19 June 1997 Edition

Resize: A A A Print

McLibel day is nigh

Robert Allen anticipates the verdict in a junk food giant's case against two environmental activists


The British judicial system is about to make its ruling on the libel action which McDonalds, the global junk food corporation, took against David Morris and Helen Steel, two anarchists involved in London Greenpeace.

In what is being seen as a classic corporate own-goal McDonalds methods of production, environmental care and health, labour and safety procedures were examined in depth during the record-breaking 313 day hearing.

What became apparent fairly quickly was the pedantic nature of Justice Bell and the arrogance of the junk food chain's counsel.

McDonalds argued that the land used to rear cattle from which to make burgers was not rainforest. The judge, Justice Bell, sought the definition of rainforest and relied on the Oxford dictionary - which lists eco-terrorist but for some strange reason can't find room for eco-anarchist or eco-feminist or eco-warrior. So if it's not rainforest it doesn't matter. Why should the ruling elites worry about forests and habitats and waterways that have no corporate value?

Throughout the court case this attitude was prevalent. Only McDonalds view of the world was the right one. You also suspected that Justice Bell was more in sympathy with that view than the one epoused by the two London Greenpeace campaigners and all those - including former workers - who spoke against the junk food corporate.

What Morris and Steel did was remarkable. Denied legal aid and a jury trial they conducted their own defence against the might of McDonalds legal team. Attempts by McDonalds senior counsel to characterise Morris as a power freak would have been ironic if the lawyer had not been representing a company that has stores in 24 counties and returns $30 billion annual profits.

Because Morris and Steel are different, because Greenpeace London has a eco-centred world view, because they were the voices of the many who oppose corporate capitalism and want to stamp it out, it was easy for McDonalds counsel to try and ridicule them, to debase their arguments and portray them as enemies of society.

Biologist David Ehrenfeld springs to mind here. In his 1993 book Beginning Again: People and Nature in the New Millennium he wrote: ``Until science and society regain a fascination with diversity, with differences, with uniqueness, and with exceptions, all in their own right, there will continue to be...new and faster methods of cutting down tropical forests, there will continue to be an accelerating loss of species and communities, despite all the science, land and money that conservation can muster.''

It is unlikely that Justice Bell has read the works of people like Ehrenfeld or even knows about the research of Robert Costanza and a dozen of his colleagues. Costanza, who directs the Institute of Ecological Economics at the University of Maryland at Solomons, recently published research on the value of global ecosystems, estimating that 17 of the Earth's ecosystems are worth $33 trillion a year. By comparison, the current total GNP of the world's nations is roughly $18 trillion. ``This,'' said Costanza, ``is enough of an answer to lead us to want to put a lot more effort into studying and valuing ecosystem services.''

Morris and Steel believe people can do this, if given truthful information and the opportunity. ``Having been denied a jury trial, we believe that the world's public are in effect the wider jury. Campaigners are providing a valuable public service in ensuring that people everywhere continue to hear an alternative point of view to that put out by McDonalds, and therefore are able to judge for themselves. The Corporation spends $2 billion each year on advertising and promotions - our trial has shown the huge contrast between their glossy image and the reality. Whatever the verdict, the need to scrutinise and challenge multinationals has never before been greater and so the campaign is certain to continue to grow.''

Justice Bell, no doubt, may privately decide this is outside his legislative perimeters and rule in favour of the corporate giant. The full judgement is expected to be about 1000 pages long, covering the corporation's claim, the defendants' counterclaim and any damages. The ruling on any costs and injunction will be given at a later date.

Whatever Bell's decision, expect thousands of protests against McDonalds outside and maybe inside their stores this Saturday.

An Phoblacht
44 Parnell Sq.
Dublin 1
Ireland