Interviewed by One-Off Productions, 26 July 1996.
Thanks to McSpotlight for originally editing the transcripts.  
 

What are your general feelings about McDonald's?
Any company as large as McDonalds is bound to have a huge and usually very bad impact on the environment. I mean, when one thinks of all their tens of thousands of stores world-wide and the demand that McDonalds as a corporation creates for land, for energy, for wood and paper pulp and chemicals and metals like aluminium, the environmental impact of these production processes is huge - in pollution terms, in the waste of energy and in the use of land for what must be described as trivial consumer products. Particularly when in southern countries that land should be being used in our view to feed hungry and poor people. So McDonalds I think, along with other similarly large corporations, have a lot to answer for, unless they can prove to the public and to regulatory authorities that they are squeaky clean and green in all these areas - and we know very well that they are not.

Environmentally then, how do you view McDonald's?
A company like McDonalds uses an enormous amount of packaging, both for transporting raw materials and goods from where they're produced or grown to the shops that they're sold in, and in terms of packaging up their food and drink products for sale to the general public in hundreds of countries all round the world. Now, packaging is a enormous part of household waste, and that causes, in this country for example, tremendous landfill and pollution problems. It's so stupid really, because we should be minimising the amount of packaging used, minimising the amount of waste and ensuring that wherever possible, products like wood or aluminium or paper are recycled and reused - and a company like McDonalds should have in all its operations world-wide systems in place to ensure waste minimisation and to recover and reuse these potentially valuable materials. It makes environmental sense and it makes economic sense, and unfortunately, that also does not happen and we think that it should. One of the worst environmental problems caused by overuse of packaging and wood and paper products we can see if we look at where the paper products actually come from.

If we look in a little more detail at the environmental impact of McDonalds' demand for packaging of paper and plastics - we can see that they are encouraging very bad and environmentally damaging practices, in the forestry industry, for example. The paper, or the wood that's grown to produce paper and pulp is grown in forestry plantations. Those plantations occurs on land that was previously forested with wonderful native forests full of wildlife - beautiful places - and have been replaced by serried monocultured ranks, usually of conifer trees which have a very bad impact on the environment - I mean they're not nearly so rich in wildlife, for example. Also the way the trees are grown uses a huge amount of very toxic and persistent chemicals like pesticides. Now, these pesticides have to end up somewhere, and they end up in the natural environment and indeed in many cases find their way through the food chain back into human beings' bodies, now we don't think that's a very good idea.

The other problem caused is in the processing of the wood fibres to produce the paper. Companies bleach these products with chlorine compounds. Chlorine compound breaks down forming, for example, organo-chlorine compounds - these are also hugely persistent and toxic chemicals which pose a real threat to wildlife and human beings.

McDonalds should be using their influence as a major consumer of these paper and pulp products to insist that the forestry industry that they buy from themselves behave responsibly. We believe that McDonalds have consumer responsibilities just like any individual does to ensure that they are encouraging as green an economy and as green a production process as possible, and that simply doesn't happen at the moment.

Another environmental problem that comes for example from McDonalds use of packaging is in plastics. Many plastics are simply not biodegradable - they themselves are made from production processes that also generate and release into the environment huge amounts of toxic chemicals. The plastics themselves have to be disposed of. In many cases plastics could be made so that they can be recycled and reused. McDonalds plastics as far as we're aware are not like this, and therefore, that waste....it's almost to quantify we're talking probably about millions of tons annually that have to be disposed of. Now they're usually chucked away, disposed of in landfills and it shouldn't be like this - those landfills themselves leak toxic chemicals and cause other environmental problems. McDonalds should be striving to minimise its packaging, ensuring that wherever it does use materials like this they can be not only environmentally friendly, but also recycled and reused.

Are there any other business practices that FOE has identified as meriting close attention?
Another problem that we're very worried about at FOE in terms of McDonalds bad environmental impact concerns their Styrofoam containers. Now, in some countries we understand that McDonalds are still using ozone-depleting chemicals to help produce these cartons. In this country, in Britain, they don't as the result of a very successful FOE campaign back in the late 1980s which persuaded McDonalds in the UK that were alternatives that were much safer and caused no problems as far as the ozone layer were concerned. In some countries McDonalds uses propane to help blow these Styrofoam packages. Propane is a very potent global warming gas, it's helping to create the pollution that's going to cause climate change and sea level rise. Again, McDonalds as a responsible company has to ensure that they don't encourage these very damaging and very worrying environmental problems, and again, as far as we're aware, while one or two stores dotted around the world may be worried, the corporation as a whole isn't and therefore, they are failing in their moral and environmental obligations.

