|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
McDonald's Lawsuit: Correcting the Record
From John Robbins: Dear VegNews: For several reasons, I am very disappointed in Keith Akers’ article “The McDonald’s Lawsuit: What’s The Story?” For one, I was misquoted. When I was interviewed for the article, I made a point of saying that Jeff Nelson has a lot of integrity, and that he, like some of the others who are involved in this conflict, has contributed enormously to the veg cause and movement. And I specifically said that I wanted that included in any quote attributed to me. But it wasn’t.
I’m sure that in this situation there’s nothing Akers could have written that would have pleased everybody. But he could at least have gotten his facts straight. For example, the article concludes by saying “the real news is not the beef in the French fries, which now seems like a distant memory.” I believe that most Veg News readers would assume this meant that there is no longer beef in McDonald's fries. But this is most definitely not the case. They haven't taken the beef out of their fries. This fact, it seems to me, is is very much the real news, and is important for VegNews readers to know. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From Jeff Nelson:
I agree with Keith Akers that the McDonald’s beef-in-the-fries lawsuit is an important story. To summarize, McDonald’s has beef in their French fries and was sued for telling people the fries were vegetarian. McDonald’s apologized and agreed to settle the suit by paying $12.5 million, including $2.5 million to attorneys and $10 million to be allocated to various groups (the “settlement allocation”). The fries continue to contain beef. This settlement allocation is opposed by everyone I can find in the vegetarian community with the exception of two vegetarian groups slated to receive settlement money, Vegetarian Resource Group (VRG) and North American Vegetarian Society (NAVS). The settlement allocation is being appealed by Alex Hershaft of Farm Animal Reform Movement (FARM), Mark Epstein of the National Health Association, Gene and Lorri Bauston of Farm Sanctuary, Jo Stepaniak, T. Colin Campbell, Stanley & Rhoda Sapon, Lynn Grudnik, Mary Liro, James Glackin and John McDougall MD. A variety of groups has supported the filing of the appeal, such as Vegan Outreach and the Vegetarian Legal Action Network, which drafted the original complaint. In researching his article for VegNews, Akers did not interview any of these vegetarian individuals who are appealing the McDonald’s settlement allocation. Neither did he interview Michael Hyman, the Chicago lawyer representing the appellants. After Hyman read Akers’ article, he called it “a one-sided hack job.” Said Hyman, “I want the vegetarian community to know that McDonald’s and the plaintiff attorneys and now, apparently, some vegetarians are twisting things and it hurts the cause.” Since more than half of Akers’ lengthy article was a discussion of articles I wrote and actions I took in bringing this issue to public notice, I’m writing to spotlight a number of important facts which were missed or simply wrong. In the Fall of 2002 I decided to oppose the McDonald’s allocation proposal and to publicize the story in the vegetarian community because I believe a grave injustice was being committed against vegetarians. I was not alone; the vegetarian legal group (VLAN), which had developed the lawsuit and found a lawyer to file it, and the original individuals who had brought the suit were all disgusted and beaten down by attorneys who were supposed to be representing the vegetarian class. All the original plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit opposed the allocation, called it a sham, and filed documents against it. During the course of developing the allocation proposal, the plaintiff lawyers responsible for representing vegetarians never consulted with key vegetarian leaders to get advice or input, as would have been expected if they were trying to devise a settlement to broadly benefit the class. In fact the lawyers appear to have gone out of their way to exclude the most well-known, active vegetarian charities, such as PETA, PCRM, Farm Sanctuary, EarthSave, FARM, Vegan Outreach, the National Health Association and many others, and to rebuff attempts to even communicate with respected vegetarian leaders, medical doctors and authors who could have offered valuable perspectives for the settlement. Who's "sleeping with the enemy?" In his VegNews article, Akers goes on at some length criticizing my December 10, 2002 article entitled “Sleeping with the Enemy,” a title which Akers obviously dislikes. However, in his story he failed to relate these facts:
In Akers’ VegNews article, he noted that McDonald’s had the right to veto groups it did not want settlement money going to. Akers intimated that this explained how the settlement ended up including non-vegetarian groups. But Akers did not report the fact that the copycat attorneys representing the vegetarian class had the exact same veto power as McDonald’s. And they didn’t use it to knock out the non-vegetarian groups, or to force McDonald’s to negotiate a list which only included vegetarian groups. Of course, it’s possible that using their veto power and creating a healthy adversarial situation with McDonald’s (as good legal advocates often do) might have slowed the process and delayed the copycat attorney’s payday. Hence, the plaintiff attorneys agreed with McDonald’s, for example, that a rat vivisector at the University of North Carolina (UNC) would be termed “a vegetarian organization…dedicated to the values of vegetarianism” and $250,000 of settlement money could be