- McDonald's -

Naivety & Motives

Posted by: James ( UK ) on October 22, 1999 at 18:02:56:

In Reply to: McD's: Better than Most but a Target just because they're Big posted by James on October 22, 1999 at 15:08:21:

Its nice to be able to have the last word, isn't it McSpot.

But who's naive here? Slaughterhouses are NOT regulated and controlled by McD's-- its the Government, isn't it. Here in the UK THEY totally screwed up with BSE for years- nothing to do with McD. Sure, McD's big but agriculture generally and the meat processing industry is considerably bigger and their control is a political hot potato. Picking on McD's for inhumane agriculture is indirect action isn't it-- again, why not go after the farmers and processors directly involved? Why not go after the regulators? Because you cannot get the same satisfaction, that's why. Its the same as secondary picketing. The political interest and power of agriculture is too strong and diffuse, so go after the soft targets, right? McD's is plainly more susceptible to consumer pressure than anywhere else in the food processing chain. Its the weak spot and the one targeted. If slaughterhouses are inhumane its true regardless of whomever buys their products-- so why pick on McD's? Again, its because they're big. I'd say your argument was ultimately with the consumers-- no company is going to spend more than they have to in a competative environment (McD's vs BK vs Wendy's vs all the other fast food outlets). So long as consumers base ther buying decisions on price the companies cannot do anything else. Enlightened consumers? Maybe, but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

No one can possibly maintain that all members of ANY organization or group share an identical motive, and I did not say so. My observation that many (not all, or even a majority; you'll note) seem to be abolitionists is undeniable. Your criticism is a cheap shot.

McSpotlight: We give the reasons for targeting McDonald's here. Not the least of them being that McDonald's tried to use the UK libel laws to silence critics; which resulted in the McLibel Trial, which resulted in McSpotlight.

You say that slaughterhouses are regulated by the Government; this is true; but McD's provide the market for the meat; and they market an unhealthy product to the tune of over $2 billion per year, despite knowing it to be unhealthy. Furthermore, they target their adverts at those who are not old enough to disseminate the semiology behind adverts. This is unethical behaviour in our books.

Witness the fact that McDonaldland adverts pretend that hamburgers come from a hamburger patch; rather than being part of a dead animal; because dead animals are mediapathic.

Oh, and for your information, McDonald's is the largest single customer of the meat industry in the world.

Of course, it's not just McDonald's, which is why we have a Beyond McDonald's page (in which you will find Burger King).

McDonald's is the biggest target; they set the conditions and acceptable practices in the industry as a whole in much the same way that The Sun dictates tabloid practice and behaviour. And they cannot stand justified criticism; despite the fact that the judge ruled that McDonald's exploit their staff, exploit children, knowingly promotes unhealthy food as healthy and are culpably guilty of cruelty to animals.

I don't know about you, but we feel justified in criticising a company that does the above. Even more so when they try to silence people for criticizing them about it.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup