Witness Statement

name: Charles Secrett

section: Environment

for: The Defence

experience: Director, Friends Of The Earth

summary:

Therefore, it is my considered view that, as McDonald's are unable to categorically prove that all the beef supplies used in their United States restaurants at all times only came from cattle reared in the U.S., and never originated from South or Central American countries as the overwhelming weight of circumstantial evidence points toward for the 1970s and up at least until the end of 1986, it is surely right for McDonald's to now admit publicly that uncertainty, for their public statements to the contrary to be withdrawn, and for them to recognise that critics of the beef-purchasing and use practices and policies have been entitled to raise such concerns in public.

cv:

My relevant work experience is as follows:

In 1985, following extensive research on tropical deforestation, I launched Friends of the Earth's International Rainforest Campaign, the first in the world to investigate and campaign against the range of economic, social and political causes of tropical forest clearance. I led that campaign for nearly three years.
Since 1985 I have investigated first-hand various development activities and schemes in tropical forest areas, including: logging In peninsula Malaysia and the state of Sarawak (1986); mining and colonisation settlements in Para, eastern Amazonia (1987); and, logging and forestry operations in Costa Rica and Nicaragua (1991-2). I have been an official Observer at the International Tropical Timber Organisation (1987).
During these trips, and on many other occasions, I have had frequent meetings with relevant Government Ministers and officials, academics and representatives from natural resource and land-use industries and non-governmental organisations about a wide range of issues relating to tropical forest, and tropical forest land, use and management.
I have read and studied a considerable body of official and scientific literature on most aspects of tropical forest ecology and related economic and social development issues.

Full cv:
Available for this witness

full statement:

Introduction

This submission to the High Court has been prepared by Charles Secrett, currently Executive Director of Friends of the Earth (FOE) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The submission relates to representations made by Friends of the Earth in 1985/6 to McDonald's UK about the beef purchasing policies and practices of the McDonald's CorporatIon in the United States, and their relationship to tropical forest land sources, during the 1970s and 1980s.
It covers, amongst other matters, a meeting between myself and representatives of McDonald's UK, held in 1985 at the East Finchley Head Office of McDonald's UK, about these issues and subsequent correspondence, and includes copies of representative correspondence from McDonald's UK to two supporters of FOE who made similar enquiries.

About McDonalds
- While the International Rainforest Campaigner for Friends of the Earth, I had a meeting (on Friday 8th November 1985) with representatives from McDonald's UK Head Office in London, and subsequently corresponded briefly with Annette Allen, the then Public Relations Manager of McDonalds in the UK, about:
- Deforestation and cattle ranching on tropical forest lands in Latin America, and Central America in particular;
- The export of beef from these areas for consumption in the fast-food sector of the United States, including the likely use by McDonald's U.S. of such meat supplies;
- McDonald's categoric and repeated public claims that, in the United States and elsewhere, they had never used beef originating from any South American or Central American country in any of their products, or used beef supplies that anywhere in the world threatened tropical rain forests.
- Opportunities to work co-operatively to clear up, to the mutual advantage of environmentalists and the fast- food sector in the United States, persistent and institutionalised confusion over the certification process, and thus countries of origin of the cattle carcasses, for beef imports into the United States.
- I have attached copies of relevant correspondence, including copies of correspondence from McDonald's to two Friends of the Earth supporters, dated respectively 7 May and II December l986, which FOE has on its files, and a copy of an internal memo from Annette Allen (11 November 1985) summarising her version of the discussion which we had at our earlier meeting.

