In May 2001, a class action lawsuit was filed against the world's largest fast-food chain McDonald's, in Seattle, US. The lawsuit alleged that the company had, for over a decade, duped vegetarian customers into eating French fries that contained beef extracts.

The lawsuit followed a spate of media reports detailing how the French fries served at McDonald's were falsely promoted as being '100% vegetarian.' Although McDonald's initially declined to comment on the issue, the company issued a 'conditional apology,' admitting to using beef flavoring in the fries. The furore over the matter seemed to be settling down, when to McDonald's horror, some of its restaurants in India were vandalized. Activists of Hindu fundamentalist groups - the Shiv Sena, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Bajrang Dal, staged a demonstration in front of the McDonald's head office in Delhi protesting the alleged use of beef flavouring. They submitted a memorandum to the Prime Minister, demanding the closure of all McDonald's outlets in the country.

Activists also staged protests in front of McDonald's restaurants in south Mumbai and Thane. Mobs ransacked the outlet at Thane, broke the glass panes and smeared the McDonald's mascot Ronald with cow dung.

About 30 people were arrested and later let off on bail. Company officials estimated the loss to the outlet at Rs 2 million. Officials at McDonald's India quickly announced that the vegetarian products served in India did not have any non-vegetarian content (Refer Exhibit I for details).

However, despite this reassurance, the anti-McDonald's wave refused to die down. Meanwhile, more cases were being filed against McDonald's - this time in California, US and Canada. It seemed certain that the company would have to shell out millions of dollars to settle the class action lawsuit representing the 1 million US based Hindus and 15 million other vegetarians

The Troubled History

McDonald's has had a long history of lawsuits being filed against it. It had been frequently accused of resorting to unfair and unethical business practices - October 16th is even observed as a 'World anti-McDonald's day.' In the late 1990s, the company had to settle over 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns.

Reportedly, McDonald's kept the coffee at 185° - approximately 20° hotter than the standard temperature at other restaurants - which could cause third degree burns in just 2-7 seconds. An 81-year old woman suffered third degree burns on her lower body that required skin grafts and hospitalisation for a week...

The Beef Fries Controversy

With an overwhelming majority of the people in the West being non-vegetarian, products often contain hidden animal-based ingredients. Incidents of vegetarians finding non-vegetarian food items in their food abound throughout the world.

Whether a person has chosen to be a vegetarian for religious, health, ethical or philosophical reasons, it is not easy to get vegetarian food in public restaurants.

According to the manager of a Thai food cafe in the US, "We have a lot of customers already. We don't need to have any vegetarian food."

Commenting on this dilemma, a US based Hindu vegetarian said, "We can't blame anybody. You have to find out for yourself. If you have any doubts, try to avoid it. Otherwise, you just have to close your eyes and try to eat."...

The Aftermath

The courtroom battle had entered the 11th month when McDonald's announced that it would issue a new apology and pay $ 10 million to vegetarians and religious groups in a proposed settlement of all the lawsuits in March 2002...

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

 

McDonald’s Lawsuit Timeline

Before 2001:

July 23, 1990: McDonald’s announces that its french fries will be cooked in 100% vegetable oil.

May 5, 1993: McDonald’s letter to a customer claims their french fries are vegetarian.

1995: Vegetarian in Boulder, Colorado successfully sues Pasta Jay’s for claiming a marinara sauce was vegetarian when in fact it contained anchovies.

January 1998: Vegetarian Resource Group (VRG) publishes article by Jeanne-Marie Bartas, "Vegan Menu Items at Fast Food and Family-Style Restaurants — Part 2," Vegetarian Journal, January/February 1998, documenting that McDonald’s french fries have an animal ingredient.

2001:

January: Eric Schlosser publishes Fast Food Nation, quoting from VRG and making information about beef in the french fries more widespread.

April 6: E-mail from McDonald’s confirming that french fries have beef in them is published by India-West.

May 1: Harish Bharti files suit in King County, Washington, alleging McDonald’s was not telling the truth about its french fries and hash browns.

May 4: Attacks on McDonald’s in India, including desecration of a statue of Ronald McDonald and breaking of windows.

May 15: Laboratory tests confirm that french fries in India do not contain beef.

May-June: Additional lawsuits against McDonald’s filed in California (May 10), Illinois (June 4), Texas (June 11), and New Jersey (June 27).

[September 11: Terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.]

2002:

March 8: published reports of an impending settlement in the lawsuit.

April 26: agreement on a settlement is officially announced. $10 million is to be paid, including 60% going to "vegetarian groups."

May 1: Preliminary hearing on the lawsuit. Judge Siebel says that Muslims can be accommodated under the settlement.

September 24: Attorneys file a proposed allocation of funds, including allocation of some "vegetarian" money to Muslim groups, Tufts University, and UNC Department of Nutrition.

October 28, 29: Declarations attacking the settlement are filed by Colin Campbell, John McDougall, Rhoda Sapon, and Pat Fish. Many other declarations are also filed in the time period following.

October 30: Judge approves the settlement (but does not rule on allocation of funds).

December 11: VegSource web site publishes Jeff Nelson’s article, "Sleeping with the enemy," accusing VRG and NAVS of "aiding and abetting" McDonald’s in this case.

2003:

January 13 and 27: hearings on the proposed allocation of funds.

March 25: Judge Siebel throws out UNC Department of Nutrition as one of recipients.

May 19: Judge Siebel approves the revised allocation list.

June 16: Michael Hyman, attorney, files an appeal of allocation list on behalf of "prominent" members of the vegetarian community.

October: Hinduism Today publishes article with headline "McDonald’s Fries: Not Done Yet. $10 million settlement — including $250,000 for Hinduism Today — appealed."

December 10: fundraising appeal from the National Health Association denounces allocation of settlement money for Tufts, ADAF, and the Muslim groups as an "outrage"; suggests "at least $1 million" should go to the National Health Association.

December 11: appeals court receives the vegetarian appellants’ brief, which objects to all of the research organizations and to the "excessive" amounts of money allocated to the vegetarian groups.

2004:

March: VegNews article "The McDonald's Lawsuit: What's the Story?" appears in the March/April issue of VegNews.

2005:

March 31: Illinois Court of Appeals upholds the allocation of $10 million to the proposed recipients.

 

McDonald's Lawsuit Settlement Agreement Terms

1. McDonald’s would pay $10 million into a "cy pres" fund. "Cy pres" (pronounced "see pray") is a legal term that means "as close as possible," and refers to the fact that it would be impractical and very expensive to track down and verify every person who ate at McDonald’s between 1990 and 2001 and didn’t want beef in their fries.

2. The $10 million would go 60% to "vegetarian organizations," 20% to "Hindu or Sikh organizations" 10% to children’s nutrition or hunger relief organizations, and 10% to organizations promoting Kosher observance and education. Both sides would need to agree on the recipients of the money, which would also have to be agreed to by the judge. Criteria used in judging the recipients included the nonprofit status of the group, dedication of the group to the values of the category in which they are subsumed (vegetarian, Hindu or Sikh, etc.), and geographical reach of the organization.

3. McDonald’s would also issue an apology, revise their list of ingredients to identify the source of their flavorings (no more hiding behind the "natural flavors" label), and appoint a "vegetarian nutrition advisory board" with members agreed upon by both parties.

4. There would also be limited awards, not more than $4000 each, for the individually named plaintiffs, and McDonald’s agrees to pay up to $2,452,000 in attorney’s fees and costs in addition to the cy pres fund.

Groups Proposed To Receive Money for "Vegetarian Groups"

Initial proposalApproved allocation

1. Vegetarian Resource Group $1,400,000 $1,400,000

2. North American Vegetarian Society

$1,000,000 $1,000,000

3. Tufts University $800,000 $850,000

4. ADAF Vegetarian Nutrition Dietetic Practice Group

$500,000 $600,000

5. Preventive Medicine Research Institute (Dean Ornish) 

$500,000 $550,000

6. The American Vegan Society $500,000 $500,000

7. Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America (IFANCA) 

$150,000 $450,000

8. Loma Linda University $250,000 $300,000

9. Vegetarian Vision, Inc.  $250,000 $250,000

10. Muslim Consumer Group for Food Products 

$50,000 $100,000

11. Sound Vision Foundation $350,000 0

12. UNC Chapel Hill Dept. of Nutrition $250,000 0

Fourteen other groups received the remaining $4,000,000 allocated to Hindu and Sikh organizations, Kosher groups, and children’s groups.

This list was approved by Judge Richard Siebel on May 19, 2003, but was appealed separately by both vegetarians and Muslims.  On March 31, 2005,

the Illinois Court of Appeals upheld the settlement; no further appeals are in process and the money is in the process of being distributed.

 

Vegetarian Appellants:

Mark EpsteinJohn McDougallColin CampbellLynn GrudnikAlex HershaftMary LiroRhoda SaponStan SaponJoanne StepaniakGene BaustonLorri BaustonJim Glackin