The following article originally appeared as "The McDonald's Lawsuit:
What's the Story?" in the March/April 2004 issue of VegNews

It can be read on the author's web site at:

http://www.compassionatespirit.com/M...it-article.htm


Overview

The McDonald's "french fry" lawsuit has become one of the biggest
stories in the vegetarian movement, yet very little about it has
appeared in vegetarian publications. The class action suit originated
after it was discovered that the fast-food chain had not told
vegetarians that its french fries and hash browns had beef in them,
contrary to the impression some had after a company press release of
July 23, 1990, which stated that McDonald's fries were cooked in 100
percent vegetable oil. But alas, many unfortunate vegetarians did
consume McDonald's french fries or hash browns after July 23, 1990,
and in doing so unwittingly consumed minuscule amounts of beef.

A lawsuit was filed against the company and a $10 million settlement
was agreed upon, with $6 million going to vegetarian groups. But then
disputes erupted, not only with McDonald's, but within the vegetarian
community as well, over which groups should get the money-probably
the most serious and most public division in the history of the modern
vegetarian movement. The divisions resulted in accusations against some
vegetarian groups of "sleeping with the enemy" and unethical
conduct. The case is being appealed, millions of dollars are at stake,
and the outcome is in doubt. What's the story?
In the Beginning

The controversy began with Eric Schlosser's book Fast Food Nation,
published in 2001. Schlosser, not himself vegetarian, noted the source
of some of the so-called "natural flavors" in much fast food,
remarking that the "natural flavor" in McDonald's french fries
was derived from beef. Ironically, in light of subsequent developments,
Schlosser got his information from Vegetarian Journal, a publication of
the Vegetarian Resource Group (VRG).

One of Schlosser's readers was a Jain who asked McDonald's whether
the company's fries contained beef. McDonald's confirmed
Schlosser's information by email, and on April 6, 2001 the
information was published in India-West, a California-based weekly
targeting Asian Indians in North America. Harish Bharti-a Seattle
lawyer and a native of India-then filed a lawsuit on May 1, 2001 in
King County, Washington, claiming that McDonald's hadn't told the
truth about their ingredients; he cited this email and Schlosser's
book as evidence. McDonald's quickly issued a denial, saying it had
never claimed its fries were vegetarian and that they had always
contained beef flavoring.

But this denial provoked another unexpected development. Hindu
nationalists in India, upon hearing about McDonald's statement, were
furious, and protests were launched at various McDonald's
restaurants. At some sites, the protests were peaceful; at others, they
turned ugly, with windows broken and a statue of Ronald McDonald
smeared with cow dung.

McDonald's backtracked, explaining that french fries sent to India
(unlike its North American fries) were free of beef products. When
laboratory tests revealed that no animal fat was in the french fries,
the issue receded in India. But in the United States, additional
lawsuits were filed in Texas, New Jersey, California, and Illinois,
where the lawsuit was finally negotiated.
The Case Against McDonald's

McDonald's denies lying about its french fries. The list of
ingredients provided for their fries (before the lawsuit) included
"natural flavor." As many veteran ingredient-readers could quickly
tell you, "natural flavor" can legally include animal products,
including beef-as it actually did in this case. But more than that,
some McDonald's employees said that the fries were vegetarian. The
most incriminating evidence was a 1993 letter written by a company
employee stating that there were a number of items which "vegetarians
can enjoy at McDonald's" - specifically mentioning the french
fries and the hash browns.

However, the question of liability for a few specific cases of
misinformation to a small number of individuals would be different from
a systematic advertising campaign. The judge in this case, Hon. Richard
Siebel, did not believe the plaintiff's case was very strong. In his
order of October 30, 2002, he remarked: "Proving liability on the
merits is problematic. The Plaintiffs face a substantial risk of
obtaining no relief if litigation against McDonald's were pursued."

On the other hand, the plaintiffs had one practical advantage: the area
of public relations. McDonald's had already received stunningly bad
publicity in this case. They may have calculated that they could ill
afford another "victory" like the infamous "McLibel" lawsuit in
England. In that case, while McDonald's successfully sued two
anti-McDonald's campaigners for libel, the case boomeranged into a
constant stream of negative publicity about the corporation.

