|
experience:
|
Writer and researcher into food, health and food marketing
|
summary:
The plaintiffs are in the business of selling
hamburgers. Had they left it at that, they could not be reasonably
criticised for "deliberately misleading the public as to the nutritional
value of the food they sell". However, the plaintiffs have deliberately
sought to pass their products off as "a very valuable part of a healthy
diet".In these health-conscious times, this is no doubt an extremely
effective marketing device. But that is all it is. It is not the truth.
cv:
see Introduction
Full cv:
(not available for this witness)
full statement:
Introduction
1. I am a writer and researcher into food, health and associated
matters. Previously, I was the first chief executive of the Vegetarian
Society of the United Kingdom (a charity), and prior to that I founded and
managed an advertising agency for ten years before selling it. I am
experienced in many aspects of consumer marketing, advertising and public
relations, and was a member of the Institute of Marketing. My special
interest lies in the marketing of food, particularly meat products, to the
general public. I am the author of a number of popular food and health
books which seek to translate medical and scientific findings into language
which is easily understood by a lay audience. Some titles include "The
Quick Cholesterol Clean-Out" (Random House), "The Quick Cholesterol and Fat
Counter" (Random House), "Why You Don't Need Meat" (Thorsons Publishers),
and "The New Why You Don't Need Meat" (Bloomsbury Publishing). My work has
been favourably reviewed in a wide range of publications, including The
Lancet and Nursing Times. I am frequently invited to lecture before
specialist audiences on the deceptive marketing of meat products (for
example, before the Nutrition Consultants Association) and the British
Medical Association has recently requested me to write for its magazine on
this subject.
What's Wrong With McDonalds
2. I have seen the leaflet entitled "What's wrong with McDonald's?"
and also various promotional leaflets and other material produced by the
plaintiffs. The remarks that follow are concerned with specific points
arising therefrom. My general comment is as follows: The plaintiffs'
literature is frequently very one-sided, stressing the positive qualities
of the plaintiffs' products while omitting or minimising the negative
aspects. None of the plaintiffs' promotional literature I have seen can be
fairly said to give a truly balanced viewpoint. It is, therefore,
essential that public comment and indeed vigorous criticism be allowed, no
matter how ruffling it may be to the plaintiffs' own self-esteem. The
leaflet entitled "What's wrong with McDonald's?" is certainly a
highly-critical and uncompromising document, and I am quite sure the
plaintiffs consider it to be most impertinent. However, impertinence is
not a crime. When put into context against the £9 million spent by the
plaintiffs on advertising in 1992, this meagre leaflet pales into utter
insignificance.
Our democracy thrives on a multiplicity of viewpoints, of which advertising
is one - but only one - component. For a commercial organisation to seek
to extinguish voices - no matter how small - which state an opposing point
of view is highly damaging to the public interest, and contrary to British
tradition and culture.
3. Item 4(F) of the plaintiffs' Statement of Claim asserts that the
leaflet entitled "What's wrong with McDonald's?" contends that the
plaintiffs "are deliberately misleading the public as to the nutritional
value of the food they sell when they know full well that the contents of
an average McDonald's meal are linked with cancers of the breasts and
bowel, and heart disease."
Misleading Nutritional Information
This is fair comment. McDonald's have certainly produced misleading
nutritional information for the public. In evidence I cite the following:
A) Heart Disease
The plaintiffs "are deliberately misleading the public as
to the nutritional value of the food they sell when they know full well
that the contents of an average McDonald's meal are linked with heart disease."
The British government's Department of Health states that
mortality from coronary heart disease is amongst the highest in the world;
that death rates from coronary heart disease in different countries are
associated with national fat consumption; and that the association between
coronary heart disease mortality is closest with saturated fatty acid
supplies in the diet.
The plaintiffs clearly accept this. In their leaflet
"McDonald's Food: The Facts" the following statements are made:
"Saturates tend to raise the blood cholesterol level while
polyunsaturates lower it. Too high an intake of saturated fat may increase
the risk of heart disease." (NB: The preceding was printed in extremely
small type, and almost certain to be overlooked)
And the following "Healthy Diet" advice is given:
"Eat less fat (particularly saturated fat)"
If the plaintiffs therefore wish to convey accurate
nutritional information to the public, they must, as a priority, tell the
public what the saturated fat content of their food is, and tell them in
terms which are generally accepted, easy to comprehend, and easy to implement. They fail to do this.
- i) The plaintiffs' leaflet "The Facts About
Eating At McDonald's. Eating At McDonald's With Nutrition In Mind"
completely omits any mention of saturated fat, and is highly selective in
the nutritional data it gives. In the context of providing "Golden Rules
For Healthy Eating" (which the leaflet claims to do), this is utterly
misleading.