I would like to make the following points in relation to the issues summarised under the above point) :

During the 1980s, Friends of the Earth was extremely concerned that McDonalds in the UK and in other countries were, either inadvertently or deliberately, making misleading claims in public about the origin of the beef used in their United States restaurants by stating categorically that
"McDonald's USA ... has never purchased imported beef from Central America or South America for use in their hamburgers" (cf. letter to me from Annette Allen, 20 November 1985), and "McDonald's does not use any South American or Central American beef for hamburgers sold in the United States" and "Nowhere in the entire world does McDonald's use of beef threaten or remotely involve tropical rain forests". (cf. sample letters, 7 May and II December,1986).
From the information available to me, it was, and still is, my view that these assertions are false, and cannot be proven to be true for the period in question (ie. up until the end of 1986) at least.
Thus, from information available to me, I did not believe then, and do not believe now, that, for the period up until the end of 1986 at least, such claims can me substantiated and proven absolutely - whatever the intentions of the McDonald's Corporation with regard to the origin of the beef supplies used in their U.S. restaurants.
I held, and continue to hold, that belief because of the manner in which beef imported from Latin America and other regions of the world to the United States was sorted and distributed to the so-called `fast-food' sector of the meat trade in the United States during this period, and including beef supplied for makIng hamburgers by McDonald's and other such fast-food chains.
As my letter (5.12.1985) to Annette Allen makes clear, in summarising the substance of our discussions about FOE's concerns, the U.S. fast-food sector had and still has tremendous difficulties in denying absolutely any connection between their products, including McDonald's hamburgers, and tropical deforestation, or their beef's origin from countries that contain tropical forests, because of the grading and labelling system operated by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) during the period in question.
Such beef supplies imported into the USA, along with comparable beef supplies originating in the USA, were stored and checked for health and quality assurance purposes by USDA inspectors before being sold onto the wholesale and retail trade. Once beef consignments had been passed fit for consumption by the inspectors, and stamped USDA approved, they were graded according to the quality of the meat. To the best of my knowledge, this was the only certification available to buyers, including retail purchasers, about the status, including the country of origin, of the beef.
Once stocks of both imported beef, such as the meat used in the fast-food trade, and genuinely domestic reared (ie. in the U.S. itself) beef had been checked bv USDA inspectors, all such supplies consequently earned the status of US graded beef, and were sorted and sold on to the retail trade according to quality and end-use criteria - but, crucially, not according to the country of origin of the cattle used to provide such beef.

There is no question that beef in significant quantities was imported into the U.S. for the fast-food sector from Central American countries like Costa Rica and Guatemala throughout the 1970s and 1980s, and, during the 1960s and 1970s at least, substantial beef imports came from Brazil; and, that various categories of tropical dry, wet and rain forest continued to be cleared in these and other countries throughout these decades to create pastures for rearing cattle: this is well documented in official and scientific literature.
Although one could not prove categorically that such beef definitely could be found in any specific consignment of hamburgers or other fast-food meats, the only realistic conclusion, given the circumstances operating at the time and which governed the supply of beef for the fast-food sector in the U.S., is that, during the 1970s and much if not all of the 1980s, beef from cattle reared on recently deforested tropical land in countries like Costa Rica was used by all the major fast-food retailers in the U.S., including McDonald's. I believe this conclusion to be a statistical inevitability.
During the 1970s and at least up until the end of 1956, it was therefore impossible, in my considered view, for any U.S. retailer of fast-food beef products, including McDonald's, to be 100% certain that their hamburgers contained no beef supplies originating from South American or Central American tropical forest countries: whatever purchasing policy McDonald's, or other similar chains, may claim to have had or whatever instructions they may have issued to their wholesale suppliers.