The plaintiffs initially demanded $75 million; McDonald's offered $5
million. After negotiations, a proposed $10 million settlement was
announced on April 26, 2002, with $6 million assigned to "vegetarian
groups."
Muslim Objections

No sooner had the proposed settlement been announced than questions
began to be raised about who would receive the money. At a preliminary
hearing in May 2002, Greg Khazarian represented Muslims who objected to
the settlement. Khazarian stated to me that "the fatal flaw in the
structure of the settlement is that Muslims are included in the class,
but excluded as one of the groups receiving benefits in the
settlement." Several hundred Muslims filed objections.

Muslims usually eat meat, but the meat must be slaughtered in
accordance with "halal," a procedure roughly similar to kosher.
Clearly the McDonald's beef was not "halal" (or kosher, either).
There are roughly 7 million Muslims in the United States, compared to
about 6 million adult vegetarians. While vegetarian groups were slated
to get 60 percent of the settlement, there was no category for Muslim
groups.

At the preliminary hearing on May 1, 2002, the judge said that the
Muslims "could be accommodated within the parameters of the proposed
settlement," according to Khazarian. In the final settlement approved
by the judge, Muslims were included in the vegetarian category.

Khazarian disputes the logic that lumps Muslims and vegetarians
together. "The McDonald's argument was that a Muslim who is in
McDonald's will be looking for food that is vegetarian, so they
should be included in the vegetarian category," explains Khazarian.
"My clients don't buy that argument."
Vegetarian Objections

When the proposed list of recipients was released in September 2002,
there were further objections, but from vegetarians rather than
Muslims. The proposed money for "vegetarian groups" was to be
divided not only among traditional vegetarian groups, but Muslim groups
and organizations which might carry an anti-vegetarian agenda. Eight
months later, on May 19, 2003, a revised list was approved by the judge
over the objections of many vegetarians (see sidebar).

This list was surprising to many vegetarians. Many well-known
organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
(PETA), Farm Animal Reform Movement (FARM), Physicians' Committee for
Responsible Medicine (PCRM), and EarthSave were missing. Why were these
and many other groups omitted?

We don't know what went on in the attorney's negotiations, but by
the terms of the agreement, McDonald's had to have a hand in the
allocation process. So McDonald's attorneys may have vetoed some
groups. Moreover, animal rights organizations were also specifically
excluded by the court, as the treatment of animals was never an issue
in the lawsuit-only the treatment of the humans who were deceived by
McDonald's publicity.
What about the groups that are on the list?

Two of them, the Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America (IFANCA)
and the Muslim Consumer Group for Food Products, don't seem to fit
any conceivable definition of a "vegetarian group"; they are
concerned with "halal" or the foods (especially slaughtered
animals) which Muslims are allowed to eat. Evidently they were included
as a concession to Muslim objections.

Four other "research" groups also attracted the particular notice
of opponents of the allocation: Tufts University, Loma Linda
University, the Vegetarian Nutrition Dietetic Practice Group (VNDPG) of
the American Dietetic Association Foundation, and the Preventive
Medicine Research Group run by Dean Ornish (PMRI). (A fifth
"research" group, the University of North Carolina Department of
Nutrition, was initially proposed but later disqualified by the judge
on technical grounds.)

While all four of these research groups face some vegetarian
opposition, three of them (VNDPG, PMRI, and Loma Linda) also appear to
have strong support in the vegetarian community. VNDPG has done much
valuable work promoting vegetarianism among nutrition professionals,
and many regard it as a bona fide vegetarian group; some of the most
pioneering research on vegetarianism has come out of Loma Linda
University; and PMRI and Dean Ornish have done much research supporting
the thesis that a strict vegetarian diet can actually help reverse
heart disease.

Tufts, however, has drawn the special ire of vegetarians. John
McDougall, among others, is unstinting in his criticisms of Tufts.
"In my own personal experience [Tufts] is, in fact, a notorious
anti-vegetarian organization."
Jeff Nelson Intervenes

The proposed allocation of money has created passionate opposition
among some vegetarians. Among these, none has been more passionate or
as outspoken than Jeff Nelson, who heads VegSource Interactive and the
website vegsource.com.

Declarations objecting to the settlement were collected and filed at
least as early as October 2002, and Nelson's role in these objections
was central. Howard Lyman, the author of Mad Cowboy and himself a past
target of cattle industry lawsuits, said, "Jeff Nelson went out and
recruited most of the people who opposed the settlement [the allocation
of funds]. If there was anyone else who was active in that effort, I
never heard about it. He attempted to recruit me, but I said that I
didn't have a dog in that fight and that it would be
counterproductive."

