REARING AND SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS
1. RE-AMENDED PARTICULARS OF JUSTIFICATION AND FAIR COMMENT
Rearing and Slaughter of Animals
McDonald's through subsidiaries, franchisees and suppliers, is responsible
for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of cattle, chicken and pigs every
year. It is the Defendants' case that the methods of slaughter used are
cruel and that the slaughter itself is unnecessary. It is also the Defendants
case that the rearing of those cattle, chicken and pigs involves unnecessary
cruelty and suffering. Further that some of the beef used by the Plaintiffs comes from old dairy cows and the dairy industry involves a great deal of suffering for cows.
According to McDonald's own publicity, it is the world's largest user of
beef.
In the early 1970's McDonald's advertising agents Cooper &
Golin stated that an area the size of Greater London would be required to
accommodate all the cattle, standing flank to flank, that had gone into
making the 12 billion burgers so far sold.
In 1992 in the USA, one of McDonald's suppliers, Otto &
Sons, was supplied by ConAgra's Monfort plant in Grand Island, Nebraska.
At this plant, cattle were taken from trucks and put in a holding pen outside
the plant. They were then directed by electric prods into chutes. They were
then shot with stun guns and hung upside down by their hooves until their
throats were cut.
McDonald's suppliers, McKey food services, are supplied with beef from amongst
others ABP Ltd, Wellingborough. ABP Ltd use the captive bolt pistol to stun
cattle prior to slaughter. Through their solicitors McDonald's have stated
that they consider the use of the captive-bolt pistol to be a cruel practice.
On 2nd February 1990, on the instructions of the 2nd plaintiff, McDonald's
solicitors sent a letter to the Bournemouth Advertiser threatening legal
proceedings for defamation. The letter demanded that the newspaper publish
an apology for an article concerning McDonald's and the slaughter of animals
that appeared in the newspaper on the 12th October l989, and demanded that
the newspaper pay the plaintiff's costs. The letter stated ...`You publish
the remarks of Malcolm Venn of Animal Aid, citing a consultants report.
Not only is such a quotation obviously highly selective, but also it in
no way establishes that McDonald's approve the captive-bolt method cited.
The article clearly implies that McDonald's can be associated with this
or other similarly cruel practices.' The purpose and/or effect of this letter
was to deceive the Bournemouth Advertiser into believing that McDonald's
suppliers did not use the captive bolt pistol for stunning and as a result
the newspaper printed an apology.
McDonald's purported policy of not accepting beef originating from cattle
subjected to growth promoters is not adhered to. In July 1993 McDonald's
admitted they accepted beef from cattle which had been given growth promoting
antibiotics such as Virginia, Mycin and Avo parcin.
Accordingly to its own publicity material McDonald's is the second largest
user of chickens in the world. Over 90 million chickens are raised in the
UK each year to produce Chicken McNuggets and McChicken sandwiches.
In 1984 McDonald's entered into a partnership with Sun Valley poultry and
helped them to introduce new methods to their farming.
Antibiotics are routinely used at Sun Valley poultry in an attempt to prevent
severe lameness In broiler chickens.
In the USA, in or around 1980, In order to supply enough chicken for McDonald's
demands, Tysons developed an entirely new breed of chicken which it called
`Mr. McDonald' . The chicken was specifically designed to increase the efficiency
of the nugget-making process and was nearly twice as large as the standard
supermarket broiler.
In June - November 1982, a USDA official inspection report (USDA P7100)
of one of Tysons 13 processing plants, its main one in Nashville, Arkansas,
found numerous examples of unsanitary conditions. Similar problems were
reported at other Tysons plants springdale (P481), North Little Rock (P746),
springhill (P7051), cumming (P243) and Rogers (P7221).
McDonald's uses eggs supplied by Oasters who keep chickens in battery cages,
where the chickens have no freedom of movement, no access to fresh air and
sunshine.
2. REQUEST FOR FURTHER AND BETTER PARTICULARS OF THE PARTICULARS OF
JUSTIFICATION AND FAIR COMMENT
1. Of:
- "Further or in the alternative, the words complained of in their
natural and ordinary meaning are true in substance and in fact. In so far
as it may be necessary the Defendants will rely on Section 5 of the Defamation
Act 1952.
Particulars of justification will be served separately."
ANSWER
The Defendants seek to justify the following meanings in respect of each
plaintiff.
G.
- The business of the First and Second plaintiffs by its nature and by
its scale involves the slaughter of many animals, born and bred solely for
such slaughter. Some of them - especially chickens and pigs spend their
lives in the entirely artificial conditions of huge factory farms, with
no access to fresh air or sunshine and no freedom of movement. Further,
that animals often suffer when they are slaughtered over and above the fact
of death itself in that they panic and can become frantic. The numerous
outlets of the First and Second Plaintiffs worldwide inevitably leads to
unnecessary death and suffering of animals both throughout their lives and
by the fact of and methods of their slaughter.
6. Of: Slaughter of Animals
Stating:
(i) the identity of each subsidiary, franchisee and supplier which is
allegedly responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of cattle,
chicken and pigs every year:
(ii) the methods of slaughter which are alleged to be cruel.
ANSWER
- (i) The Defendants case is that the Plaintiffs bear responsibility for
the slaughter because of the demand they create and satisfy. The slaughter
is carried out by or for those who suppLy McDonald's, some of whom are subsidiaries
of the first or second Plaintiff. It follows that the Defendants cannot
identify each subsidiary, franchisee and supplier responsible for the slaughter
of hundreds of thousands of cattle, chicken and pigs every year. The fact
that their slaughter is caused as contended is a matter of common-sense
given the size and nature of the First and Second plaintiffs operations.
- (ii) It is the Defendants case that since the slaughter is unnecessary
it is also cruel. Further, the Defendants will rely upon the methods used
and conditions of abattoirs used for killing cattle including the captive
bolt pistol and cow-puncher, which are sometimes used with head restraints.
When cattle are stunned they are hoisted up by their rear legs and their
throats are then slit open and the animal bled out. Pigs are usually killed
using high voltage head to body stunning which causes cardiac arrest.
- The Defendants contend that the conditions in which chicken are reared
and the killing methods are cruel. In particular, broilers are factory farmed,
which often means that they are deprived of proper space and light. Their
growth is forced and they are killed after about seven weeks. Often the
forced growth causes such pain in the limbs of the birds that they are unable
to move around at all. Often these chickens suffer from Hock Burns and ulcerated
feet. When they are gathered for slaughter they are often grabbed by their
legs and carried upside down which frequently causes dislocation of joints
and other injuries, including bruising and broken wings and legs. The method
of slaughter is by stunning and then cutting with a knife. About one third
of all broilers are not stunned properly and so are sentient when they go
to the knife. Some birds even enter the scalding tank fully conscious.
-
