- McSpotlight -


Posted by: Jill ( McSpotlight ) on December 10, 1998 at 15:05:01:

In Reply to: puh-lezze. posted by rowelentless on December 07, 1998 at 22:00:32:

: : ......This is just one example, they have misled people plenty of times. Perhaps you should keep your eyes open to what McDonald's actually say before barking to their defence and criticising us.

: Maybe that is a "British Advert" Here we tell the truth.

Oh really? You seem to have incredible faith that McDonald's USA is totally faultless - why? If McDonald's aren't currently promoting their food in America as 'nutritious', perhaps that's because they've already had legal action threatened against them in the past for deceptively promoting their food as nutritious, and they know they wouldn't get away with it now.

In 1986 the Attorneys General of Texas, California and New York threatened legal action against McDonald's for deceptive advertising. They The reason for this is simple: McDonald's food is, as a whole, not nutritious. The intent and result of the current campaign is to deceive consumers into believing the opposite. Fast food customers often choose to go to McDonald's because it is inexpensive and convenient, They should not be fooled into eating there because you have told them it is also nutritious."

You can read more about this in the witness statement of Steve Gardner, former assistant attorney general of Texas, who gave evidence for the defence in the McLibel trial, or in his interview on this site.

Oh, and the other reason might be that the US Food and Drug Administration has set out a definition of what can be described as healthy food - "A 'healthy' food is low in fat and saturated fat, contains limited amounts of cholesterol and sodium, and is a good source of one or more of six important nutrients". So if a company like McDonald's now tries to promote it's food as healthy or nutritious, it might just be risking a massive fine.

: : : Advertising

: I never said you sold it, I was refering to veggie "nazi's"

Your post certainly implied that it was us you were referring to. But that aside, just who are you referring to as veggie "nazi's", and more to the point, why are you referring to them in that offensive way? I really can't remember hearing about any events where vegetarians kept meat eaters as prisoners and forced them to eat vegetarian food. Vegetarians and vegans simply provide information about what's going on in the meat industry, and when some people find out, then they choose to become vegetarian. If it is simply that you don't like having to hear what vegetarians have got to say, then perhaps you should examine your reasons for that. After all, vegetarians (and everyone else) hear propaganda from the meat industry every day.

: : Secondly, whether or not others can advertise is irrelevant to the right to criticise advertising by companies such as McDonald's who exploit children with their advertising and run deceptive adverts, and that's on top of the fact that they're encouraging people to eat more of products which are unhealthy, and produced in a manner which is detrimental to the environment.

: American children will eventually make the decision wether they go there or not. The adverts aren't deceptive. It is just their image.

Would they make the same choice if they weren't subjected to the advertising and hype? The answer is no. McDonald's own directors of marketing said during the McLibel trial that without advertising the company wouldn't exist. If none of the advertisements are deceptive, then how come a High Court Judge in the UK , after listening to 313 days of evidence and submissions about McDonald's, who were represented by top lawyers, managed to come to the conclusion that "various of the [McDonald's] advertisements, promotions and booklets have pretended to a positive nutritional benefit which McDonald's food, high in fat and saturated fat and animal products and sodium, and at one time low in fibre, did not match". That's from p363 of the judgment if you want to check. And this was in a case that the company chose to bring.

: : ..... the Judge in McLibel ruled that their advertising does exploit children, and that they do deceptively promote their food as nutritious.

: Once again it won't affect McD's a bit. Let the two continue to pass flyers, but it is totally dumb to keep dragging on with this trial.

It has already affected McDonald's. They received lots of publicity about all the findings against them at the end of the trial, which I'm sure they'd rather people didn't know about. For example:
Daily Mirror
Daily Telegraph
Chicago Tribune
USA today

It led to the US Corporation trying to bury their heads in the sand by claiming that it was a UK case only, and nothing to do with the Corporation. This was despite the fact that they were the first named Plaintiff in the case, that they had flown over members of their board of directors to give evidence in the trial (including about why the Corporation had decided to bring the case), and other vice-presidents and heads of departments. And additionally, that two members of the board of directors flew over to have secret negotiations with Helen and Dave, to try and get them to settle the case out of court. Does that really sound like the company wasn't affected one bit?