Even when McDonalds had taken action to stop using the ozone-depleting chemicals like the HCFCs they'd substituted other chemicals like pentane, for example, that also have bad environmental effects. Pentane is a potent greenhouse gas, releases of it into the environment are encouraging and accelerating Global Warming, which we now know is going to lead to climate change and sea level rise. We're glad that they took action where they did to stop using ozone-depleting chemicals, but why on earth substitute them for greenhouse gas chemicals. Use the safe alternatives that don't cause any other environmental problem. We know other companies can do it, so why can't McDonalds?

What do you know about McDonald's attempts to deal with their waste and packaging?
We understand that there have been certain McDonalds branches that have tried to set up waste minimisation / waste separation schemes, as far as their customers' packaging is concerned to encourage recycling and reuse. Most of these schemes as far as we're aware have been dropped. We know of one or two that are still in operation, in Nuremberg in Germany, for example, where it appears to work very well indeed, and yet in Britain when McDonalds tried a pilot scheme they dropped it after a few months in December 1994 and now we have all the problems that are commonly associated with McDonalds and the disposal or otherwise of their packaging products.

I mean, I think it would be most peoples' experience in this country - it's certainly been my experience- that when I walk past a McDonalds hamburger restaurant it tends to be a centre for litter and you can see the trail of McDonalds-emblazoned products up and down the High Street. This shouldn't happen - if the schemes can work in some stores in some countries McDonalds and local communities can make them work everywhere in the world. Because otherwise, apart from making our streets unsightly and unpleasant to walk through, we've got to think about where this packaging is going to end up -and it's ending up in landfills - and we're soon going to run out of holes in the ground, and anyway, what are we putting these valuable products into the ground for when they could be reused and have much less environmental impact? McDonalds should become a conserver corporation, and it's not at the moment - in our view.

In Friends of the Earth's view McDonalds is a very good example of a corporation that encourages too much packaging by over-packaging their products, presumably because they can get lots of advertising and help sell the product more. It's a totally irresponsible way of behaving as far as we're concerned. It encourages the constant use and production of these products that are then simply chucked away after a few minutes' lifetime. And yet the products are made of valuable raw materials and natural resources that can be reused and recycled so that we get much more use as a society out of them, and that helps to reduce the impact that people have on the natural world. That's the way that we should be going.

Could you tell us a little about the evironmental impact, if any, concerning other aspects of the fast food industry - for example beef production?
In environmental terms beef is a very inefficient product in terms of helping people meet their calorie intakes and nutritional requirements. To raise cattle requires an enormous amount of land, and is often done in a very intensive way so that, in the tropics for example, cattle pastures not only result in the clearance of pristine ecosystems like all sorts of different types of tropical forests and the species that are only associated in those forests, but it also leads to the trampling and the churning of very fragile lands - the soils that forests originally grew on. Now, that causes all sorts of problems in terms of soil erosion and again, because of the pesticides and other chemicals that are used to grow the grasses that the cattle feed on to water pollution and pesticide run-off problems.

And what about McDonald's energy use - efficient and responsible?
A corporation as large as McDonalds is a vast consumer of energy, both directly and indirectly. When you think of all the stores and warehouses that they have world-wide and all the trucks and other vehicles that they use to get their products form A to B to C to D, and then how they keep their lights on and the heat that they have to generate to do the cooking, and all these operations use enormous amounts fossil fuels, and fossil fuels when we burn them cause big environmental problems like acid rain and global warming. Everyone should be taking steps, from the individuals to very large corporations like McDonalds to cut back on energy use, and in doing so to stop using as many fossil fuels and to cut back on acid rain and global warming pollutants. We have a responsibility to do this to ensure that we use energy as efficiently as possible.

