BETWEEN: (2) MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS LTD.
- AND - (2) HELEN MARIE STEEL (4) DAVID MORRIS
PLAINTIFFS' CLOSING SUBMISSIONS VOLUME 3 RECYCLING & WASTE RAINFORESTS
BARLOW LYDE & GILBERT |
I.
1. Preliminary
Although there are, in one sense, two parts to this topic causing starvation in the Third World and destroying the rainforests they are united by a common theme:
McDonald's own 'vast' tracts of land in poor countries, whence they evict the small farmers (leaflet p.2, col. 1 ); they also destroy 'vast' areas of rainforest to turn into grazing pastures etc, whence they drive out the tribal peoples (leaflet p.3. col.1).
This 'link' is reflected in meanings A, C and E Ream S/C, p.14, and was succinctly summarised by J. in Ruling of 15 November 1993 at 5 EF and 6 CD.
1.3 Thus, though it is obviously not defamatory of McD's (US or UK) to say that they own land in poor, or rainforest, areas of the world, or both, (without more), it Is important to keep the common root of the allegations (which are defamatory, of both Pffs: see later) in mind when one comes to the factual side of the issue: ownership of, or control over, vast areas of land in the Third World.
2. This topic is beset by the same forensic problem as others (notably Nutrition, R and, Animals and Employment), viz:
If the defamatory meaning is clear, and the case advanced by the Defts, even if it were fully proved, is obviously incapable of meeting that meaning, how far is it necessary (or proper) to spend time demonstrating that the Defts' (irrelevant) case is unsustainable?
2.1 This problem is particularly acute here: if the plain meaning of the w/co is, in summary,
(1) that McD's are culpably responsible for causing starvation in the Third World; and
(2) that McD's actively destroy vast areas of rainforest to make way for their cattle and to provide packaging for themselves,
then none of the evidence offered by the Defts (or by the Pffs in rebuttal of the Defts' case) has any relevance whatsoever.
2.2 The difficulty for the advocate is that he (unlike the J.) cannot be sure that the J. sees the issue in the same way as he does. Therefore (with some reluctance) I shall embark on a review of the evidence in due course.
II.
Meaning: Starvation in the Third World
1. X Headings:
"McHunger"
(also, McDollars, McGreedy, McProfits, McWasteful) .
2. Text:
Cols. 1 and 2 (exc. box: not part of w/co) under the black line on p.2 leaflet, inc. pic. Col. 1 on p.3, under (and including) the heading "COLONIAL INVASION".
3. Note in particular:
"What's the connection between McDonald's and starvation in the 'Third World'? "
(a) p.2, col.1:
unexpressed major premise: there is a connection, which McD's don't want you to know about, now to be explained.
"ECONOMIC IMPERIALISM"
(b) p.2, col.1:
"..while people there are starving*."
*(Italics in text).
(c) p.2, col.2
(Next sentence) "McD's is directly involved in this economic imperialism, which keeps most black people poor and hungry while many whites grow fat."
(emphasis added: the black/white contrast may have relevance, as
context, to Employment; see later. )
(d) p.2, col.2:
picture of emaciated (Asian ?) woman with child.
(e) p.2, col.2:
Caption: "one cause: exploitation by multinationals like McD's".
(f) p.2. col.2:
" COLONIAL INVASION"
(g) p . 3 . col.1:
"McD's....are forcing the tribal peoples [down to] wreck this planet."
(h) P.3, Col.1:
4. Pleaded meanings: Ream S/C, p.14:
A, C & E (B is confined to rainforest destruction; D has already been dealt with*).
* Under R&W.
4,1 The interrelation of these meanings has already been noticed (I.1 above; also 4.1 of R and W).
4.2 A is the meaning which is immediately relevant: although the route is somewhat elliptical, the conclusion,
"and as a result are to blame for starvation in the Third World",
is inescapably the conclusion which any reasonable reader would draw from this part of the leaflet: he is, after all, told so, in plain terms: see 3. above.
5. This is quite obviously an allegation of fact, which is defamatory of both Pffs:
'McD's activities (wherever in the world) are to blame for starvation in the Third World.'
6. The facts
6.1 This is the problem noticed earlier at I.2. There are no facts upon which anyone could reasonably conclude that McD's were in any sense at all responsible for causing starvation in the Third World.
6.2 Nevertheless, and in loyalty to the promise made at I . 2 . 2 above, I will deal with the following qq:
(1) Do McD's own vast tracts of land in poor countries?
(2) Have they (or their agents) evicted small farmers and tribal peoples from that land in order to create grazing land for cattle, food for cattle and paper for packaging?
6.3 The answer to q (1) is obviously, No. So, in any reasonable debate, cadit quaestio.
6.4 But this is not a reasonable debate, because the Defts have set out to use every issue as an opportunity to try and damage McD's, regardless of whether the allegations they have made have any relevance to the true issues raised by the defamatory content of the leaflet (more later, under Malice); and, as J. has more than once pointed out, McD's have, as often as not, 'picked up the gauntlet.'
6.5 And so they have on this issue; which relates to 3 countries only:
Brazil
Costa Rica
Guatemala.
6.6 None of those countries is, in fact, a Third World country at all (ask Arturo Wolf!).
6.7 Nevertheless, the q. is (since it is in the arena into which the gauntlet was thrown and picked up by McD's):
Have the activities of McD's (or their agents) brought about the eviction/dispossession of any significant number of small farmers or tribal peoples?
6.8 In relation to Costa Rica and Guatemala, not even the remotest possibility.
6.9 In relation to Brazil, the shade of a possibility between 1979 and 1982.
NB: Shades of possibilities, whilst they may provide mudpies to put on the Internet, do not provide evidence on which a Court is entitled to find that serious allegations are, on the balance of probabilities, true*.