Numerous well-known vegetarians, including T. Colin Campbell, John
McDougall, Jack Norris, and VegNews editor Joseph Connelly, submitted
declarations to the court questioning the allocation of funds. However,
there was considerable divergence of opinion as to which were the
"good" and the "bad" groups. For example:

- John McDougall objected only to Tufts.

- Colin Campbell, a professor at Cornell, objected strongly to VNDPG
and Tufts but suggested that $1 million should be given to Cornell
University for their Program for Lifetime Nutrition.

- Rhoda and Stan Sapon objected to VRG, but asked that $100,000 be
given to the Maimonides Project (a vegetarian hunger relief group which
they founded).

Tufts University was the subject of last-minute negotiations when
hearings were being held in early 2003. The university had proposed
that its money be spent on a scholarship fund for Vegetarian and
Plant-based Nutrition Studies. Cory Fein (one of the plaintiffs'
attorneys) said, "we tried to open a dialogue with them [Jeff Nelson
and his allies]. We said that we would be willing to work with them to
form a committee that would screen applicants for the scholarships at
Tufts so that only students committed to vegetarianism would receive
them. But they weren't interested in working with us, and the next
day Jeff Nelson attacked us on his web site."
"Sleeping with the Enemy"?

Nelson's tactics in opposing the settlement have provoked intense
feelings. In December 2002, Nelson attacked the two most important
vegetarian groups that were slated to receive settlement money, the
Vegetarian Resource Group (VRG) and the North American Vegetarian
Society (NAVS), in an explosive article titled "Sleeping with the
Enemy." VRG and NAVS are both older and well-established vegetarian
organizations.

These comments - prominently featured on the VegSource web site for
many months - are unprecedented in the history of the western
vegetarian movement. While there have been vehement disagreements
before, they have usually remained at the level of private
disagreements, and even when public have seldom, if ever, involved
charges of immorality, deception, betrayal, and hypocrisy.

The effects of these accusations have been very significant. Sharon
Graff [of NAVS], in an email sent to FARM president Alex Hershaft in
February 2003, stated that "NAVS and Brian [Graff, an NAVS director
and vice president] have been under attack since early December [2002]
from Jeff's declaration, articles and the spin-off reaction." Graff
cited numerous examples of angry emails that NAVS had received.

What were Nelson's accusations, and are they true? It is beyond the
scope of this article to consider all the issues involved, but there
are four broad claims made in Nelson's rhetoric.

1. The refusal to support the lawsuit initially.

Since VRG and NAVS rejected the lawsuit, Nelson argues, why should they
now reap the benefits? "In their magazine, VRG also disparaged this
lawsuit and people who sue fast food chains, asserting in their
editorial that such lawsuits do harm to the vegetarian cause,"
commented Nelson. "Like VRG, [Brian] Graff did not support the filing
of the lawsuit."

What VRG does say-and Nelson actually cites this in his declaration
to the court, apparently oblivious to the fact that it disproves his
claim-is that "the approach of many people quickly attacking a
company for what they're not doing, rather than giving assistance and
encouragement for what they are doing, can be counterproductive at
times. Think through your strategies. Sometimes protest is called
for, at other times encouragement" (emphasis in original). This reply
implies only that lawsuits may be a bad tactic, and counsels caution.
Moreover, this editorial was certainly not a comment on this particular
lawsuit, since it went to press before the lawsuit was filed.

The source of the statement that Brian Graff did not support the filing
of the lawsuit is apparently an off-hand private conversation that
Brian had with vegetarian activist Lige Weill in which Weill urged
Graff to support the lawsuit financially. Even if true, this comment
was not a public position, was not a position of NAVS, and only
rejected financial support for the lawsuit, not the lawsuit itself.

2. VRG's "cozy" relationship with McDonald's.

Nelson states: "[VRG] has a close relationship with McDonald's,
promoting their products." Moreover, "VRG has the same public
stance on 'natural flavors' for which McDonald's was sued."

Vegetarian Journal did publish an article by Davida Gypsy Breier and
Sarah Blum which lists "vegetarian" items in fast food restaurants
and states "we've labeled items as vegetarian when there could be a
few 'maybe' ingredients, such as mono- and diglycerides and/or
natural flavors ... everyone draws the line as to what he or she will
eat in a different place." Whether this article constitutes an
official "stance" of VRG, or just the opinion of the authors, is
not clear. The question of how strict vegetarian advocacy should be is
often discussed in the movement, with some vegetarians using references
to the "vegan police" to make a case for a more casual approach.