Now I'm not aware that McDonalds insists on the most highly energy efficient technologies in their shops and their warehouses and their offices. I'm not aware that they insist that the trucks that they use are as fuel efficient as they should be. Now until they take steps like that, McDonalds can quite legitimately be blamed for being part of the problem of acid rain and global warming rather than constructively taking steps to minimise these problems. And let's not forget after all, that it makes jolly good economic sense to be a good environmentalist when it comes down to cutting on energy use because if you use less energy you pay less fuel bills, and I'm absolutely certain that McDonalds could save itself huge amounts of money by simply being environmentally responsible in this way. Why don't they do it?

If we look at another slice of McDonalds operations we can see yet another environmental problem. McDonalds has to refrigerate its food both for storage, for transport, and it the shops themselves before they're cooked and sold to the public. Now those refrigeration systems, as evidence in the trial has shown use CFCs - one of the most dangerous and powerful ozone-depleting groups of chemicals. Now we know that there are substitutes that can be used in refrigeration systems that are just as effective and that don't deplete the ozone layer. Why are McDonalds not using those safe alternatives? If they can take the HCFCs out of some of their Styrofoam packaging they can surely take the much more dangerous CFCs out of all their refrigeration an cooling systems.

So how does all of this fit with their public image regarding the environment?
McDonald's public claims about their environmental performance and responsibility vary from country to country er, and over time - they do change their tune. But in many cases in many countries we know that McDonalds have been advertising themselves as an environmentally responsible company. Now in our view, that simply is not true. There are isolated examples of particular McDonalds restaurants or offices dotted around the world that are more environmentally responsible in terms of say, trying to minimise packaging or minimise energy use than the vast majority - but the vast majority in our view, are still not doing what they should be doing to ensure that they tread lightly on the Earth - that they minimise their environmental impact across all their operations.

One of the problems that FOE has had with McDonalds over the years is when they have tried to make claims that they are an environmentally responsible company and that they've tried to persuade the public and pressure groups like our own that we've got nothing to worry about, that they're doing all that they can throughout the world to ensure that they don't damage the environment through pollution or energy waste or over packaging or whatever it is. Um, we simply, we don't think that these claims can stand up and we're absolutely certain that McDonalds could be doing much, much more to actually be a good corporate leader in best environmental practice, and until they reach those standards we think that they are misleading the public to try and claim that they are a green and enviromentally responsible company.

McDonald's would probably claim that they are no worse than any other company.
Environmental issues so often tend to be debated in terms of what governments should be doing to look after the environment or what the public should be doing to look after the environment. If we think about the industrial sector primarily in terms of pollution, but in fact, every single company whatever business they're involved in have equal responsibilities to look after the environment, to cut pollution, to stop the waste of natural resources and to conserve habitats and wildlife. Of course there are many other huge global communications and much smaller national and local companies that have very bad environmental track records similar to McDonalds.

McDonalds can't claim as a defence :'Oh well, we're no better or worse than anybody else." They all have a responsibility to do things differently, because the world - including people who work for McDonalds are faced with the consequences of global warming and climate change, of species extinction, of air and water pollution, of the waste of energy and precious natural resources like wood and paper and minerals. McDonalds should be acting as an environmental leader. As we go into the 21st century corporations have to understand that good business practice is no longer just based on the bottom line and gathering up profits and making payments to shareholders. Good business practice in the 21st century has to be about remembering the bottom line - but also ensuring that those companies operate to the highest environmental and social standards and McDonalds still has a long way to go before it can make that claim. Why doesn't McDonalds rise to that challenge?
Be a corporate environmental leader, that's good business.

If McDonald's were to change their environmental policies significantly what sort of response do you think this would merit?
Personally, I'm not much of a fan of fast food chains, whether they're on small scale or the great global scale. I think people can do much better in terms of what they eat and how they eat, but I also accept that this is a personal choice, and while there's a demand from people for the sort of products McDonalds serve up, corporations like McDonalds will always exist. I think something else that we've got to be aware of is that surely it makes so much more environmental and social sense, as well as economic sense to be building up our economies around local production, local supply, local consumption - then we're more likely to get good environmental practice and a strong and healthy economy going hand in hand. It's certainly a much better way of creating jobs and helping town centers remain economically viable.