*See submission
1. of Pff's written
submissions of
27/9/96
6.9.1 Because the Defts' 'case' on this is both shadowy and, ultimately, irrelevant, I will deal with it quite shortly.
6.9.2 Mato Grosso do Sul
(i) Here, the only admissible evidence (with one small exception) is that of Roberto Morganti* .
*Y XIV/81E:
1st statmt.,
para . 9 ( confirmed
by Enio Pereira:
Y XIV/81F).
(ii) Fiona Watson's evidence was entirely hearsay (and multiple hearsay, at that). She had never been to M G do Sul nor had she spoken to any of the leaders of the Indian groups alleged to have been dispossessed (legally or otherwise) by cattle ranchers. * The documents on which she principally relied (emanating from CEDI ) are anyway in Portuguese+, and inadmissible for that reason, too.
*238: 22: 1820 and
4045. Then see
CEA 1968 S.2(3)
and Ruling re
ClorfeneCasten:
17.7.96.
+PB IC/G/9
(iii) Susan Branford was in nearly the same position, with the single difference that she had visited the Guarani Indians in M G do Sul once in the late 1970's when she was working for the FT. *
*251 :32:
4733 :9.
Note that "Sade"
in 1.51 on p.32
appears to be a
misprint for CEDI.
(iv) Susanna Hecht* makes but one reference to M G do Sul in her two statements: para.2 of the last p. of her first stmt. She does not give the source of her information, but, again, it would seem to be CEDI (see the third para. (no.'d 1) and footnote 1 on the first page of the first stmt.). If so (and even if not), her evidence on this is inadmissible (for the same reasons) because, although she is no doubt an expert, this is a q. of primary fact, which must be proved by admissible evidence. *
*CEA: PB IC/G/12
*See Pffs' written
submission on
experts and facts:
16th Feb. 1996
6.9.3 Cuiaba (with Sinop and Pontes e Lacerda)
(i) Fiona Watson gave no evidence about it all: not surprising, since she had never been to that area*.
*238 :21:40
22 :16
(ii) Although Susan Branford had been to all 3 places, she gave no evidence of dispossessions or evictions in any of them or the areas around them.
(iii) So far as dispossessions are concerned, Susanna Hecht's stmts. make no specific reference to any of these areas (she errs in placing Pontes e Lacerda in Rondonia 1st stmt, 3rd p., 3rd para.: it is nearly 300km from the Rondonian border at Vilhena on the BR 070!*). There is a general reference to tribes of Indians said to have been 'affected' by the 'post war cattle wave', though this is unspecific as to area and anyway has all the appearance of hearsay (1st. stmt., 2nd. p., 2nd para.) see the last words: 'the famous "cleaning of territories"' which doesn't prove the requisite primary facts.
*Ms Branford
made the same
mistake:
251:9: 4750;
also 10: 3942
(iv) Again, the only direct, and admissible, evidence is Morganti.
*5th stmt.
para. 2 (Y XIV/81E).
6.9.4 N.W. Goias (with Nova Xavantina in MG).
(i) Fiona Watson: nothing: not been there.
(ii) Susan Branford:
(a) had received some information (in Portuguese) from the Pastoral Land Commission (CEDI? perhaps not). Her informant was a lady called Inez*: J. invited Dfts to obtain a CEA stmt. from Inez*: nothing happened;
behind Branford
in PB IC/G. 11
*251:16:
4048
(b) said that the principal area of 'conflict' in this part of Brazil had been Tocantins ('the parrot's beak'), which is the state due N. of Goias and outwith Braslo's sourcing areas in Goias and anyway her account seemed to have the quality of hearsay rather than direct observation;*
*251: 1314
(c) had, in 1974 or 1975, come upon some pathetic Indians cooped up in a shack on a ranch near S. Miguel do Araguaia*; and
*251:25:29
(d) had, between 1975 and 1983/4, seen someone killed on a crossroads somewhere near a ranch called Suia Missu (the road was probably the BR158, because Branford said it ran from N.X. up to S. Felix do Araguaia and that the ranch was to the W. of this road, which is where the Suia Missu river is). *
*251:8:147
(iii) Prof. Hecht's support for Ms Branford's (largely hearsay) account of dispossessions in this area is itself hearsay: see para. 4 on p .1 of her second stmt. (10 July 1996).
(vi) Thus, as for the other two areas, the principal direct, and admissible, evidence is that of Sr. Morganti.*
*5th statement, para 3
* (Y XIV/81E)
6.9.5 This summary of the evidence demonstrates the proposition advanced in 6.9 above: there is no more than a shade of a possibility that any of Braslo's meat for McD's from 1979?1983 was derived from farms that had recently been occupied by (unlawfully dispossessed) Indians. That is a wholly insufficient basis for concluding, on the balance of probabilities, that it was so.
6.9.6 The insubstantial basis for any such conclusion is further demonstrated by consideration of the tiny scale of Braslo's meatpurchasing for McD's during those years: see further under destroying the Rainforests, post.
III
Meaning: Destroying the Rainforests
1. The problem here is the same as at II above (Starvation): if the w/co unequivocally assert that McD's are actively engaged in destroying vast areas of rainforest (by whatever means) every year, then there is no case to meet.
2. Do the w/co bear that meaning?
2.1 Here, the ordinary reader has no need of his supposed capacity for inference and for 'reading between the lines'. The meaning is literal, and unarguable: 3rd p., 1st col.:
Box: "FIFTY ACRES EVERY MINUTE
EVERY year an area of rainforest the size of Britain is cut down or defoliated and burnt...'