- ii) The plaintiffs' leaflet "McDonald's
Nutrition Guide" also completely omits any mention of saturated fat, and
is highly selective in the nutritional data it gives. In the context of
providing "Golden Rules For Healthy Eating" (which the leaflet claims to
do), this is also utterly misleading.
- iii) The plaintiffs' leaflet "McDonald's Food:
The Facts" does indeed present nutritional information for the saturated
fat content of McDonald's products, but the information is presented in
such a way as to be difficult or impossible for the public to use.
Conventionally, fat intakes are expressed as a
proportion of dietary energy. This allows for the direct comparison of
one food with another (e.g. spaghetti obtains about 5 per cent of its
energy from fat, pork sausage about 75 per cent: hence we may safely deduce
that spaghetti is lower in fat). However, the plaintiffs choose not to
follow this convention. Instead, they present both total fat and saturated
fat content of their products as grams of fat/saturated fat per serving.
Hence we learn that a "Quarter Pounder with Cheese" contains 26.4 grams of
fat (of which 14 grams is saturated) and a "Big Mac" contains 32.2 grams of
fat (of which 12.4 grams is saturated). These figures are virtually
incomprehensible to a lay audience, and impossible to put into the context
of a healthy diet (which is what the plaintiffs' leaflet purports to do).
The expression of fat intake as a proportion of
dietary energy is also valuable in one further respect: it allows the
health-conscious consumer to compare a certain food or menu to the
Department of Health's Dietary Reference Values (DRVs) for fat. Currently,
it is suggested that total fat should provide about 35 per cent of total
dietary energy, and saturated fat about 10 per cent. It is worth pointing
out that many experts suggest individual limits considerably below these
population averages.
In this context, an analysis of the plaintiffs'
products is most revealing. From raw figures supplied in the plaintiffs'
literature, I have calculated that many of the plaintiffs' products exceed
official guidelines on healthy fat intake. The calculations are as
follows:
| Product | % Of Energy From Fat | % Of Energy From Saturated fat |
|---|
| Hamburger | 35% | 18% |
| Cheeseburger | 41% | 20% |
| Quarter Pounder | 42% | 20% |
| Quarter Pounder with Cheese | 46% | 25% |
| Big Mac | 71% | 28% |
| Breakfast Menu | 54% | 28% |
| Sausage & Egg McMuffin | 51% | 24% |
| Chicken McNuggets | 54% | 14% |
|
From the above table it can be seen that not only
are many of the most popular products high in total fat, but also many of
them are particularly unhealthy inasmuch as they considerably exceed the 10
per cent saturated fat level. Revealingly, their public relations manager
has even admitted that "a relatively high percentage of the energy in our
food comes from fat." It is not difficult to see why the plaintiffs do
not present this information to the public.
B) Cancers
The plaintiffs "are deliberately misleading the public as to the nutritional value of the food they sell when they know full well
that the contents of an average McDonald's meal are linked with cancers of
the breast and bowel."
I have perused the following leaflets produced by the
plaintiffs:
- "McDonald's Nutrition Guide"
- "The Facts About Eating At McDonald's"
- "McDonald's Food: The Facts"
- "Nutritional Analysis of Food Served at McDonald's Restaurants"
- "Good Food Nutrition & McDonald's"
None of them mentions cancer of the breast or bowel,
although it is fair to assume that the plaintiffs are au fait with the
widely-accepted connection between unhealthy diets and the incidence of
various forms of cancers (see, for example, the Department of Health's
"Dietary Reference Values for Food Energy and Nutrients for the United
Kingdom" concerning the association between fat consumption and breast
cancer, and fat consumption / meat consumption and colon cancer).
Restaurateurs are, of course, under no obligation
whatsoever to advocate a healthy lifestyle, to sell healthy food beyond the
requirements of food labelling and hygiene regulations, nor to proffer
nutritional advice.
However, if they clearly elect to cast themselves in the
role of nutritional consultants to the public - as the plaintiffs most
conspicuously do - then the plaintiffs have a solemn obligation to tell the
truth - and to tell all of it.
To attempt to pass off hamburgers, chips, milk shakes and
various other fried foodstuffs as "good nutritious foods" - as is the
overt intention of the plaintiffs - is seriously deceptive. The effect is
to debase the concept of "healthy eating" to no more than a cynical sales
promotional ploy.