Huge global corporations and the way that they're able to control the markets in products and the way that they operate - shifting goods all round the world - is economically inefficient from a personal point of view as well as being very environmentally damaging. So I'm not much of a fan of corporations like McDonalds, but I have to accept that everyone has the right to make up their own mind.

How easy is it for organisations like FOE to monitor and criticise McDonalds?
It's one of FOE's jobs to monitor what companies get up to, whether they're small companies or big companies as well as looking at what Government gets up to, to see whether the best environmental practice is being carried out or whether these companies are causing big and small environmental problems. If they are, we believe we have a duty as a public interest pressure group who rely on the facts and accurate argument to let people know what's going on and to use the resources that we have as a campaigning organisation to persuade McDonalds and companies like them to do things differently. So we are very happy and prepared to and willing to criticise any company when we think they're doing a bad job - when they're harming the environment, when they're polluting too much, when they're wasting natural resources and helping to encourage the destruction of habitats and wild species - that's our job: we're an environmental watchdog organisation, and so we will tackle the very big companies to try and ensure that they behave as corporate responsible citizens.

One of the dangers that a pressure group like FOE has to be aware of at all times is being taken to the courts. Companies can be very litigacious and resort to lawyers at the drop of a hat and that can be a very expensive and time-consuming process, even if FOE has got is facts right and wins the court case. In a sense we're small players by comparison with McDonalds in terms of the resources and the money and the people that we have. We hope that we're big players in terms of the effectiveness in which we operate and the impact that we have, so that's also something that we have to take into account. McDonalds and companies like them are much better positioned to be able to tie their opponents and their critics up in the law courts, even on spurious charges. I'm not saying that that's happened yet, but it's always a danger, and it's always a threat.

So at FOE we are meticulous in getting our facts right, in getting the most persuasive arguments to back up our claims and our campaigns. Otherwise we'd not have any credibility, we'd be ineffective and we'd run the danger of being drummed out of business by court actions, so we're not going to take that risk, but we're always aware that the threat is there.

Did you have any hesitations or reservations about appearing in court?
I had no hesitations at all about appearing as a witness in the McLibel trial because I know from my own studies and expertise, from my extensive travels in tropical rainforest countries like Brazil and Costa Rica and Nicaragua, what goes on in the tropics - what the problems that the tropical forest and the people who live there face, and the damage that is caused by companies like McDonalds on those very precious, very fragile ecosystems and natural environments. Because I am convinced that my evidence was based on the truth and was accurate I had absolutely no hesitation at all in appearing as a witness and supporting Helen and Dave's case, which I have tremendous admiration for. I think everyone should be very grateful indeed for what they're doing and for how much personal sacrifice and hard work and commitment that they're prepared to stake to ensure, as they see it, that justice is done.

What would you say were the benefits of this case, what can be seen to have come from it?
I think one of the advantages from an environmental campaigner's point of view - from FOE's perspective - of a trial like this which has been going on for almost two years now is that it allows in a court of law for the facts to surface, for the newspapers and the media to report on what's going on, and in that way Helen and Dave's campaign has helped a much wider audience, a much greater proportion of the public understand what's going on - their awareness is being raised, information is being pumped out - and the court case has played a very valuable role in helping people understand what's happening to their natural world.

In terms of their food production, how would you describe the consequences environmentally?
It's almost unimaginable to think how much potatoes, how much fish, how many chickens, how many cattle, how many oranges for orange juice McDonalds use up in the course of a day, let alone a year, and these....because of the scale of the operations, the huge quantities, the vast amounts that have to be grown and produced sold, means that the production methods used on the farms are very intensive indeed, so you have intensive rearing of the animals and the birds, you have enormous amounts of chemicals being used to grow the crops in sufficient quantities, and to a sufficient 'quality' - in terms of appearance at least - that satisfy McDonalds buying requirements.