VRG did issue a press release devoted to promoting McDonald's
breakfast options in 1996, before they knew of the problem with
McDonald's french fries, and did mention McDonald's favorably in
one Vegetarian Journal article. But does one press release about
McDonald's in 1996, out of the many dozens that VRG has issued,
justify the description of VRG's relationship with McDonald's as
"cozy"? When asked about this, Freya Dinshah, president of the
American Vegan Society, commented "this is silly."

3. NAVS' failure to report the lawsuit to other groups.

Nelson wrote: "Brian Graff of NAVS kept to himself his special
relationship in the case... This is more than unethical; it unfairly
takes advantage of privileged information. He had a moral
responsibility to the class of plaintiffs to share this information,
but his failure to disseminate it made it very difficult, if not
impossible, for other vegetarian organizations to apply."

Sharon Graff commented, "We were willing to place the [legal] notice
[from the court] and apology [from McDonald's] in Vegetarian Voice.
However, it was never submitted to NAVS... We most certainly had not
been provided information pertinent to others, so there was nothing for
us to conceal." The legal notice was eventually published in VegNews
and Satya.

4. The "aiding and abetting" of McDonald's by VRG and NAVS and
the suggestion of "sleeping with the enemy."

The problem here is, what is the nature of "aiding and abetting"
and what form did it take? What does "sleeping with the enemy"
mean? Nelson does not make it clear, nor does he provide any particular
evidence to support any interpretation of his conclusions.

Nelson's statement that McDonald's proposed to "reward" NAVS
with $1 million for its "unethical" complicity with McDonald's
certainly suggests the possibility, if not the probability, of a quid
pro quo as part of an explicit deal. "Sleeping with the enemy"
implies joint, coordinated activity of a secret, consensual, and
traitorous sort-in short, it implies collusion. And though Nelson
gives no evidence for this and never uses this word, above one of his
stories attacking VRG and NAVS, there was a picture of a devil figure,
smiling and burning money.
Vegetarian Leaders' Reactions

A number of prominent vegetarians declined to comment on Nelson's
tactics or any other aspect of the case, including the leaders of VRG
and Jeff Nelson and many of his allies. Several prominent vegetarians,
however, were willing to speak, and their comments were interesting and
revealing.

John Robbins said:

"With all the legal wranglings and obvious misunderstanding and
turbulence, I really am not informed enough to offer anything
worthwhile by way of comments. Sue Havala [Hobbs] is a friend of mine,
and I know she has a lot of integrity. Jeff Nelson is also a friend of
mine, and also has a lot of integrity. These two people, and many of
the others who are involved in this conflict, have all contributed
enormously to the veg cause and movement. I am sorry to see things have
become so divisive."

John McDougall was emphatic in saying that "my only beef is with
Tufts." In comments to me, he specifically declined to make
criticisms of any other groups except Tufts-whether VRG, NAVS, or any
of the other groups slated to receive money, even the Muslim groups.
"I have nothing to do with it, no interest, I know nothing about
it," he said in response to questions relating to the charges
concerning NAVS and VRG. "My only interest is that Tufts not get any
of the money."

Howard Lyman had a different response to Jeff Nelson's suggestion
that VRG and NAVS were "sleeping with the enemy." "Every person
within the movement could be accused of that. I spent the majority of
my life in that camp. This statement really concerns me. Are there
people who are really giving aid and comfort to the enemy? Yes, there
are-it is those who are stirring the pot."

And who, I asked, was "stirring the pot"? "It was Jeff Nelson; I
think that I would not label all the people on his team as tainted with
the same brush. They are good people; they got a sanitized version of
events from Jeff. But no matter how well-meaning Jeff was in his
actions and intentions, in what he did he was absolutely wrong."

Bruce Friedrich (right) responds to questions from Keith Akers (left)
about the lawsuit

When I asked Bruce Friedrich if he thought that the "sleeping with
the enemy" suggestion had any validity, he responded simply "No ...
I adore Jeff Nelson, and he's been a huge boon to the animal rights
movement ... [but] over the years I've had differences of opinion
with Jeff."