(emphasis added)
Heading " Why is it wrong for McD's to destroy rainforests?"
(Emphasis added)
unexpressed major premise (shortly to be confirmed by the text): they do destroy rainforests (which, if they did, no doubt everyone would agree was 'wrong') .
Text: "McD's are using lethal poisons to destroy vast acres of Central American rainforest to create grazing pastures for cattle to be sent back to the States as burgers .... and to
provide fastfood packaging materials.
(... the truth is it takes 800 square miles of forest just to keep them supplied with paper for one year. . . )
It's no exaggeration to say that when you bite into a Big Mac, you're helping the McDonald's empire to wreck this planet."
(emphasis added)
2.2 The words underlined only serve to emphasise the obvious (apologies!):
(1) Direct destruction of the rainforests;
(2) On a continuing, annual basis and on a vast scale;
(3) For hamburgers and (at the rate of 800 mi² a year) for packaging.
3. Pleaded Meanings: Ream. S/C: p.14:
(A, which leads to) B. C (and E).
3.1 Ignore pet foods: someone else must be doing that.
3 . 2 B and C are (rightly) no more than a summary of the literal meaning of the w/co.
4. These are quite obviously allegations of fact: they are incapable of being matters of opinion.
5. And, although (as with 'trees': see R and W. para . 5 ) the reader's mind might first light upon the Corporation (see "US corporations" in line 2 under "Pet food and litter" in col. 1 on p.3 leaflet), he'd soon reflect that the UK company must know about, condone and benefit from the activities of its parent. So the allegations are defamatory of both Pffs (but more so of the Corporation).
6.0 The facts
6.1 Again, the same problem: there are no facts which would justify these meanings. The allegations are completely false:
- McD's do not
- own any land in Central or South America.
actively destroy any rainforests;
use 800 mi² (or any quantity) of rainforests a year for their paper.
And the Dfts have offered no evidence that they do.
6.2 The 'gauntlet' (such as it is) appears to be something like this:
(1) McD's use beef in Central and South America.
(2) In some areas of those parts of the world, rainforests have been destroyed to make way for cattleranching and as a result of soyaproduction (used, in some form, for feeding cattle in some parts of the world) .
(3) Some of the cattle used for McD's purposes in Central and S. America might have been raised on land which was once rainforest.
(4) Some of the cattle used for McD's purposes might have been fed on soya grown in areas which were once inhabited by (since dispossessed) small farmers who have migrated into the rainforests.
(5) Since it might be that McD's can't guarantee that the beef they use in the US is 100% homegrown, there is a possibility that some of it might have come from rainforest areas of Central and S. America.
6.2.1 This is not, of course, how the Dfts put it .But I am not concerned with that, only with the strength of the case on the evidence.
6.3 The qq. are:
(1) What is rainforest?
(2) Was any of the land on which cattle are grazed for McD's use in
Brazil
Costa Rica or
Guatemala
ever rainforest?
(3) If so, when?
(4) What is the extent of McD's use of cattle in those countries?
(5) Have any significant nos. of cattle for McD's use been fed on soya (meal) grown on land whose previous occupants have migrated into the rainforests?
(6) Has McD's in the USA ever used beef imported from Brazil, Costa Rica or Guatemala?
(7) If so, did any of that beef come from rainforest areas of those countries?
6.4 Despite the weight of the evidence (lack of) and the burden of proof, I shall try to give sensible answers to those questions.
6.4.1 What is rainforest?
(1) No technical definition is necessary (or, probably, permissible): 'rainforest' is (now) a perfectly ordinary English word which is readily understood by ordinary English people (many of whom will have read this leaflet).
(2) Plainly, rainforest cannot mean simply 'forest' (whether in the Tropics or anywhere else). 'Rain' is also an ordinary English word: its use to qualify 'forest' indicates, therefore, a forest which is characterised by, or dependent on, rain
(3) The earliest dictionary definition I can find is in the COD (1982): it is unsurprising:
'Luxuriant tropical forest with heavy rainfall'.
(4) In fact, there is an earlier definition, with (roughly) the same meaning, in the Oxford Atlas (revised edn., 1963):
'Evergreen hygrophytic'
where 'hygrophytic' is defined as 'suited to wet conditions'.
(5) The relevant map in that atlas (copy attached) shows the location of tropical evergreen hygrophytic forest in 1963 in Brazil, Costa Rica and Guatemala (key on map:17): its effect is (unsurprisingly) very similar to what we already know from the evidence to date in particular, for Brazil, from Mr Monbiot's vegetation map (note that 18 in the key = 'partly deciduous' and 28 (cut off on copy: original in court) = 'tall grass savana') .
(6) Chambers 1993 gives:
'Broadleaved, evergreen tropical forest with very heavy rainfall'.
(7) On 22 October 1996, J. gave:
'...rainforest proper, that particular ecosystem where it produces its own clouds and its own rain.'
284:33:245.
****INSERT Map VIII****
(8) And see Ray Cesca: 219:17:3518:24.
(8) It is clear, therefore, that even to the ordinary person, the word has a precise meaning (which, for present purposes, is probably best represented by Chambers: see (6) above).
(9) This is no doubt why both Mr Monbiot* (for all that he may not be a true expert in these matters) and Dr. Ratter, + (who plainly is) are concerned to distinguish between rainforest and cerrrado (and savana).
*Statement
(addendum) of
29.8.95:
PB IC/G/3.
+PB IC/G/10
6.4.2 Brazil
(1) Both Branford and Hecht have given direct evidence of forest clearance for cattleranching in N.W. Goias (the Araguaia basin), around Sinop, along the Cuiaba Barra do Garças 'corridor'* and around Pontes e Lacerda during the 1970s and (to a smaller extent) the early 1980s .
