, but
within the vegetarian community as well, over which groups should get the money—probably
the most serious and most public division in the history of the modern vegetarian movement. The
divisions resulted in accusations against some vegetarian groups of “sleeping with the enemy”
and unethical conduct. The case is being appealed, millions of dollars are at stake, and the
outcome is in doubt. What’s the story?
In the Beginning
The controversy began with Eric Schlosser’s book Fast Food Nation, published in 2001.
Schlosser, not himself vegetarian, noted the source of some of the so-called “natural flavors” in
much fast food, remarking that the “natural flavor” in McDonald’s french fries was derived from
beef. Ironically, in light of subsequent developments, Schlosser got his information from
Vegetarian Journal, a publication of the Vegetarian Resource Group (VRG).
One of Schlosser’s readers was a Jain who asked McDonald’s whether the company’s fries
contained beef. McDonald’s confirmed Schlosser’s information by email, and on April 6, 2001
the information was published in India-West, a California-based weekly targeting Asian Indians
in North America. Harish Bharti—a Seattle lawyer and a native of India—then filed a lawsuit on
May 1, 2001 in King County, Washington, claiming that McDonald’s hadn’t told the truth about
their ingredients; he cited this email and Schlosser’s book as evidence. McDonald’s quickly
issued a denial, saying it had never claimed its fries were vegetarian and that they had always
contained beef flavoring.
But this denial provoked another unexpected development. Hindu nationalists in India, upon
hearing about McDonald’s statement, were furious, and protests were launched at various
McDonald’s restaurants. At some sites, the protests were peaceful; at others, they turned ugly,
with windows broken and a statue of Ronald McDonald smeared with cow dung.
McDonald’s backtracked, explaining that french fries sent to India (unlike its North American
fries) were free of beef products. When laboratory tests revealed that no animal fat was in the
french fries, the issue receded in India. But in the United States, additional lawsuits were filed in
Texas, New Jersey, California, and Illinois, where the lawsuit was finally negotiated.
The Case Against McDonald’s
McDonald’s denies lying about its french fries. The list of ingredients provided for their fries
(before the lawsuit) included “natural flavor.” As many veteran ingredient-readers could quickly
tell you, “natural flavor” can legally include animal products, including beef—as it actually did
in this case. But more than that, some McDonald’s employees said that the fries were vegetarian.
The most incriminating evidence was a 1993 letter written by a company employee stating that
there were a number of items which “vegetarians can enjoy at McDonald’s” — specifically
mentioning the french fries and the hash browns.
However, the question of liability for a few specific cases of misinformation to a small number
of individuals would be different from a systematic advertising campaign. The judge in this case,
Hon. Richard Siebel, did not believe the plaintiff’s case was very strong. In his order of October
30, 2002, he remarked: “Proving liability on the merits is problematic. The Plaintiffs face a
substantial risk of obtaining no relief if litigation against McDonald’s were pursued.”
On the other hand, the plaintiffs had one practical advantage: the area of public relations.
McDonald’s had already received stunningly bad publicity in this case. They may have
calculated that they could ill afford another “victory” like the infamous “McLibel” lawsuit in
England. In that case, while McDonald’s successfully sued two anti-McDonald’s campaigners
for libel, the case boomeranged into a constant stream of negative publicity about the
corporation.
The plaintiffs initially demanded $75 million; McDonald’s offered $5 million. After
negotiations, a proposed $10 million settlement was announced on April 26, 2002, with $6
million assigned to “vegetarian groups.”
Muslim Objections
No sooner had the proposed settlement been announced than questions began to be raised about
who would receive the money. At a preliminary hearing in May 2002, Greg Khazarian
represented Muslims who objected to the settlement. Khazarian stated to me that “the fatal flaw
in the structure of the settlement is that Muslims are included in the class, but excluded as one of
the groups receiving benefits in the settlement.” Several hundred Muslims filed objections.
Muslims usually eat meat, but the meat must be slaughtered in accordance with “halal,” a
procedure roughly similar to kosher. Clearly the McDonald’s beef was not “halal” (or kosher,
either). There are roughly 7 million Muslims in the United States, compared to about 6 million
adult vegetarians. While vegetarian groups were slated to get 60 percent of the settlement, there
was no category for Muslim groups.