Therefore, in my considered opinion, public claims to the contrary bv McDonald's representatives, such as those cited above, or indeed by any other beef-using, fast-food retailer in the U.S., cannot be shown to be true by McDonalds or others, for the period in question at least.
Similar points have been made by other witnesses in this case: eg. Howard F. Lyman, (July I8, 1993) and Douglas R. Shane (July 24, 1993). Corroborating evidence, confirming that beef from Central American countries was regularly supplied for the fast-food industry in the UnIted States, has been provided by Peter Heller (10.6.1991) and in the accompanying recorded statements by Alberto Amador, President of the Union of Beef Cattle Producers of Costa Rica on the transcript of the film, `The Bread of the Victors' (no date).; and, by Jean A. Carriere (July 24, 1993; 1.11.1993; 11.12.1993).
I would also like to point out that Annette Allen, in a crucial part of her internal memo (11.11.1985) that does not refer to our conversation, explicitly recognised that the Burger King and Jack-in-the-Box hamburger chains in the U.S. had already publicly admitted usIng South American beef, and that Burger King "has said that any hamburger chain denying using such meat, is lying"
I have read the submission (14.6.1993) made by Raymond M. Cesca regarding the beef purchasIng policy of the McDonald's Corporation.
I note that Mr. Cesca, in commenting upon the "alleged" (his word; para 11) inadequate meat labelling system operated by the USDA, does not, and is not able to, absolutely deny that imported beef from Central and Latin America could be mixed with meat produced in the U.S.. He is only able to state that "it is extremely unIikeIy that any imported beef which comes into the US would be used in McDonald's hamburgers" (para 11) and that while "imported beef makes up a small percentage of the total consumption of beef in the US and of the various types of beef whIch could theoretically be imported, economic conditions and quality limitations relating to imported beef make it unIikeIy that any beef other than whole cuts or frozen deboned beef for further processing would be imported into the US" (para 11)".
The words "extremely unlikely" and "unlikely" still allow for the very real possibIlity that imported beef, from countries where tropical forests had been and were still being cleared for cattle pastures, was used by McDonald's in the United States, whether inadvertently or not - as I have pointed out above.
Moreover, I note it appears from existing McDonald's correspondence that McDonald's restaurants in Costa Rica, Guatamala and Brazil used beef cattle originating from their own countries (eg. evidence from Rolando Robles, 7.6.1993; Manuel Jiminez, undated; and, correspondence from Elizabeth Densmore, 26.7.1982). Although such cattle may have originated from lands which had been cleared in earlier decades, this fact appears to me to make claims that "Nowhere in the entire world does McDonald's use of beef threaten or remotely involve tropical rain forests" (eg letter to Mr Wright, 11.12.1986) disingenuous at best; or, without definite proof that such lands were in fact deforested decades ago, another false claim.
In light of the information available to me and outlined above, it is my considered view that McDonald's have not been and cannot be in a position to claim categorically that they have never used either so-called tropical forest beef in their hamburgers, or beef originating from either South or Central America; nor that anywhere in the entire world does McDonald's use of beef threaten or remotely involve tropical rainforests. These assertions cannot be proved, as Mr. Cesca's carefully written memo indirectly acknowledges: if they could, I feel confident that Mr. Cesco would not have used the qualified phrases (emboldened above) that he did but would have stated that it was categorically impossible for such beef supplies to be used in any McDonalds hamburgers or other products.
Given that McDonald's publicly prides itself on its environmental track record, and having made such denials repeatedly in public, as well as threatened and instigated legal action against those who make the point that McDonald's have used beef from previously forested tropical lands (eg. re: Norman Myers, letter to him from Shelby Yastrow, l.6.l983; and, BBC TV Nature program, memo from Annette Allen to Chuck Rubner, 18.5.1984 and her letter to me, 20.11.1984, and letter from Mr Massa to Robin Hellier, BBC, 1.5.1984), it is my considered opinion that the burden of proof of innocence, by providing clear evidence which unambiguously and clearly supports their claims, must fall on the McDonald's Corporation itself.
In the continued absence of such proof, I do not believe that the assertions contained in Annette Allen's letter to me (20.11.1985) or to Ms C. Broadhead (7.5.1986) or to Mr M. Wrioht (11.12.1986), or any such similar assertions by other McDonald's representatives , namely that McDonald' s did not use any South American or Central American beef for hamburgers sold in the United States, and that "nowhere in the entire world" does McDonald's use of beef threaten or remotely involve tropical rain forests, can be shown to be true for the period up until the end of 1986 at least.
With regard to the oft-repeated claim, contained for example in Annette Allen's reply to me (20.11.1985), by various McDonald's representatives that Dr. Norman Myers, and consequently HRH Prince Phillip and the WWF, was convinced by the arguments used to back up the claim that McDonald's in the U.S. only used beef from the United States, it is worth noting that the public statement made by Dr. Myers cited by McDonald's to support their claim is decidedly equivocal (cf. memo from Sonja Bata to George Cohen, 21.6.1983; eg. letter from Mr. Massa to Robin Hellier, 1.5.1984).
I am not aware of any public statement from Dr. Myers confirming that definite proof of McDonald's innocence in this matter ever arrived, and/or retracting his original descriptions of the beef supply connections between Latin America and the U.S. fast-food end market. Nor have I seen or been made aware of any letters or other statements from U.S. beef suppliers to McDonald's in the United States, covering the period up until the end of 1986 providing such proof.
In light of the above, I believe that it has been extremely irresponsible of McDonald's to have publicly used correspondence witn H.R.H. Prince Phillip and the WWF to try and convince or pressurise others to stop stating genuinely held and valid concerns on these issues.