*inc. Nova
Xavantina
(2) Two qq . arise:
(i) Was this rainforest?
(ii) What is the chance that any of the cattle used by McD's in Brazil in those years (in particular, 197982) came from ranches established in this way?
(3) Although Ms Branford spoke of 'dense humid tropical forest'*, she readily accepted that she was not an expert in such matters. *
*eg 251:19:43
*eg 251: 28: 3033
(4) Prof . Hecht, on the other hand, would seem to be (in some sense: it is unclear what her academic qualifications are, and her specialisation is 'Latin American Studies'). At all events, it is very noticeable that, except in relation to cattle which might have been transported from Acre and Rondonia (more later), she scrupulously avoids using the term 'rainforest'. On the contrary, she seems (with that exception) to recognise that the forest in q. is (was) not rainforest, but "drier tropical forest and semideciduous formations". *
(emphasis added) .
*eg : 1st stmt.,
2nd p., 1st para.
(PB IC/G/12)
(5) That this is so is confirmed by Mr Monbiot's helpful vegetation map (admissible because (a) it is a map and (b), though the key is in Portuguese, Pffs make no objection and, with the help of Mr Monbiot, there is no problem of interpretation (contrast the CEDI docs, for example)).
(6) The four 'key' places in this topic are probably: Sinon, Pontes e Lacerda, Nova Xavantina and S. Miguel do Araguaia. Take each in turn and see, by reference to the vegetation map, what is (or was) the nature of the vegetation surrounding each place (remembering that, by happy coincidence, the map's information was collected between 1973 and 1983).
(i) Sinop
(a) The relevant markings (and colours) are:
ON (grey) area of contact between different types of vegetation: canopy forest seasonal forest.
ON with dots (grey) the same, but in agricultural use.
SN (grey) Savana seasonal forest ("seasonal" = "deciduous" or " semideciduous" * )
* Monbiot: 239:32:610.
S with dots (pink) savana in agricultural use.
Sd (brown) densely forested ('treed') savana.
Sa (pink) open forest savana.
Ds (dark green) submontane dense canopy forest.
Fs (sap green) seasonal semi deciduous submontane forest.
(b) In all of the area around Sinop, there is (or was by 1983) only one small patch (c.50 x 25 km.) of Ds, ie, of what might be true rainforest (see the huge areas of Ds N. and S. of the Amazon).
(ii) Pontes e Lacerda
(a) Large area of Fs (sap green) to the NW, with some to the SE.
Large area of F (beige, with dots) to the E:
F = secondary vegetation and agricultural activities (under seasonal semideciduous).
(b) Some ST (grey): savana steppe like savana.
Some Sp (pink): park (savana).
Some Sa (pink), further afield: open forest savana
Some Cs (dark grey): submontane seasonal deciduous forest.
(c) No Ds at all.
(iii) Nova Xavantina
(a) Sa, SN, SN with dots (seasonal forest/savana with agricultural activities), and a small area of FS.
(b) No Ds at all.
(iv) S. Miguel do Araguaia
(a) Right in the middle of a large area of SN with dots: seasonal forest/savana with agricultural activities .
(b) Nearby areas:
Sa (pink): opentree savana.
Sp (pink): park (savana).
S with dots pink): savana in agricultural use.
(c) No Ds at all.
(7) Conclusion (confirming Hecht): by 1983 (at the latest), no rainforest (except for, possibly, one small area near Sinop) within 100s of Km of any of these places.
(8) This is also confirmed by
(i) Morganti (Y XII/81E 1st Stmt., para. 9)'and by,
(ii) the Cotter map* (copy attached, with all 4 of the above places marked on it). If these markings are accurate, and Prof. Cotter (Asst. Prof. of Geography at South Western University) is' a reliable historical geographer (as his maps, also of Costa Rica and Guatemala, tend to suggest he is, because they accord with the work of other authorities ), then it is clear that none of the 4 places was in a rainforest area even as long ago as 1940 (if ever).
*Ds' doc:
produced by Ds
in EinC of Monbiot:
239:23:213
(9) If that is right, then, apart from the q. of transporting cattle long distances from true rainforest areas (of which, more later), the second q:
What chance any of McD's cattle in Brazil came from the cleared areas spoken of by Ms. Branford and Prof. Hecht?
is really irrelevant.
****INSERT Map***** Cotter
(10) This q. does, however, bear also on the earlier q. whether any of McD's beef might have come from ranches recently established on land previously occupied by Indians/small farmers (see II 6.9.6, above). I will therefore deal with it.
(i) Morganti says No: he knows the ranches (or did: the Cuiaba facility has not been used since 1982), which none of the Dfts' witnesses does.
(ii) Against that background, consider the q. of scale:
(a) On 15.2.96, Morganti stated* that McD's annual consumption of cattle in Brazil was c. 40,000 (head), which was c. 0.22% of the annual national total (18m).
(b) In 1995, there were 243 McD's rests. in Brazil.*
(c) If 243 rest.s used 40,000 cattle, then the average consumption of cattle/rest./year was:
164.6 head
(d) The no. of rests. in Brazil for each year since 1986 is*
*P III:
2/44 1986 : 33
{1987 : 37
{1988 : 40
3/91 {1989 : 53
{1990 : 63
{1991 : 84
4/106 1992 : 107
5/134 1993 : 123
1994 : ? (Can't find)
AR 1995 1995 : 243
Note: There is a figure for 1985 (I assume) at P III/1/10 - but it is illegible in my copy - though I think it might be 27.