allocated to UNC. The rat researcher planned to use the money to help fund experiments aimed at proving the vegan diet is deficient in choline and therefore a dangerous diet for pregnant women. (The UNC vivisector recommends eggs as an excellent source of choline -- his studies are already funded by the Egg Board.) No vegetarian I know would agree with McDonald’s that this animal experimenter’s lab could be considered a non-profit “vegetarian organization…dedicated to the values of vegetarianism.” But the copycat lawyers supposedly representing all of us didn’t have any problem going along with that, in order to allocate vegetarian settlement money. It’s worth noting that the vegetarian clients of the copycat attorneys fired these attorneys, claiming they were not representing their interests. (The copycat attorneys – including Corey Fein, whom Akers quotes extensively in his article – simply went out and found other vegetarians to place into the case so they could continue in the lucrative litigation.) Misquotes Some of the quotes Akers attributes to others in his article seem questionable. Bruce Friedrich of PETA, for example, who was quoted by Akers as somehow denigrating my article, said this: "I was surprised to see myself quoted in Keith [Aker]'s article. I haven't studied the issue and thus wouldn't have commented. I'm also troubled that he used a quote that seems to have been constructed from a mixture of unconnected phrases and that he didn't do a basic accuracy check of the quote with me before publishing the piece." John Robbins wrote that he “was not happy at all” with the manner in which Akers purported to quote him. In his article, Akers noted that during settlement Judge Richard Siebel opined that the case against McDonald’s was “problematic” and might not have succeeded had it gone to trial. But the fact is the vegetarian plaintiffs did succeed in forcing McDonald’s to apologize and pony up $12.5 million, including the legal fees. (Very often during settlement, judges make pronouncements that the outcome of a case was uncertain and the parties should be happy it settled. This is mere courtroom ritual – there is no question the vegetarians had a strong claim; the fact that a dozen copycat attorneys scrambled onto the gravy train is prima facia evidence McDonald’s was in expensive trouble.) Akers was also apparently unaware that McDonald’s had been shrewd in moving the case out of California, where they faced a far less receptive court, and into a friendly courtroom near their Chicago headquarters. Had McDonald’s not reached a settlement, litigation in California could have exposed McDonald’s to greater liability. In my 2002 article I criticized Brian Graff of NAVS for not sharing information he had received about the settlement with others in the community. Akers criticized me for this and quoted from my article in his VegNews piece, attempting to show I had been unfair to NAVS. Here is the quote from my article reprinted by Akers: “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.” What Akers omitted from my quote above and substituted with ellipses (…) was part of the first sentence. That sentence read in full: “ Brian Graff of NAVS kept to himself his special relationship in the case, even when asked for suggestions for funding for another veg organization.” Akers’ omission was significant. NAVS was one of a tiny number of vegetarian organizations that received a McDonald’s-approved invitation to apply for $1 million of settlement funds in the Spring of 2002. The correspondence between Graff of NAVS and the attorneys during April through June of 2002 is part of the court record. Some renowned vegetarian experts volunteer year after year to travel and deliver keynote addresses at NAVS’ Summerfest. At least one such eminent vegetarian leader asked Graff point blank in July of 2002 if he knew of any sources to apply to in order to help fund an important vegetarian non-profit. Graff said no. Graff had been contacted by the attorneys in the case and knew how to apply to be included in the settlement, and did not share this information, even when asked. I believe it was unfair for Graff to keep this and other information he received about the settlement to himself, and I stand by that. Akers also fails to note that even longtime members of NAVS Board of Trustees disagreed with the Graff’s position, and filed declarations as individuals with the court objecting to the non-vegetarian groups, and stating that while they endorsed NAVS’ receiving a substantial allocation from the settlement, they believed the $1 million proposed by McDonald’s for NAVS was excessive and unfair to the class as a whole because so many large and effective vegetarian organizations were being left out. Regarding the Vegetarian Resource Group (VRG), Akers says that VRG did not oppose this specific McDonald’s lawsuit because the lawsuit had not been formally filed when the VRG article went to press; VRG only opposed the concept of this kind of lawsuit, according to Akers. (In a VRG article about food companies being caught lying about animal products in their foods, published around the time the McDonald’s suit was filed, VRG sneered at people who “go so far as to sue” over the issue.) The point I was making in my article was that VRG seemed to change their mind dramatically on the issue of lawsuits after one was filed and settled favorably, and there was money in it for them. I was concerned that McDonald’s wanted to give nearly one-third of the settlement ($1.8 million originally) to a small organization that opposed the lawsuit on principle, and that has also promoted McDonald’s products in a special press release and in their magazine. Akers