Conclusion
In conclusIon, I would like to state that I believe it to be highly significant that the McDonald's Corporation, in this country and the United States, has been unable to provide categoric proof that it has never used beef from Central or South American tropical forest countries in its United States restaurants, despite repeated claims to the contrary.
I accept that it appears from Mr Cesca's statement and other internal company documents, as well as recent statements from some of their meat suppliers, that McDonald's and their agents have improved their monitoring of beef supplies as well as their environmental policy statement in recent years (it appears from 1989). But, whatever precautions have been put in place recently, to the best of my knowledge such a system was not in place before then.
Therefore, it is my considered view that, as McDonald's are unable to categorically prove that all the beef supplies used in their United States restaurants at all times only came from cattle reared in the U.S., and never originated from South or Central American countries as the overwhelming weight of circumstantial evidence points toward for the 1970s and up at least until the end of 1986, it is surely right for McDonald's to now admit publicly that uncertainty, for their public statements to the contrary to be withdrawn, and for them to recognise that critics of the beef-purchasing and use practices and policies have been entitled to raise such concerns in public.

supplementary statement:

18 April 1996

1. This second submission to the High Court has been prepared by Charles Secrett, currently Executive Director of Friends of the Earth (FOE) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It should be read as an addendum to my first submission (prepared 20.3. 1995).

2. This submission summarises briefly the following issues: the environmental and ecological importance of all tropical forest types; thc environmcntal benefits of forestry regeneration and, the impact of clearance for pasture and cattle ranching in Central America and Brazil.

3. IMPORTANCE

3.0 There are three main broad classifications of tropical forests, which include tropical rain, tropical moist and tropical dry forest types. Tropical forests are also broadly distinguished between lowland and upland types, between closed and open types, between broadleaved, bamboo and coniferous forests, and between primary (unspoilt), secondary (regenerating) and pioneer (establishing) phases of forest ecosystem development. These broad classifications are used by all authorities, including the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation.
3.1 While rates of tropical deforestation and causes, vary from country to country, scientific, silvicultural and government concern (expressed internationally and within individual countries) over the loss of tropical forests covers all types. All types of tropical forest are suffering unacceptable rates of clearance and degradation, and are important for a number of reasons, including; the maintenance of species diversity; the provision of valuable economic products and goods such as timber and genetic resources: and, the provision and maintenance of environmental services such as soil protection, and in most cases watershed management.
3.2 When Friends of the Earth launched the first international tropical forest campaign in1985, we used the term 'rainforests' to cover all tropical forest types under threat from damaging development. This was a convenient and evocative shorthand to help introduce the public and politicians in developed nations like Britain to the multiple issues involved in explaining why tropical forests were important, why they were being destroyed and degraded, and, most importantly, what could be done in developed and developing nations to protect and conserve these crucial global and sovereign natural resources.
3.3 The banner slogan used in our tropical forest campaign was "Save the Rainforests". The popular and non-scientific use of the word 'rainforests' in this way can be likened to the similar campaign slogan, "Save the Whale", used throughout the 1970s, 1980s and up to the present day. Clearly, this slogan referred to all whale species under threat, and not to any particular whale or whale species.
3.4 All our campaign literature, and the publications of other organisations like our own who subsequently became involved in this campaign after 1985 made clear our concern for all tropical forest types under threat. These publications included "Rainforest: Protecting the Planet's Richest Resource" (Charles Secrett, Friends of the Earth, 1985). the overview document used to launch our campaign, "Timber!: An Investigation of the UK Tropical Timber Industry" (Francois Nectoux, Friends of the Earth, 1985), and our widely distributed and extensively published campaign gri information leaflets.

