McDONALD'S ACCEPT DAMNING CRITICISMS
The McLibel judge Mr Justice Bell had ruled, on June 19th 1997, that: McDonald's 'exploit children' with their advertising; the company pays 'low wages, helping to depress wages for workers in the catering trade'; McDonald's sell high fat, high salt, low fibre products which they have deceptively marketed having falsely 'pretended to a positive nutritional benefit'; that 'people who eat McDonald's food several times a week will take the very real risk of heart disease if they continue to do so throughout their lives, encouraged by [the company's] advertising'; McDonald's 'are culpably responsible' for animal cruelty.
McDonald's failed to Appeal and therefore challenge these damning findings against their core business practices.
But on top of this, on September 28th at a 'directions' hearing in the Court of Appeal during the lead up to the defendants' appeal (currently scheduled to start on January 12th 1999), Richard Rampton QC, representing the McDonald's Corporation and its UK subsidiary, stated:
"We make no criticism of the learned Judge's judgment. To a large extent my response to the Defendants' appeal will be that the learned judge was right for the reasons he gave." [Extract from the official transcript of the hearing].