While it might seem dumb to you to keep dragging on with this trial (although you haven't said why you think so), the point is that if Helen and Dave hadn't fought this trial, they wouldn't have been able to carry on handing out the flyers (and probably others wouldn't be able to either)

:: What's the difference between a McDonald's advert on a bus shelter, and an anti-McDonald's flypost? The only difference is that McDonald's were rich enough to pay for their poster to be there. But why should only those with lots of money be able to put over their views to the public?

: Yeah but why BREAK THE LAW to get your point across? You guys should try to win the lottery, invest in some good stocks, wait a few years and Try to counteract McD's advertising.

Yeah, and if people did that they'd undoubtedly still be waiting to be able to post an ad when they were lying on their deathbeds, and that's besides the issue of whether there are such things as 'good stocks', that aren't basically making profits from exploitation of workers, animals, the environment or who/whatever else. The issues raised on this site are issues that need to be tackled now, and the laws that prevent people airing their views are part of the problem, so at the end of the day, if there's going to be any change it's pretty much inevitable that those laws are going to get broken.

: : Good luck with your job at McDonald's, I hope you don't have any bad experiences there, but somehow I doubt it.

: Be rest assured there will be none. I know my rights, and if there is pressure, I will take it. It's the nature of the biz, it isn't a job with your own desk and stuff. You will be yelled at, you will do things that suck, but the pay is ok. (At least here.)

Perhaps you're lucky that you know your rights, not everyone does, which is one of the reasons why people hand out leaflets and get organised in unions. And if people hadn't organised in unions in the past then it's pretty likely you wouldn't have any rights at all. So maybe as well as thanking environmentalists for alerting us all on various issues, you should be thanking trade unionists who fought in the past for the few rights that we do now have. And now, if workers got organised and fought for their rights, they might not have to do things that 'suck'. As for it being 'the nature of the biz', that's exactly why we want society to change. Why should ordinary people have to put up with this kind of shit?

: : ....... for anyone who tries to support a family or run their own home, it's virtually impossible to do on McDonald's wages. And the reality is for all McDonald's workers that the company is paying you far less than it's making from your labour - it's ripping you off.

: This is why people work more than one job. :-)

Is that right though? Why should someone working full time have to have a second job just to be able to make ends meet, when the company that employs them is making $2 billion profit every year. McDonald's could pay people twice what they earn now, and would still be raking in huge profits.

: : If you think that working for McDonald's is so great, then why aren't you staying there for life?

: Because *sigh* I have a life. :-) I intend on going to college to be a computer programer. . I don't expect to be there longer than 2 years.
: When I leave hopefully I will make some cool friends.

Great, you demonstrate the point well. No-one who has any choice in the matter would want to stay as a crew member at McDonald's all their life .

: : And as for child labour laws, well the UK had at least some labour laws relating to the hours young people could work, but McDonald's chose to break them anyway, and got taken to court for it on some occasions. But, there were plenty more times when it didn't come to light.

: : Like I said, some McD's will be that way. You can't stop that with out improvement.

Which is exactly the purpose of leaflets and this site. To encourage change & improvement. Only we are aiming for more fundamental change, rather than just tinkering with a few bits that won't make a massive amount of difference.

: : Perhaps literally people can't be forced to come in on their day off, but the reality is that they're virtually blackmailed into doing so by threats to cut hours, or knowing that if they don't 'co-operate' they'll be given all the dirty jobs or not given the hours that they want or that fit in with their schedule. That's hardly a free choice.

: That's why they are naive, and they shouldn't work there.

By naive, do you mean they should expect to get exploited and manipulated?
And if you do, why do you think its fine for companies to carry on this way?

: : ......Why shouldn't McDonald's be blamed for litter. They chose to promote the use of disposable packaging which is going to be disposed of within minutes, rather than using re-usables.

: No way in hell they will use those.

Well then that just shows the arrogance of multinationals like McDonald's, who think that their profits are more important than protection of the environment. And why there's a need for these issues to be raised and a battle to be fought for a more caring society.

: : It's very generous of you to give environmentalists the credit for 'solving the styrofoam dilemna'. Perhaps you didn't even realise there was a problem until environmentalists raised the issue. And perhaps you should try listening to what environmentalists are saying now, about the current problems we face, rather than writing them off as 'earth nuts'.

: Well you seem fanatical.

What do you mean by fanatical? That the issues keep getting raised? Don't you think it's just as well that someone is trying to do something to change the way we are treating our environment?

: : : Animals.

: : So why not stop breeding animals to live a life of suffering and then premature death by slaughter?

: Cause people need food from the food chain. (Not McD's, the bio food chain.)

Meat is not the only food that humans have to eat. Millions of people have lived and still live their lives quite happily without eating meat.

: : : Free Speech
: : : If the so called "Mc Libel2" didn't say things about McD's then they wouldn't be in this mess. And why are the wasting their time with an APPEAL! A total waste of british tax pounds (dollars) you might add.

: : Do you believe in free speech or not?

: Yes.

: : You seem to suggest that people don't have a right to fight cases that are brought against them, that they should just lay down and let themselves be walked all over by whichever company chooses to sue them. What kind of world are you looking for? One where nobody questions anything?

: I do, it's just the way you guys fight that irks me.

What exactly is it that irks you? Do you not think that maybe, just maybe, you don't like your conscience being troubled?, and that's why you find it annoying?

: : The fun day at Dave's son's play centre was organised by the parents and carers involved with the centre, for the kids that attended. ....... Why should McDonald's, who did no more than hijack the event, be able to prevent a local parent from taking his child to an event at his own play centre?

: If it bothered him so much, why did the organizers accept the sponsorship?

It was a deal done behind the back of most of the parents, so they never had any say in it until after the event, when the local council apologised for the sponsorship being accepted.

: : : Expansion.
: : ..... there have been several campaigns which have succeeded in preventing McDonald's from opening in new localities. I expect that all of them bothered McDonald's, but I don't expect they would admit that.

: It won't bother them a bit. They'll just open up else where.

Yes, but they would have opened 'elsewhere' as well.

: : : Capitalism
: : No-one oppposing capitalism underestimates what a huge battle we have on our hands, when faced with the fact that at present the capitalists control ju

: Well I'm sorry it won't change a bit!

: : You're entitled to your thoughts, but neither we nor the McLibel 2 are about to quit. We feel it is important that there is a space for alternative views to counter those continually promoted by McDonald's with their $2 billion a year worldwide advertising and promotions budget.

: Heard that before. *yawn*

: : And perhaps you agree since in your piece under advertising you said that people should post their views on this site rather than on street signs. As for taking the $$, there are things in life a lot more important than money.
: Like cars, women, and a big house. *G*

: : Like freedom of speech and the right to criticise powerful corporations, like ending exploitation and oppression of people and animals, and like stopping endless environmental damage.

: Oh puh-lezze.

Won't deal with your last four comments individually, because they're not really replies to what I wrote. I'll just say that I've heard all your responses before, and they make me feel like yawning and saying 'puh-leeze'. Only I won't, because they're not really answers, and don't take the debate anywhere.

Follow Ups:

  • Typographical error Hugh Morris $98,000 will buy a lot of Quarter Pounders USA December 11 1998 (2)
    • $98,000 Jill McSpotlight December 12 1998 (1)
      • mo' money Hugh Morris Crackhead Bob and Elephant Boy USA December 14 1998 (0)

The Debating Room Post a Followup