also discusses my observations about an article in the VRG Magazine which explained that VRG lists restaurant foods as “vegetarian” even though they may contain small amounts of animal products. In his article Akers argues for “a more casual approach” to small amount of non-vegetarian ingredients over what he calls the “vegan police” who insist that food be 100% vegetarian. But Akers appears to miss the point of the lawsuit entirely, which was about food being 100% vegetarian when it is represented as such. The individuals who brought the suit, and therefore the vegetarian class whom they represent, are people who are concerned about a small amount of beef in their food. That’s why they sued. Looking at whether an organization is rigorous about vegetarian ingredients or is “casual” is, I believe, one of many valid points for consideration when allocating how much funds a given organization should get. Vegetarians supporting McDonald's interests over those of the veg community My central criticisms of VRG were entirely ignored by Akers – namely, that once it was obvious to everyone in the vegetarian community that the proposed allocation list included non-vegetarian recipients, why didn’t VRG object? Why did VRG instead become the only vegetarian organization to submit multiple declarations endorsing the bad list, and giving McDonald’s the only cover it got from the vegetarian community? Did VRG reject any aspect of the McDonald’s allocation list? No. Did they approve the list? Yes. Were the directors at VRG begged by people like Alex Hershaft and many VRG members and even one of their part-time employees to use their influence to help get the non-vegetarian groups out of the list? Yes. Did they do that? No. Instead, VRG had their employee file multiple declarations endorsing the bad list. The VRG declarations even specifically cited both anti-vegetarian Tufts Department of Nutrition and the rat vivisector at UNC as appropriate “vegetarian organizations” to receive money under the settlement. I’m sorry, but I can’t see this as other than self-serving behavior that betrayed both their sister organizations and the vegetarian community at large. Interestingly, Akers acknowledged he knew many felt VRG had acted badly in supporting McDonalds over the vegetarian community. In inviting me to be interviewed for his article, Akers wrote to me "I have reason to believe that VRG has been told by some of their closest friends that they've screwed up." And yet in his aim to provide cover for VRG in the article (Akers has a financial relationship with VRG -- they published his book), he opted not to report the disgust that he admitted many VRG friends and supporters felt over VRG's role, and instead became their apologist. Freya Dinshah of the American Vegan Society is quoted in Akers' article as saying she didn't believe NAVS or VRG were "sleeping with the enemy." Of course, I never said those organizations were "in bed" with McDonald's -- I said the copycat attorneys were. But I did say that I believe the actions and failures to act by those organizations made it easier for McDonald's to get the bogus allocation through. Freya’s own actions speak louder than any words – unlike NAVS or VRG, she FedExed a strongly worded unambiguous opposition to the court enumerating which groups should not be included and imploring the court to put in more actual vegetarian groups instead. She stood up for the interests of the vegetarian class, even at the risk of alienating McDonald’s and the copycat attorneys, and possibly jeopardizing the proposed $500,000 allocation her organization was slated to receive. Speculation disguised as revelation In his article, Akers sees a "substantive change" in what he calls my "disappearance” from the case. It's true that I'm not listed as an appellant, but I can't imagine what he finds so substantive in that. If in fact Akers had investigated the issue, he would have found that McDonald's was able to get me removed by legal maneuvering before the appeal was filed. While I could have been reinstated, it would have added $1,000 to the already considerable legal expenses being borne by those paying for the litigation (not me). If there's anything "substantive" to my removal from the list, it is only the fact that McDonald's apparently sees me as a threat to their anti-vegetarian machinations. In terms of impact on the case however, it’s irrelevant.Why are many well-respected, famous and beloved vegetarians taking part in the opposition and appeal against the settlement? Akers doesn’t know because he didn’t talk to these people, but I have and can say it is because they want to prevent injustice. These are people who spend their lives combating injustice and unfairness. And they believe this settlement is an injustice against the vegetarian community, and so they’re standing up to McDonald’s. Akers writes that one vegetarian (me) publicly pointing out the poor conduct of other vegetarians was “absolutely unprecedented in the history of the modern vegetarian movement.” It seems my talking about unethical conduct is more troubling to Akers than the conduct itself. Akers describes my article as “attacks,” and he’s certainly welcome to his opinion. He writes that many vegetarian luminaries who are friends of mine “declined to comment on Nelson’s tactics.” No, they didn’t decline to comment on any “tactics,” they simply didn’t talk to him at all -- about anything. Knowing Akers wasn't able to get the facts straight or get sources to talk to him, but wrote the story anyway, you have to wonder what his real purpose was in doing the article. Jeff Nelson VegSource.com FURTHER LINKS: | ||
| Email this article to a friend: |