Author Carol Adams said, "the reactions to the settlement have been
cruel. Challenging nonvegetarian groups that got the money is one
thing, but going after other vegetarian groups is another. I'd like
to think that we wouldn't engage in horizontal hostility. Who is any
of us to be the arbiter? I was very upset when he [Jeff Nelson] set
himself up in this way."

Freya Dinshah agreed. When I asked, was VRG "sleeping with the
enemy," she replied, "No. I don't think NAVS is either. I think
it's horrible the hurt that has been done, it's despicable."
A Shift in Strategy

The judge approved the settlement on October 30, 2002, and the
allocation of funds on May 19, 2003. Two appeals were filed shortly
thereafter (one by Muslims, the other by vegetarians). In between these
two events, the strategy of the vegetarians objecting to the allocation
appears to have shifted in several ways.

The first change is embodied in the vegetarian appellants' brief
filed by Michael Hyman and received by the court on December 11, 2003.
In contrast to the wide diversity of views expressed by vegetarians
submitting declarations to the court previously, it objects not only to
the two Muslim groups receiving money, but to all of the "research"
organizations-Tufts, Loma Linda, VNDPG, and PMRI. The brief also
argues that the amount of money given to the vegetarian organizations
such as VRG and NAVS is excessive as well.

The second substantial change was the disappearance of Jeff Nelson as
the key figure among the vegetarian objectors. When the vegetarian
appeal was filed on June 16, 2003, Nelson was not one of the
appellants. While Nelson clearly has close ties to several of the
vegetarian appellants, not all of them share Nelson's views about
NAVS and VRG "sleeping with the enemy." At least one of the
appellants, Alex Hershaft, made behind-the-scenes attempts to effect a
reconciliation between Nelson and NAVS and get NAVS to join the appeal,
affirming that NAVS had indeed acted ethically. But no reconciliation
occurred.

The argument of the appellants' brief is straightforward. Discussing
the definition of "vegetarian group," it says:

"The settlement does not define "vegetarian organization," nor
does it need to... A vegetarian organization... is an association of
persons organized around the idea of vegetarianism."

The brief also argues against giving so much money to NAVS because it
is "a pint-sized organization." It also argues against giving so
much money to VRG, repeating arguments used against VRG in Nelson's
"Sleeping with the Enemy." The brief does not specify what the
correct allocation should be, but asks that the allocation should be
reversed and sent back to the circuit court for further action.

Cory Fein had a different view of things. When I asked why
"vegetarian" money was given to the Muslim "halal" groups, he
said, "Muslims were also offended by McDonald's conduct. Because
beef served at non-Arab restaurants is not prepared in accordance with
Halal rules, all Muslims who follow the Halal dietary rules function as
vegetarians when they eat at a fast food restaurant, or any non-Arab
restaurant." Others who are not strictly vegetarian would be offended
by beef in McDonald's french fries-those "who eat fish but
don't eat beef... people who have no moral objections to eating beef
but are avoiding it for health reasons... Muslims who follow halal
dietary rules. The money does not belong to any organization; it
belongs to a class of people."

But how could Tufts be considered a "vegetarian organization"? Fein
responded: "Most of the money went to fund projects administered by
organizations that most people would consider to be vegetarian groups,
like the Vegetarian Resource Group, North American Vegetarian Society,
the Vegetarian Nutrition Dietetic Practice Group of the ADAF,
Vegetarian Vision, and the American Vegan Society. However some of the
money went to vegetarian projects administered by Preventive Medicine
Research Institute, Loma Linda University, and Tufts University. Tufts
is nationally known for its nutrition program. They're committed to
objective scientific research. ... The money will not go to Tufts'
general fund. It will go to a Scholarship Fund for Vegetarian and
Plant-based Nutrition Studies."
The Future?

The last chapter of the McDonald's saga has yet to be written.
Appeals are in process. Millions of dollars are at stake, which could
conceivably benefit one or another of very different vegetarian groups,
some of which seem to be at each others' throats.

The real news is neither the beef in the french fries, which now seems
like a distant memory, nor even the question of who should get the
money, which could be endlessly debated and never resolved. What is
absolutely unprecedented in the history of the modern vegetarian
movement is the charges made by some vegetarians against others. As
Freya Dinshah comments, "McDonald's is probably laughing at the
whole bunch of us. It has been very divisive of the vegetarian
community."

Keith Akers is the author of The Lost Religion of Jesus: Simple Living
and Nonviolence in Early Christianity