(e) No e. in Ct. (as far as I can discover) as to no. of rests. in earlier years. But on the figs. given above, it might be reasonable to assume something like this:
1979* : 1
1980 : 3
1981 : 6
1982 : 10
1983 : 14
1984 : 21
etc.
*McD's first
year:
Morganti (1),
para. 4
Y XII/81E
(f) If that is (even roughly) right, then one can see how insignificant were the numbers of cattle being used by McD's in Brazil between 1979 and 1983 or 1984 or 1985 or 1986 (etc.):
1979: (1 x 164.6) = 164.6 head
1980: 493.8 (494)
1981: 987.6 (988)
1982 1646
1983: 2304.4 (2304)
1984: 3456.6 (3457)
1985: 4444.2 (4444)
1986: 5431.8 (5432)
(g) So, what chance even one cow in those years came from one of the 'new' ranches? The nos. are minute, and given Morganti's evidence that he knows the ranches, the chances recede to + zero.
(11) I have been expressing myself in terms of chances and possibilities. That is because that is the most that the evidence could conceivably support (whether in relation to ranches on 'exrainforest' land or on land recently occupied by Indians/small farmers). In fact, of course, that is the wrong approach: the issue must be decided on the balance of probabilities, so that the q. for the court is:
Is it probable (more likely than not) that, from 1979 onwards, McD's in Brazil have used cattle from ranches newly established on land which was, at or just before the time when the ranches were established,
(a) rainforest; or
(b) occupied by Indians or small farmers?
(12) If that is the right q. (which, on the authorities, it is), then the answer, on the evidence, must be, No.
Transport (13) What chance is there that, from 1979
onwards, McD's in Brazil (or, in 1983, McD's
UK) have 'used cattle transported to M G do
Sul, Gosis or (197982) Southern M G from
newly established rainforest ranches in, say,
Acre, Rondonia or Tocantins?
(14) he answer is, virtually none, for the following reasons:
(i) The two Morganti maps (the big one and the one of Goals with some of the collection points marked on it: copy attached) give the collection points from which the cattle are (were) taken to Campo Grande (MG do S), Cuiaba (MG) and Goiania (Goias) for processing.
****INSERT Map (Places in Morganti's map)****
****INSERT Morganti's List****
(ii) The evidence of Ray Cesca was that the cattle are usually walked perhaps 23 Km. - from the farms to the collection points, then put on trucks to go to the processing plants.*
e.g:
220: 23:27-60
32:15-30
221: 34:27-47
225: 32:19-33:1
(iii) There are so many collection points in MG do S (about 40) and Goias (110 in Morganti (4); 51 on the marked map) - the only ones Morganti could remember in MG were P. & L., Sinop and N.X.* - that it is unrealistic to contemplate that McD's tiny demand could require input from cattle transported from places 100s of Kms. from the processing plants. In essence, you put your plant where the cattle are, not vice-versa.*
*Morganti (2),
para.1, and
(5), para.2
*See, eg, Cesca:
220:12:51- 13:44
(ans. J.)
(Note: if the Govt. provides incentives to start ranches in the rainforest, sooner or later processing plants will follow, not doubt. But that has nothing to do with McD's/Braslo, whose plants are not and never have been in the rainforest).
(iv) In any case, transporting cattle long distances is uneconomic, because
(a) The cattle (young or fat) suffer loss of condition/quality, and therefore value, in the course of the journey;*
*eg: D. Walker
77:75:44-7
78:52:50- 53:8
Cesca: 220:23:31-56
Lord Vestey: 275:13:52-8
(where 1.58 should
obviously read, if it is
to make sense: "Not
necessarily: all cattle":
(b) They'd have to cross zonal and state (and possibly national) borders, where quite heavy taxes are payable;* and
*eg: Cesca:
220:13:26-39
(ans. J.)
220:52:27 - 53:59
(ans. J.)
(c) the high cost of transport would add considerably to the overall cost of the meat.*
*Cesca:
219:37:34-8
(d) As to (a) and (c) , see also, for example, Jerome Dean at Y XIV/81 G, para. 4(5), (a) and (b) (also (d)).
(15) This means that although the generalities offered by Branford and Hecht about transporting cattle long distances from the rainforests raise a possibility that, if history had been different, McD's might at one time or another have used a rainforest cow, in fact they lead nowhere. History is history, and as points (i) to (iv) (with (10): scale) above demonstrate (in particular (iii) and (iv) taken together), there isn't a realistic possibility, let alone a probability, that McD's have used cattle transported long distances from rainforest areas far to the W. and N. of the processing plants from which Braslo buys the meat.
Soya
(16)
(i) It is soyameal (not beans) that is (sometimes) fed to cattle.
(ii) This is a byproduct of soyaoil production for human consumption. *
*Schumm ( 2 )
Y XI/4, p.2.,
last para. And
see Morganti (1)
and Pereira, below.
(iii) Brazilian cattle don't eat soyameal, because it is too expensive*. Even if they did, McD's cattle in Brazil, being so few in number, would have consumed insignificant amounts.
(iv) There is no suggestion that soyafarming in Brazil has been established on rainforest land..
(v) The suggestion is that soyafarming in Central and South Brazil has driven peasants into the rainforest. *
* Morganti (1),
para 11, and
Pereira:
Y XII/81E & F;
and Cesca:
219:11:2535.
(Monbiot
thought they
ate soyabeans! )
*Monbiot:
239: 1415
Hecht (1):
p. 3., para. 2.
(vi) In Germany, at least, McD's cattle have never eaten very much soya; and even less Brazilian soya:
See Schumm (1)*, April 1989, pp. 8, 9 and 10,
*Y XI/3
Showing that, at that time, McD's Sudfleisch cows in Bavaria* were eating only 56 kg each per year+, of which only a small proportion could have been Brazilian (numbered paras 6 and 7).