If the plaintiffs were as genuinely interested in promoting
healthy eating as they profess to be, I would expect to see:
i) Far more emphasis on the consumption of fresh
vegetables. There is a huge and accumulating amount of scientific evidence
that the consumption of certain vegetables can dramatically reduce the
incidence of many common cancers. For example, the form of vitamin A found
in plant foods (beta-carotene) has been found to protect against several
forms of cancers. The plaintiffs' comment on this vitamin is to warn that
"excessive amounts can be dangerous" , demonstrating their incomplete
understanding of the form and function of this nutrient.
ii) A sincere attempt to introduce non-meat
burgers and meat analogue products to the public. Many scientific studies
demonstrate the connection between meat consumption and the incidence of
many forms of cancers, including breast cancer, colon cancer and indeed
total mortality from cancer. Further research shows that
burger-type cooked meat patties are liable to contain mutagens - chemicals
which are linked to cancer and chromosome damage - which are not present in
vegetable-protein products. In this respect, I should mention and applaud
the product range of Burger-King, who do indeed offer a vegetable burger
alternative.
C) 'Junk Food'
My conclusion. The plaintiffs have chosen to unequivocally
assert that their products are not what is popularly known as "junk food" ,
and are desirous to profess that their products are healthy and indeed
health-inducing. The evidence I have discussed above demonstrates that
the plaintiffs:
- Are aware of and accept the connection between
saturated fat consumption and coronary heart disease;
- Have either completely failed to present any
information whatsoever to the public concerning the saturated fat content
of their products in a context in which it would have been reasonably
expected to appear (e.g. "McDonald's Nutrition Guide" etc.) or have
presented said information in such a manner as to render it difficult or
impossible for a lay person to interpret and use effectively.
- By virtue of their promotional literature claim
to be expert in and proficient at dispensing advice on healthy eating to
the public, whilst in reality giving highly partial and incomplete advice,
especially in relation to the incidence and prevention of dietary-related
cancers.
The plaintiffs are in the business of selling
hamburgers. Had they left it at that, they could not be reasonably
criticised for "deliberately misleading the public as to the nutritional
value of the food they sell". However, the plaintiffs have deliberately
sought to pass their products off as very valuable part of a healthy
diet".n these health-conscious times, this is no doubt an extremely
effective marketing device. But that is all it is. It is not the truth.
If the plaintiffs insist on making this sort of provocative and reckless
statement, then they must also expect to be robustly challenged, as indeed
they rightly have been by the defendants.
Chewing
4. Item 4(G) of the plaintiffs' Statement of Claim refers to
"synthetic" chips and lack of bulk in the plaintiffs' food. I would
consider that spraying a sugar solution onto chips could indeed result in a
product which might be termed "synthetic". In his autobiography Ray Kroc,
the plaintiffs' founder, makes it clear that his preference is for the
synthetic variety: "There were die-hards in our organization", he wrote,
"who thought that the only good french fry was one made from a fresh
potato." Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, there may well be some
die-hards amongst the British public who still think so.
The latter comment concerning bulk and ease of chewing is surely a matter
of personal opinion.
Heart Disease and 'Cravings"
5. Item 4(H) of the plaintiffs' Statement of Claim is very confused.
May I request that I have already at least in part covered the matter of
heart disease. As far as sugar and sodium (salt) content is concerned, it
is quite obvious that both are powerfully attractive flavourings for the
human species, and that products which contain these substances will tend
to be sought after. Certainly, there are cases of both sugar and salt
"cravings" or addictions. As far as "earning greater profits for
themselves" is concerned, I rather thought that that was the prime function
of the plaintiffs, perhaps their shareholders believe this too. I would
like to amplify my comment here subject to clarification by the plaintiffs
of their Statement of Claim.
Uniformity of Food
6. Item 4(I) of the plaintiffs' Statement of Claim refers to the
gimmickry in the plaintiffs' restaurants and the uniformity of their food
world-wide.
a) There is an ironic saying in the advertising world that
the more a product is advertised, the poorer its quality. The plaintiffs
are certainly major advertisers, upon which they rely to bring custom into
their restaurants. I have already demonstrated that much of the food on
offer is indeed of "low quality", being both high in total fat, high in
saturated fat and generally deficient in the important plant-associated
nutrients. The British do indeed have an appropriate appellation for this
type of food - it is termed "junk food". This label obviously upsets the
plaintiffs, but the truth often does. Were they to take real steps to
improve the fare on offer, then they might justifiably loose this label -
but not until.
b) The list of additives, preservatives and other
chemicals presented by the plaintiffs in their booklet "McDonald's Food:
The Facts" clearly shows that the defendants are indeed major users of
these chemicals. It is idle for the plaintiffs to claim that they aspire
to anything other that total uniformity in their products; this is the
basis of mass production, and certainly the thinking behind such
institutions as the plaintiffs' "Hamburger University". I would like to
amplify my comment here subject to clarification by the plaintiffs of their
Statement of Claim.