At the preliminary hearing on May 1, 2002, the judge said that the Muslims “could be
accommodated within the parameters of the proposed settlement,” according to Khazarian. In the
final settlement approved by the judge, Muslims were included in the vegetarian category.
Khazarian disputes the logic that lumps Muslims and vegetarians together. “The McDonald’s
argument was that a Muslim who is in McDonald’s will be looking for food that is vegetarian, so
they should be included in the vegetarian category,” explains Khazarian. “My clients don’t buy
that argument.”
Vegetarian Objections
When the proposed list of recipients was released in September 2002, there were further
objections, but from vegetarians rather than Muslims. The proposed money for “vegetarian
groups” was to be divided not only among traditional vegetarian groups, but Muslim groups and
organizations which might carry an anti-vegetarian agenda. Eight months later, on May 19, 2003,
a revised list was approved by the judge over the objections of many vegetarians (see sidebar).
This list was surprising to many vegetarians. Many well-known organizations such as People for
the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Farm Animal Reform Movement (FARM),
Physicians’ Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), and EarthSave were missing. Why
were these and many other groups omitted?
We don’t know what went on in the attorney’s negotiations, but by the terms of the agreement,
McDonald’s had to have a hand in the allocation process. So McDonald’s attorneys may have
vetoed some groups. Moreover, animal rights organizations were also specifically excluded by
the court, as the treatment of animals was never an issue in the lawsuit—only the treatment of the
But how could Tufts be considered a “vegetarian organization”? Fein responded: “Most of the
money went to fund projects administered by organizations that most people would consider to
be vegetarian groups, like the Vegetarian Resource Group, North American Vegetarian Society,
the Vegetarian Nutrition Dietetic Practice Group of the ADAF, Vegetarian Vision, and the
American Vegan Society. However some of the money went to vegetarian projects administered
by Preventive Medicine Research Institute, Loma Linda University, and Tufts University. Tufts
is nationally known for its nutrition program. They're committed to objective scientific research.
… The money will not go to Tufts’ general fund. It will go to a Scholarship Fund for Vegetarian
and Plant-based Nutrition Studies.”
The Future?
The last chapter of the McDonald’s saga has yet to be written. Appeals are in process. Millions
of dollars are at stake, which could conceivably benefit one or another of very different
vegetarian groups, some of which seem to be at each others’ throats.
The real news is neither the beef in the french fries, which now seems like a distant memory, nor
even the question of who should get the money, which could be endlessly debated and never
resolved. What is absolutely unprecedented in the history of the modern vegetarian movement is
the charges made by some vegetarians against others. As Freya Dinshah comments,
“McDonald’s is probably laughing at the whole bunch of us. It has been very divisive of the
vegetarian community.”
Keith Akers is the author of The Lost Religion of Jesus: Simple Living and Nonviolence in Early
Christianity
McDonald’s Lawsuit Timeline
Before 2001:
July 23, 1990: McDonald’s announces that its french fries will be cooked in 100% vegetable oil.
May 5, 1993: McDonald’s letter to a customer claims their french fries are vegetarian.
1995: Vegetarian in Boulder, Colorado successfully sues Pasta Jay’s for claiming a marinara sauce was vegetarian when in fact it contained anchovies.
January 1998: Vegetarian Resource Group (VRG) publishes article by Jeanne-Marie Bartas, "Vegan Menu Items at Fast Food and Family-Style Restaurants — Part 2," Vegetarian Journal, January/February 1998, documenting that McDonald’s french fries have an animal ingredient.
2001:
January: Eric Schlosser publishes Fast Food Nation, quoting from VRG and making information about beef in the french fries more widespread.
April 6: E-mail from McDonald’s confirming that french fries have beef in them is published by India-West.
May 1: Harish Bharti files suit in King County, Washington, alleging McDonald’s was not telling the truth about its french fries and hash browns.
May 4: Attacks on McDonald’s in India, including desecration of a statue of Ronald McDonald and breaking of windows.
May 15: Laboratory tests confirm that french fries in India do not contain beef.
May-June: Additional lawsuits against McDonald’s filed in California (May 10), Illinois (June 4), Texas (June 11), and New Jersey (June 27).
[September 11: Terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.]
2002:
March 8: published reports of an impending settlement in the lawsuit.
April 26: agreement on a settlement is officially announced. $10 million is to be paid, including 60% going to "vegetarian groups."