*80% of all
hamburger cows.
+1416g/cow/day!
(vii) By 1994, the soyameal used by Sudfleisch came exclusively from the USA and Argentina: not Brazil*.
* Schumm (2)
Y XI/4 and
Gullang
Y XIV/46
(viii) The cows used to make McD's hamburgers in Germany are 'old' dairy cows: therefore blame the dairy farmer, not McD's!*
*Schumm (2)
p.2, last para.
(and para. 1 on
p1)
(ix) The rest of the world:
(a) McKey's suppliers (therefore McD's) may use some soya, but not much because it is too expensive. *
*D. Walker:
78:56:11 -
58:32
Note the ans.
at 57:3940
*Schumm (1)
p.6
(b) In 1988/9, Brazil was a significant exporter of both soyabeans and soyameal. * However, see where this leads:
- McD's US beef consumption in 1988 was about 0.596 of the world total, and their consumption worldwide was about 0.6% of the world total+ .
+see calculations,
with refs., in
Table 1, attached.
- But in 1988/9, the US was far the biggest producer of soya (nearly twice as big as its nearest rival, Brazil) and, by an even wider margin, the biggest exporter of soya beans (about 6 times bigger than Argentina and more than 6 times bigger than Brazil).*
*Schumm, ibid.
- This means that it is inconceivable that the US was importing any significant quantity of Brazilian (or any other) soya (beans or meal)*.
*exports of Brazilian
soyameal are
irrelevant:
the US will not
have needed to
import any soya
meal from anywhere.
- This in turn means that it is inconceivable that any of the cattle used for McD's beef in the US (about 75% of their total use worldwide)+ can have eaten any Brazilian soya (because they are all raised and slaughtered in the US: see later).
+ see Table 1
- This in turn means that the amount of Brazilian soyameal which might have been eaten in the rest of the world by McD's cattle is insignificant: about 0.14%. of Brazil's total exports of soyameal in 1988.
+see calcns. in Table 1
RAINFORESTS
Table 1.
Calculation of McD's use of Brazilian Soya outside USA: 1988
Refs:
1. 1988
World beef production: 49m. metric tons = Y IX14/ App.2,
108 ten. lbs last p.
McD's beef consumption in US: 524m. lbs (= " App.1
0.48% world total).
US McDs had 75% of all McDs rests. in P III/3/91
world.
524 m. lbs = 75% of 699m. lbs
Therefore McDs outside USA used 175m. lbs
(= 0.16% of world total).
2. 1990
World beef production: c 50m. metric tons = Y IX/4/App.2,
110bn. lbs last p.
No of cattle in world: 1.07 bn hi " " "
first p.
Therefore each head produced 103 lbs beef.
McDs US used c. 498m. lbs " " /App.1
This therefore required 4.8m cattle.
US McD's had 72% of all McD's rests. in P III/3/91
world.
4.8m cattle = 72% of 6.6m.
Therefore McDs outside US used 1.8m. cattle
(= 0.17% of world total)
3. Soya use by McD's cattle. 1988. using 1
and 2 above and Schumm (1). pp. 610
* which takes in Taking a mean from para.6 and para.7 of Schumm (1), p.8
a/c a poss. input 6.5kg* of Brazilian soyameal.cow/year, and p.10
via Holland * (Holland) p.7
If McD's cattle outside US ~ the same no.
in 1988 as in 1990 (in fact, slightly
fewer: 1.7 m v. 1.8m.),
Then the total Brazilian soyameal
consumption by all McD's cattle outside the
US was (roughly) 6.5 x 1.8 = 1 .7m.kg =
11.700 tonnes.
If total Brazilian exports of soyameal in p.6
1988 was
8.232m. tonnes,
Then the amount of Brazilian soyameal
consumed by McD's cattle outside the US in
1988 was no more than 0.14% of Brazil's
total exports of soyameal
Legible copies of the relevant Y IX/4 Apps. attached.
Y IX/4/App.2/last page
World Beef Production
Thousand metric tons Source: Australian Meat & Livestock Corporation
North American Beef Production
U.S., Canada, & Mexico
Y IX/4/App.1
McDonald's Corporation
Time: 9:00am * Not calculated
C:\QPRO\DATA\AVERAGE.ORD\4THQT.'90\GEE WHIZ.'90\GW90-52B
(x) In the result, soya turns out to be (another) red herring:
(a) The use of Brazilian soya for McD's cattle can never have been significant (quantity);
(b) the connection between that use and destruction of the rainforests, via displacement of small farmers, is extremely tenuous (quality);
(c) If it had been shown that McD's cattle were significant - grandscale users of Brazilian soya, then it might fairly be thought that generalities would have their place: 'McD's use so much Brazilian soya that it is probable that at any rate some small farmers have been displaced to make way for McD's needs and have migrated into the rainforests'.
(d) But, on the evidence, that isn't even a runner.
(e) Again, the issue for the Court is one of probability, not speculative possibility.
6.4.3 Costa Rica
(1) The only topic here is forest clearance: when, where, what type.
(2) Land dispossession and soya do not arise.
(3) The only two qq. therefore are:
(i) Was any of the land on which cattle for McD's use in Costa Rica (CR) have been grazed since 1970 ever rainforest?
(ii) If so, when?
(4) The ans. to q. (i) is almost certainly, No. The foundation for that is:
(i) The areas where McD's cattle have been grazed since 1970:
(a) Guanacaste plain (the principal area);
See CR main
map (loose) .
(b) Peninsula de Nicoya;
(c) The coastal strip running from Puntarenas / Barranca southwards as far as Dominical/ San Isidro de El General.