Now those agricultural methods are not ones that environmental organisations like FOE approve of, particularly when we know that there is an alternative - to go organic, to grow food naturally, to rear animals and birds like chickens in more moral and humane ways so that they have decent lives before they end up as someone's meal. Now that's not happening - McDonalds have a huge opportunity to use their market position as such huge consumers of these agricultural products to encourage the farmers who sell them those products to go organic - to rear the animals in humane ways and to not use chemicals. They're a wealthy rich, and big enough operation to set that in motion, but they're not doing it....why aren't they doing it?
They could again be taking a responsible and moral position that would be just as profitable for them and that wouldn't leave them open to criticisms that organisations like FOE make. They're going to have to change sooner or later....it makes sense to do it now.

What did you make of Richard Rampton's cross-examination?
There is a problem because the cross examination was non-existent. He does it deliberately, becasue the defendants have very few opportunites to tease out the implications of what the evidence are. They're not allowed to ask anything that can be termed a leading question. And the sort of questions that they can ask have to relate abosultely, specifically and precisely to what the written eveidence was. Now normally in a court case, whatever type of trial it is, its the cross -examination that gives either the prosecution or the witness to develop the implications of the evidence - whether its oral evidence or written evidence. Rampton has a clever tactic. He wants as little discussion of the underlying issues as possible. And so his cross examinaiton of me was non-existent. In fact, he wasn't going to ask me anything at all and then he asked me two tiny questions - which were completely insignificant. And so my feelings coming out of the witness box were of intense frustration because I felt that the prosecution were using courtroom tactics to minimise debate.

In theory, any citizen of the land could have done what Helen and Dave have done, I think it is true to acknowledge that, but I think that we also have to recognise that it takes a very special sort of person to be that committed to believe so steadfastly in the truth and the values that they think that society should be upholding that FOE also believe in and to be able to persist with a case like this, to not be bowed or sent packing by McDonalds simply because they were so big.

I mean, we've got a classic example of David agianst Goliath, and I think we need individiuals like Dave and Helen who are environmental activists, but who are aslo individual people - ordinary citizens, if you like - who are prepared to stand up and be counted and fight for what they believe in, and I have tremendous admiration for them both and we're only too happy at FOE to do what we can to help them in their fight becuase we hope very much - we can't predict anything until we've heard the judge's final ruling - but we think that the evidence that they've uncovered that would't have been uncovered, or reach out into the public domain without the court case that they were prepared to fight is showing that McDonalds has got a very long way to go before they can claim to be an environmentally and socially responsible company, so good for Dave and Helen, and let's keep our fingers crossed and hope that the judge agrees with our estimation of them and their case.

With regard to the judgement what sort of weight would you give to it?
It's impossible sitting here to try and second-guess what the judge is going to conclude, what I think we can say though is that there is a responsibility resting on one man's shoulders to be able to sift through the enormous piles of evidence that have been presented during the case, and to be able to understand th ecomplexities and nuances of issues that he probably hasn't dealt with before. We believe that it would have been much better to go to a jury trial, though we also understand that that was something that McDonalds said that they weren't interested in at all. A jury of twelve people, good and true - a system that I genuinly believe in is much more likely to be able to have the time and consideration to put forward a recommendation to the judge about whether McDonalds were right, or whether Helen and Dave were right. We would have preferred twelve heads to be settling this problem rather than one.

What can you see as being the real environemental effects of this case?
In the long term, my view is that whichever way the judgement goes that it's going to be a strengthening of the environmental case. If the judgement goes in favour of McDonalds, I think that McDonalds are likely to make great play of that around the world and to be advertising the fact that they won this court case, and that the criticisms of them were untrue. My own view is that will simply spur environmental organisations and citizens around the world to prove that environmentally, McDonalds is still causing a vast amount of damage and that there are much better solutions already available that would help them in their business. If the court case goes in favour of Helen and Dave, then I think exactly the same effect will happen. I think that McDonalds themselves will be quicker to react - to put improvements in place - but I think also that environmentalists around the world will be campaigning against McDonalds and, I hope, also genuinely wanting to work with McDonalds to improve their environmental practices and performance. So in the long run, McDonalds are going to have to change as a result of this court case, and in the long run that's going to be good for the environment and for people everywhere.

So, who do you see as being on trial here?
It looks as if Helen and Dave are the ones who are on trial. In my view, this court case is about the environmental and social obligations of companies like McDonalds, and I think that the court case is as much a trial of McDonalds as it is of Helen and Dave - and that's certainly how it should be.

 
More interview transcripts