May 1: Preliminary hearing on the lawsuit. Judge Siebel says that Muslims can be accommodated under the settlement.
September 24: Attorneys file a proposed allocation of funds, including allocation of some "vegetarian" money to Muslim groups, Tufts University, and UNC Department of Nutrition.
October 28, 29: Declarations attacking the settlement are filed by Colin Campbell, John McDougall, Rhoda Sapon, and Pat Fish. Many other declarations are also filed in the time period following.
October 30: Judge approves the settlement (but does not rule on allocation of funds).
December 11: VegSource web site publishes Jeff Nelson’s article, "Sleeping with the enemy," accusing VRG and NAVS of "aiding and abetting" McDonald’s in this case.
2003:
January 13 and 27: hearings on the proposed allocation of funds.
March 25: Judge Siebel throws out UNC Department of Nutrition as one of recipients.
May 19: Judge Siebel approves the revised allocation list.
June 16: Michael Hyman, attorney, files an appeal of allocation list on behalf of "prominent" members of the vegetarian community.
October: Hinduism Today publishes article with headline "McDonald’s Fries: Not Done Yet. $10 million settlement — including $250,000 for Hinduism Today — appealed."
December 10: fundraising appeal from the National Health Association denounces allocation of settlement money for Tufts, ADAF, and the Muslim groups as an "outrage"; suggests "at least $1 million" should go to the National Health Association.
December 11: appeals court receives the vegetarian appellants’ brief, which objects to all of the research organizations and to the "excessive" amounts of money allocated to the vegetarian groups.
2004:
March: VegNews article "The McDonald's Lawsuit: What's the Story?" appears in the March/April issue of VegNews.
March 31: Illinois Court of Appeals upholds the allocation of $10 million to the proposed recipients.
McDonald's Lawsuit Settlement Agreement Terms
1. McDonald’s would pay $10 million into a "cy pres" fund. "Cy pres" (pronounced "see pray") is a legal term that means "as close as possible," and refers to the fact that it would be impractical and very expensive to track down and verify every person who ate at McDonald’s between 1990 and 2001 and didn’t want beef in their fries.
2. The $10 million would go 60% to "vegetarian organizations," 20% to "Hindu or Sikh organizations" 10% to children’s nutrition or hunger relief organizations, and 10% to organizations promoting Kosher observance and education. Both sides would need to agree on the recipients of the money, which would also have to be agreed to by the judge. Criteria used in judging the recipients included the nonprofit status of the group, dedication of the group to the values of the category in which they are subsumed (vegetarian, Hindu or Sikh, etc.), and geographical reach of the organization.
3. McDonald’s would also issue an apology, revise their list of ingredients to identify the source of their flavorings (no more hiding behind the "natural flavors" label), and appoint a "vegetarian nutrition advisory board" with members agreed upon by both parties.
4. There would also be limited awards, not more than $4000 each, for the individually named plaintiffs, and McDonald’s agrees to pay up to $2,452,000 in attorney’s fees and costs in addition to the cy pres fund.
Groups Proposed To Receive Money for "Vegetarian Groups"
Initial proposalApproved allocation
1. Vegetarian Resource Group $1,400,000 $1,400,000
2. North American Vegetarian Society
$1,000,000 $1,000,000
3. Tufts University $800,000 $850,000
4. ADAF Vegetarian Nutrition Dietetic Practice Group
$500,000 $600,000
5. Preventive Medicine Research Institute (Dean Ornish)
$500,000 $550,000
6. The American Vegan Society $500,000 $500,000
7. Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America (IFANCA)
$150,000 $450,000
8. Loma Linda University $250,000 $300,000
9. Vegetarian Vision, Inc. $250,000 $250,000
10. Muslim Consumer Group for Food Products
$50,000 $100,000
11. Sound Vision Foundation $350,000 0
12. UNC Chapel Hill Dept. of Nutrition $250,000 0
Fourteen other groups received the remaining $4,000,000 allocated to Hindu and Sikh organizations, Kosher groups, and children’s groups.
This list was approved by Judge Richard Siebel on May 19, 2003, but was appealed separately by both vegetarians and Muslims. On March 31, 2005,
the Illinois Court of Appeals upheld the settlement; no further appeals are in process and the money is in the process of being distributed.