My overwhelming impression from the verdict was that the judge was thoroughly arbitrary, and used a sort of nit-picking estimate of "truth", on so many points, that a victory was IMPOSSIBLE.
Specifically, he claims that the pamphlet implied that RAIN FOREST was destroyed to make McDonald's packaging. If you read the original, you can see it's ridiculous. I don't know if I believe the "800 square miles" measurement, but he doesn't dispute it. He relies on bullshit conflation of "forest" with "rain forest" to avoid a real answer.
Likewise with fatty foods - they're unhealthy, but they're not. In order to so much as suggest that m'lord butcher is a part of an unhealthy social practice, one must wait until he is the only butcher in town.
Alas, such bogus logic is not limited to Britain. Try reading the CDA arguments before the U.S. supreme court at http://www.ciec.org/ - but do it on an empty stomach. No matter what the court's verdict, it will be based on revoltingly false logic.
There is a new McLibel-type case in Chicago. A law in the U.S. state of Texas prohibits "defaming a food" without a ?"valid"? scientific basis, and a talk show host in Chicago allowed on an environmentalist who a cattle rancher claims didn't have such a basis. Prove-you're-right-or-pay has come to the U.S.
I have some information about this in the "corporate censorship" section of Censored In Chicago.