The evidence for this is:
Juan Sequeira: Y XIV/81
(Dated 30.1.92:CEA).
Ray Cesca : 219:44:3646:24.
61: 431
221:63: 4264: 11 (eg)
Note that no evidence is offered by the Ds to contradict this account.
(ii) The nature of that land:
It was, it seems, never rainforest .
The evidence for this is:
Prof. Janzen: Y XIV/8/ ID, pares. 7, 8 and 11.
Area Handbook for CR (Blutstein et al, 1970)*: pp 3342 (effectively confirming Janzen): behind Dr. Dr. Carriere's stmts in PB IC/G/2
See also Cesca and Wolf (passim) as to the nature of 'their' land and the location of the rainforests in CR (as to the latter, see Cesca 219:20: 3021 :1) .
*As to the
authority of
this, see
Carriere:
242:27: 4628 :8
Note also the
significance of
its date.
(5) This means that the second q., until when was the land rainforest?, is irrelevant, because it never was.
(6) But it may be helpful to answer a different q:
In so far as the land was once significantly forested, when was the forest cleared?
(i) Guanacaste plain
- A long time ago: certainly all the forest had gone by 1940, at the latest.
- The evidence for this is:
Area Handbook for CR: p.40, 3rd pare.
Gerardo Bermudez Robles: Y XIV/78 (dated 29.8.89: CEA).
The following maps:
Sader & Joyce (1988)
Porras and Vittareal (1986)
TSC (1982)
Cotter (1983) (also Guatemala)
copies attached, with relevant place names marked on the Sader & Joyce and TSC maps.
(ii) Nicoya Peninsula:
mostly by 1940, and completely by 1961.
- see the maps for this.
(iii) Puntarenas Dominical coastal strip:
Mostly by 1940, and completely by 1961.
see the maps.
(7) This means that whatever the nature/ type of the forest might have been up to 9 years (at the latest) before McD's arrived in CR, McD's cannot possibly bear any responsibility for its clearance. This is obvious (apologies), but important, because it is a principle which applies to all 3 of the countries in question.
(8) Speculative possibilities should be ignored: eg
- might some rainforest beef from the N. of CR have found its way into McD's hamburgers at the Embutidos plant in Alajuela?
- might. the slaughterhouse at Barranca have shipped in some cattle from the rainforests in the N..?
(9) Scale
Whatever Generalities might be proposed about the impact of cattleranching on forests in CR, it is clear that McD's part in that (ignoring all other qq.) can never have been more than this:
McD's very presence in CR might encourage people to try and sell them rainforest beef and so, in the (mistaken) belief that that bid might be successful, go and clear some rainforest for cattle.
Otherwise, McD's contribution to the cattle industry in CR has been negligible:
Average usage/pa from 1980 to 1991: 0.27% of CR total
Total usage 1980 to 1991: 0.27% of CR total
Y IX14/App.3.
6.4.4 Guatemala
(1) Again, the only topic is forest clearance: when, where, what type.
(2) Dispossession is not in the arena, nor soya (Ronald Cummins' evidence* is irrelevant: he speaks of what 'the landless poor' do because they are landless/poor, not because they've been recently dispossessed of the land owned by the cattle ranchers; and what may have happened from 1984 onwards is nothing to do with McD's, who arrived in G. in 1974 and whose sources of supply have not changed significantly since then).
(3) So the two qq . for Guatemala are the same as for CR:
(i) Was any of the land on which cattle for McD's use in G. have been grazed since 1974 ever rainforest?
(ii) If so, when?
(4) The ans. to q. (i) is, Possibly, but only to a very limited extent. foundation for that is:
(i) The areas where McD's cattle have been grazed since 1974:
(a) The coastal plain in the S. of the country, in the provinces of Retalhuleu, Suchitepéquez , Escuintla and Tiquisate (80%);
(b) Around Zacapa and Chiquimula (15%) (W of the Honduras border); and
(c) Izabal (5%) (ENE of Lago de Izabal) .
Evidence: Rolando Robles:
Y XIV/73 (dated
26.7.89: CEA)
(Suchitepequez was added by CEA later).
(ii) Such rainforest as there once was in any of these areas was cleared either before 1940 or between 1940 and 1982.
Evidence:
Cotter map* (1983) (see CR, above, pare 6.4.3 (6)(i))
Cesca map* (incorporating A. Cofino map in Y XIV/72): behind Cesca in Y XI /1 ( ? ) .
Main Guatemala map: loose.
* copies attached,
with
relevant
markings
(iii) By use of these 3 maps in combination, it is possible to conclude (roughly):
(a) That the 4 southern states on the Pacific littoral may have contained a narrow margin+ of rainforest on their mountainous northern borders which has disappeared since 1940:*
+c.10 miles wide
of which about
8 mi. might have
been within the
S. cattle area
on the Cesca map.
*It had certainly
gone by the time
Cesca first went
to G. in 1978/9 :
219:22:1821.
(b) That Zacapa* and Chiquimula are in areas that were deforested (if they were) before 1940; and
*If the Zacapa
'cattle' circle
on the Cesca map
is accurate (which
it may not be), then its N.
circumference would cut about
3.5 miles into
the S. edge of
the black on
Cotter.
(c) That Izabal is in an area that has been deforested since 1940.
(5) Q.(ii), When?, may be approached as follows:
(i) The latest date for rainforest clearance (if any) in the southern region (80% of McD's supply) is the early 1950s:
Rolando Robles: Y XIV/43, para.3.