4. CAUSES AND BENEFITS

4.0 There are many causes of tropical deforestation. including logging, cattle ranching. shifting cultivation, transmigration, mining and infrastructure developments and fuel collection. The impact of development pressures like these varies from country to country.
4.1 'The expansion of pasture and cropland has been the driving development pressure on tropical forest areas in Central American nations, including Guatemala and Costa Rica. It has been estimated that more than one quarter of all Central American forests have been destroyed since 1960 to produce beef, 85-95% of which went to the United States; this represents less than 2% of total US beef consumption, but has a devastating affect on Central American fbrests ("Tropical Moist Forests: The Resource, The People; the Threat", Catherine Caufield, Earthscan, 1982). In Costa Rica, for example, the rate of transformation from forest to pasture has been increasing since 1950. In 1940, some 70% of the country was covered in primary forest: but only 17% remained under primary forest by 1983, and this was mostly in the mountainous areas of the country. Deforestation has been greater in the dry western region than in the other regions, as the former is comparatively easy to clear and maintain as pastureland by burning. In 196O, only 19% of the country was under pcrmanent pasture, while by 1980 this area had risen to 31%.
(UN Food and Agriculture Organisation in Leonard, HJ. 1987, "Natural Resources and Economic Development in Central America: A Regional Environmental Profile'.
International Institute for Environment and Development: and. Cilobal Biodiversity'.
Status of the Earth's Living Resources, compiled by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre, in collaboration with The Natural History Museum, London, and with the WCN The World Conservation Union.
United Nations Environment Programme.
The Worldwide Fund For Nature, and The World Resources Institute).
4.2 While there are many causes of deforestation in Brazil, including logging, industrial development, settlements and mining, clearance for pasture is similarly a highly significant development pressure. For example, it has been estimated that 72% of all clearance in 1980 was for pastureland (Browder. JO, 1988, 'Public Poalicy anCL Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon' in: Reppeto, R, and Gillis, M. Eds). Public Policies and the Misuse of Forest Resources, Cambridge University Press: and 'Global Biodiversity').
Overall, official figures attribute 38% of all deforestation in the Brazillian Amazon between 1966 and 1975 to cattle ranching, 90% of this under a state programme of fiscal incentives (Caufield above).
4.3 While land is under pasture, and used for cattle ranching, it is impossible for either natural regeneration or reforestation to occur. The demand for beef and beef products therefore can be said to directly prevent such regeneration or reforestation on those lands.
4.4 Most, if not all, tropical forest types require several hundred years of naturally occurring regeneration before primary tree species become established and the forest has reached its mature or final phase of successional development. It is in these forest types that generally the highest diversity of species are found. Earlier establishment and secondary phases occur over decadal to century timescales (depending on the species and forest ecosystem type) as does planned and deliberate reforestation. All such forests can provide to a greater or lesser extent certain products like fuel wood or timber, and environmental services such as soil erosion control. Generally, it is true to say that the most valuable tropical forest types are primary forests, given the range of species and environmental goods and services which they uniquely provide in combination. Any land use, such as pasture for cattle ranching, on formerly tropical forested lands which prevents natural regeneration or reforestation occuring, can be described as environmentally damaging for these reasons. It should also be noted that soil erosion rates, for example, in pastures on formerly tropical forested areas soar.

date signed: 20 March 1995

status: Appeared in court
references: Not applicable/ available

exhibits: Not applicable/ available

transcripts of court appearances:

Day 240 - 24 Apr 96

related links:

Introduction

About McDonalds

Conclusion