Marketing Toward Children
7. Item 4(J) of the plaintiffs' Statement of Claim refers to the
marketing which the plaintiffs direct towards children which is intended to
pressurise their parents into visiting the plaintiffs' restaurants.
This is a straightforward, albeit not particularly ethical,
advertising tactic. It is lucidly explained by the plaintiffs' founder: "A
child who loves our TV commercials and brings her grandparents to a
McDonald's gives us two more customers". For the plaintiffs to deny that
their advertising particularly targets children is, I would have thought,
utterly untenable. I would like to amplify my comment here subject to
clarification by the plaintiffs of their Statement of Claim.
8. Item 4(K) of the plaintiffs' Statement of Claim refers to the
plaintiffs' promotion of their products to children while knowing that the
contents could poison them.
The dietary habits of children are exceptionally important. Bad
food patterns set at an early age can literally condemn a child to a
lifetime of ill health or an early grave. Many, many specialists are
increasingly concerned that large numbers of children are eating a
nutritionally inadequate diet. The plaintiffs themselves assert that "Our
problem is that we tend to eat too much of some nutrients and not enough of
others. This imbalance can lead to a number of diet-related diseases".
Once again, by setting themselves up as nutritional advisors to the world,
the plaintiffs are shouldering an onerous burden, not one which sits easily
with their business of selling burgers, milkshakes and chips. If the
plaintiffs are indeed aware of the many connections between diet and
disease, then they are acting with extraordinary irresponsibility in
aggressively promoting their high-fat, low nutrient (i.e. "junk food") diet
to children. The word "poison" is not too strong in this context. Again,
I would like to amplify my comment here subject to clarification by the
plaintiffs of their Statement of Claim.
9. The plaintiffs' Statement of Claim refers to various other matters
which I would like to comment upon subject to the plaintiffs'
clarification.
supplementary statement:
|
date signed:
|
December 9, 1993
|
1. I understand that an application has been made to the court by the
plaintiffs concerning that portion of my testimony dated July 26th 1993,
clause 5 relating to sugar and salt cravings or addictions. Accordingly,
may I respectfully submit the following further testimony to the court for
its consideration.
2. It is particularly bizarre, and indeed almost beyond belief, that
the plaintiffs seem to be suggesting in all seriousness that there are not
and have not been cases of sugar and salt cravings. The English language
itself reflects the reality of sugar cravings in the time-honoured phrase
to describe someone thus disposed as "having a sweet tooth". This being
accepted, I would have thought that further exposition is in reality
unnecessary.
3. Perhaps the plaintiffs object to the implication of the word
"addiction", generally associated with drug addicts. The precise point at
which a preference becomes a craving, and at which a craving becomes an
addiction, is subjective and largely of semantic interest. The plaintiffs
would be wrong to assume, if perhaps they do, that I use the word
"addiction" to directly equate their products with the so-called "hard
drugs" more commonly associated with the word "addiction". The term
"addiction" is not used exclusively in the context of "hard drugs". For
example, may I cite Ricciardo's recent exposition of "sugar addiction" and
its significance to alcohol addiction, as published in the professional
journal Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly.
4. Further, I would like to mention that there have been long-standing
concerns about sugar addiction and its impact on childhood development. I would cite, inter alia, Charlton-Seifert's review of the subject in the
professional journal Academic Therapy which discusses "its addictive
quality, its judgement altering capacity for those allergic to it, and its
hyperactive associations". Further concerns have been expressed about the
impact of sugar in combination with caffeine (also sold by the plaintiffs)
on learning function in children.
5. The exact physiological bases underlying sugar and salt addictions
and cravings are by no means fully established and will no doubt be the
subject of further research. Symptoms once attributed to hypoglycaemia
may, in fact, be symptoms of addiction-I cite Rippere in the Lancet:
"Masked addiction to commonly and frequently ingested foods may be
suspected when similar symptoms occur upon failure to consume them
regularly". One recent study of female bulimics indicates that glucose
sensitivity may be involved. Following a glucose injection, the subjects
experienced "cravings for sweets and fruits, an enhanced urge to binge, and
less subjective control over food intake". The same is certainly true of
salt; it has been established that consuming salt directly increases our
preference for salty foodstuffs (I cite, for example, research conducted at
the University of Pennsylvania Hospital). This would suggest that, at
least in certain people, a feedback process might comprise a key element of
the addictive process. Whether or not this is in fact the (or one)
mechanism of addiction is only peripherally relevant to the case before the
court; the subjective reality of the phenomenon is established.
6. Should there be further representations to the court on this matter
I would of course be pleased to submit further testimony.
|
date signed:
|
July 26, 1993
|
|
status:
|
Appeared in court
|
references: Not applicable/ available
exhibits: Not applicable/ available
transcripts of court appearances:
related links:
