Helen and Dave

versus

The Big Mac Empire

Chrissie Hynde, the singer, wants to meet Helen Steel and Dave Morris. She said in October 1995 that: "I'd like to meet the two North London environmentalists in what they're calling the McLibel case. They're unemployed guys who are being taken to court for distributing these leaflets with allegations about McDonald's food ingredients. McDonald's have tried to settle out of court but they've said, 'We have nothing to lose, let's go for it." Plus they're representing themselves. I'd love to say, 'Well done.' And buy them a drink."

Chrissie added, when asked what ambitions she had not yet fulfilled. "I'd like to see McDonald's go out of business but I don't think that's an ambition I can tackle single-handedly. Or even talk about publicly, according to my lawyers."

Dave and Helen are two unwaged people who have done more to derail the McDonald's steamrollering billion dollar a year advertising campaign than anyone else on this planet. Dave Morris, 41, a single dad with a 5 year old daughter, and Helen Steele, 29, a gardener who has been forced to return to live in London to defend herself, have become immersed in a legal battle that will last more than twice as long as the previous record UK libel action.

McDonald's is a very serious fast food business. They make over a billion US dollars a year by spending an equal sum advertising Big Macs, chicken nuggets and chips around the world. Their aim many advertisements, including their song and their clown Ronald, at children under 8. According to Mr Hawkes, McDonald's UK Chief Marketing Officer, this is because children under 8 will use 'pester' power to get parents to take them to McDonald's. He does not target so much children over 8 because: "They do not pester their parents to go McDonalds". In the UK alone, McDonald's now has a million customers every day.

Dave and Helen belong to London Greenpeace, a collective of environmentalists (not connected to the international Greenpeace organisation) who, alarmed by the poor nutritional value of McDonald's food, set out some years ago to educate McDonald's customers with leaflets. When these began to be reproduced in parish newsletters, McDonalds decided to rid themselves of this irritant to their juggernaut. Spies were sent in to infiltrate London Greenpeace meetings. They discovered the names of 5 activists responsible for this campaign, including Dave and Helen.

McDonald's then decided to silence them with legal threats. Three of the five did desist - but Helen and Dave would not.

McDonald's knew Dave and Helen had no money. It knew that legal aid was not given in the UK for defence against libel charges. It thought Dave and Helen would be intimidated when it hired Richard Rampton QC, one of the most expensive lawyers in the UK, a man that charges several thousand dollars a day. But Dave and Helen, who had no legal training, replied that they would defend themselves come what may.

Thus commenced, in the mock gothic halls of the High Court on the Strand just east of Trafalgar Square, an extremely one sided trial. The judge decided not to allow them the benefit of a jury because "the issues were too complex" for lay people to understand. It was then anticipated the trial would last 3 weeks - but that was in June last year. It is now not expected to finish until about June next year. Already it is the longest running libel case in British history - and world famous.

The Wall Street Journal in June reported the McLibel case was now "making the O J Simpson murder trial look like a quick take out." The Daily Telegraph reported that the trial was "the best free entertainment in London." 500 supporters recently marched across London. A campaign called "Kids against Big Mac" commenced. (PO Box 287 London NW6). Operation "Send it Back" returned McDonald's rubbish to their stores.

When I sat in the back of the court listening to the case, a row of McDonald's executives sat by me, monitoring the trial for possible damage from testimony. By then the trial had been on for a year and over a 100 witnesses had been called. Helen and Dave had become force-reared lawyers. I heard Helen snap out an "I object" as fast as any barrister. The judge twinkled at this and congratulated Helen. But he supported the McDonald's QC when he objected at being addressed by his Christian name.

Much of the evidence has damaged McDonalds - even that from its own witnesses. McDonald's introduced Dr Sydney Arnott as an expert on cancer. When asked what he thought of the statement: 'A diet high in fat, sugar, animal products and salt and low in fibre, vitamins and minerals is linked with cancer of the breast and bowel and heart disease.", he replied: 'If it is being directed to the public, then I would say it is a very reasonable thing to say' However this statement came from a London Greenpeace factsheet that had been characterised as the central and most '"defamatory" allegation made by them about McDonald's. Yet another McDonald's expert witness, Professor Verner Wheelock, admitted that a typical McDonald's meal was high in fat, saturated fats and sugar and low in fibre..

Further devastating evidence came from the former Assistant Attorney General of Texas, Stephen Gardner, who was called by Helen and Dave. He told how McDonalds launched in Texas in 1987 a major advertising campaign that McDonald's internal magazine stated was to '"neutralise the junk food misconceptions about McDonald's good food". The adverts used words like "nutrition", "balance, and "good food".

But the major state governments of the US investigated and decided this was false advertising. A letter was sent to McDonald's on 24th April 1987 stating: " The Attorney General of Texas, California and New York have concluded our joint review of McDonald's recent advertising campaign which claims that McDonald's food is nutritious. Our mutual conclusion is that this advertising campaign is deceptive. We therefore request that McDonald's immediately cease and desist from further use of this advertising campaign. The reason for this is simple: McDonald's food , is as whole, not nutritious. The intent and result of the current campaign is to deceive customers into believing the opposite... the new campaign appears intended to pull the wool over the public's eyes."

McDonald's at that time promised to stop these advertisements but tonight, as I was writing this, I heard on my teleision a McDonald's advertisement claim that it delivered: "good meals" and at "a good old fashioned price."

The evidence being presented in court also dealt with how McDonald's keeps prices low. It employs staff at the minimum legal rates, eighty percent are part timers and many receive low wages because they are under 18. Their basic payrates are well below the £4 an hour now being campaigned for as a national minimum by the UK trade unions.

In court evidence also emerged that the British Royal Family were deceived. A letter from a McDonald's supplier, quoted in court, reported how Prince Philip, the President of the World Wildlife Fund, had attacked George Cohen, the President of McDonald's Canada, at a meeting. It reported Philip as saying: "So you are the people who are tearing down the Brazilian rainforests and breeding cattle' and as responding "Rubbish" when Cohen replied: "I think you are mistaken." Prince Philip had later apologised, according to Dan Miles, the office co-ordinator for the McLibel campaign, when McDonald's assured the Prince that they did not use Brazilian beef. Bu t, David Walker, a McDonald's witness, embarrassingly revealed in court that he himself had organised the successful import of Brazilian beef from a Brazilian Vestey subsidiary for Big Mac burgers. This had been kept secret from Prince Philip.

All this evidence in open court so embarrassed McDonald's that they twice flew members of their US Board to London to try to secure an out of court settlement with Helen and Dave, but, as Chrissie Hynde mentioned, McDonald's would not agree to the terms Helen and Dave set, which included that it would undertake not to sue anyone for so criticising it in future.

McDonald's is now trying another tactic. It is trying to take advantage of the defendants' lack of money and of legal aid. McDonald's had originally promised to supply the defence with photocopes of the court transcripts. They otherwise would cost the defence over $800 a day. Helen and Dave must have these to defend themselves.

McDonald's have now said it will not supply photocopies - unless the defendants undertook not to give extracts from the transcripts to journalists. Dave and Helen have refused to give this undertaking. As the judge is letting the case proceed on this one-sided basis, the McLibel Support Committee are very urgently appealing for funds to pay for transcripts - which could cost over $80,000 altogether.

McDonald's have unleased with this prosecution what they must regard as a plague of information about themselves. From the evidence it seems clear that many who eat at McDonald's have been misled into believing the food supplied is beneficial and will not harm them. If the Attorney Generals of New York, California and Texas are to be believed, this is an intolerable lie.

When my daughters were around 8 and 9, over 13 years ago, they and their peer group were not sucked in. They called McDonalds "Muck Donalds". They mounted a personal boycott. So - let's hear it from this generation of kids! Perhaps a billion dollar advertising campaign can fail if the evidence is against it., perhaps the Helens and Daves of this world can overcome the Big Mac empire.

A final note to Chrissie Hynde - you say you cannot defeat McDonald's alone. You are not alone. We can together.

Click Here For MacSpotlight - The Web Site to go with all Big Macs.

Email Contact: Click Here for More Info.

h To Return to the Reference Desk, click here