(ii) It is, however, unlikely that this region ever contained much rainforest: see (4) (iii) (a) above and Janzen * pare. 7, whose remarks about "classic rain shadow effect" would apply equally to Southern Guatemala ( see main G . map ) .
* Y XIV/81D
(iii) Y XIV/40,42 and 72 assert that the southern coastal plain has, in reality, been agricultural land since the turn of the century. This, unless Cofino pere* is very old, is likely to be hearsay. Nevertheless, it may well be right, given the nature if the land (see main G. map)* and the geography of G. (see (ii) above, ref. Janzen), which, in this respect, is similar to that of CR.
*Jose:
Y XIV/40 and 41
*Flat, alluvial
(iv) Chiquimula is out of the game and Zacapa just on the touchline: see (4) (iii) (b) above.
(v) The 'odd man out' is Izabal (596 of McD's supply). It might have been cleared at any time between 1940 and 1982 (Cotter map), and it is on the N (Atlantic) side of Guatemala. But there is no evidence that it was cleared after 1974, without which this must remain no more than a speculative possibility. In fact given the present location of the rainforest in G. *, an earlier rather than a later date is probable (assuming a general S to N progression of clearance).
*Cesca: (eg)
219:33:252;
and Cesca map
(6) Scale
Dr. GO said* that McD's use of beef in Guatemala was < 1% of the national total (and that was in 1994, when McD's had c.9 rests. in G.). Again, as a contribution to the Possibility of rainforest clearance, this is negligible: see 6.4.3 (9), above, under CR.
*67:3:594:4
(7) The possibility that McD's has ever used rainforest beef transported from the N. of G. is fanciful. *
* Cesca:
219: 37:838.3
6.4.5 Imports of rainforest beef for McD's use in the USA
(1) The qq. are (see 6.3, ante)
(i) Has McD's in the USA ever used beef imported from Brazil, CR or Guatemala?
(ii) If so, did any of that beef come from rainforest areas of those countries?
(2) Those are qq. which must be answered in terms of probability, not possibility (apologies for repeating this; but in view of the nature of the Ds' case not as they safer it is, but as, at its highest, it is on the evidence, it is important) .
(3) If the ans. to q. (i) is, No, I shan't bother with q. (ii).
(4) The complete answer to q. (i) is to .be found in (amongst many places) the evidence of McD's suppliers of patties in the USA: Y XIV/81 GK.
(5) Besides demonstrating both the impracticability of importing beef into the USA (dead or alive) and the complete lack of any incentive to do so, what this evidence shows is that the suppliers know that the cattle are slaughtered in the USA. Thus hypothetical qq. about the possibility of imports getting into McD's patties 'by the back door' are irrelevant.
(6) As to US law, see the opinion of Dewey Ballantine and the relevant provisions of US law at Y XIV/81M (also the FSIS Notice of 20.7.94 introduced by the Ds.j. The position is quite clear: imported meat, and its container, must carry a "country of origin" marking until it has been processed in the USA (in McD's case, this would mean until, after arrival at the plant, it was ground up for patties). And failure to comply with this provision is an offence, because the product is "misbranded".
(7) See also:
Cesca: 219:31:739
McD's bought their own cattle in the USA during a domestic shortage.
Dr.GG: 66:40:367
Coope Montecillos could not export to McD's USA because their meat could not compete in point of price with US beef.
(8) McD's requirement that their patties in the USA should contain no imported beef is very longstanding.
(i) The dates when the suppliers started making patties for McD's are:
Yellow XIV
Keystone (Equity) 1970 81G, para 2
Golden State Foods 1957 81H, para 2
Normac 1968 811, para 2
OSI 1955 81J, para 2
Pabst 1961 81K, para 2
(ii) Since those dates, each of the suppliers has known of McD's requirement and has complied with it, understanding it to mean that the meat must come from cattle slaughtered within the continental boundaries of the USA (ibid., pares. 3 and 4) ·
(iii) See also the following McD's specifications*:
P IX/2A, p.2, para. D8 : 1967
P IX/2B, para.D8 : ?1975
P XI/5(a), para.C3: 1978
and 1979
P XVI/2, p.2, para.B: 1985
(also p.1, para. B2)
* and also the
acknowledgements
signed by the
suppliers in
P XVI/17
(9) The overall effect of this evidence is that there isn't even a theoretical possibility, never mind a sensible probability, that McD's in the USA has ever used any imported meat ( in any sense that matters in this case*).
* A steer that
strays from Alberta
into Montana
doesn't!
(10) 'Jungleburger' is a red herring, and anyway wholly unworthy of credence:
See Quintana: Y XIV/81A
Monroe : Y XIV/81C.
and Wolf, Day 226 (passim); but,
as an example, 20:1921:51.
(11) Note, also, McD's policy that, wherever possible, their beef should be sourced locally*.
* See eg,
Dr GG : 66:41 :3345
Cesca : 219:31: 1622
P XVI/2/19B, pare. B.9
(International spec. )
(12) Irrelevant Tonics
(i) Imports of beef by, say, McD's Japan from Australia or Uruguay: no rainforest implications.
(ii) Occasional, small exports of beef or patties from Brazil to, say, Argentina or Switzerland (or the UK!): no rainforest implications*
* See, eg,
Dr FGG: 69:
27:2745;
28: 1356;
See also the
important ans. at
68:33:2025
(iii) McD's various policy statements (including whatever Ms. Bensilum said to Mr. Rose): the leaflet alleges actual rainforest destruction by McD's, so the issue is what has actually happened (but NB the good sense of the policy as explained by Cesca* and Dr
FGG*) .
* eg:
219: 23:824:2
* eg: 68:31:1216
[Vol 3: Waste & Packaging] [Back to Index] [prev Vol] [next Vol]