McDonald's Lawsuit Fries Vegetarian Nerves
by Keith Akers
(Note: this article originally appeared in the
May/June 2003 issue of Vegetarian Living; online version revised
5/27/2003. It has some minor factual errors which I have
corrected, I hope, with material in brackets "", but
documents my opinions on the subject at the time.)
Years ago, we heard good news: McDonald's french fries were
vegetarian, in fact vegan!
But then, some years later, we heard bad news: McDonald's french
fries were not vegetarian at all; they had beef fat in them. They had
lied to us! Vegetarians were outraged. Some vegetarians sued.
And then, good news: the lawsuit was successful! $10 million in
damages was awarded, with $6 million specifically earmarked to
But now for the bad news, and the subject of this article. VegSource,
the internet site at www.vegsource.com -- which claims to be the most
popular food site on the internet, with 1.4 million unique visitors
every month -- has
for months featured an article titled "Sleeping With the
Enemy." According to Jeff Nelson at VegSource, the settlement
process actually gives money earmarked for "vegetarian groups"
to some anti-vegetarian groups! And what's even worse, this has been
done with the cooperation of some prominent vegetarian groups! "A
few vegetarian organizations like the Vegetarian Resource Group (VRG)
and the North American Vegetarian Society (NAVS) have acted out of such
extreme self-interest that they are aiding and abetting the attorneys
who are perpetrating this outrage."
So is this true?
Well, not quite. There are three points I want to make in the course
of this article: (1) while serious questions surround the allocation of
payments, there is no evidence VRG and NAVS were "in
collusion" with McDonald's to betray vegetarian ideals; (2) the
question of what constitutes a "vegetarian group" is
considerably more complex than initially appears; and finally (3) the
way that VegSource and the other objectors proceeded created serious
problems both before the court and within the movement.
[Nelson clearly implies "collusion" between McDonald's, VRG,
and NAVS, but never uses this term in his article. Lawyer Bharti
did directly make this accusation, however.]
The $6 million earmarked for vegetarian groups is supposed to go to a
number of different groups: VRG is to get $1.4 million, $1 million goes
to NAVS, $800,000 goes to Tufts University, $500,000 goes for the
Vegetarian Nutrition Dietetic Practice Group in the American Dietetic
Association [Foundation], $500,000
to the Preventive Medicine Research Institute (Dean Ornish's group),
$500,000 to the American Vegan Society (AVS), and the balance to Loma
Linda University, the University of North Carolina Nutrition Department,
Vegetarian Vision, and three [actually, two] Muslim groups which seem to be concerned
about "halal" (the proper methods of slaughtering animals).
The judge finalized this list on March 25, denying most of the
objections made by VegSource, but struck the University of North
Carolina from the list for technical reasons. [The money which was
to be given to UNC was then distributed to the other
"research" groups -- Tufts, Loma Linda, PMRI, and VNDPG, thus
altering the amounts I listed above.]
Jeff Nelson's suggestion that NAVS and VRG were in collusion with
McDonald's is the most controversial part of the claims. Yet VegSource
does not present any actual evidence of collusion. On a common sense
basis, it seems extremely unlikely that VRG and NAVS could have exerted
such an influence anyway; they were not even parties to the lawsuit and
probably were not in a position to "dictate" what it would be.
At best, they were in a position to negotiate and put in their opinions.
And they surely can't have been tempted to support VegSource after they
saw stories splattered across the internet accusing them of
"sleeping with the enemy."
Some of the groups slated to get money certainly don't seem like
"vegetarian groups": Tufts University? The Muslim Consumer
Group? But in the middle of all this, there has been no single
coherent definition of a "vegetarian group."
There are different ways of approaching this question. The strict
approach is taken by the International Vegetarian Union: a vegetarian
group is one which both (a) works for vegetarianism and (b) is controlled
by vegetarians. If it doesn't have both of these
qualifications, it cannot be considered a "vegetarian group."
This is actually very close to the definition put forward by the
American Vegan Society in their statement.
Yet a number of groups which are usually accepted by the movement
don't fit this strict definition. EarthSave is, in my opinion, an environmental group
very friendly to vegetarianism, but which has declared in the past that
it is not a vegetarian organization. [Actually, this is not clear.
It is probably now a vegetarian group. It was founded by John
Robbins and was explicitly a nonvegetarian group throughout the 1990's,
but at some point was probably converted to an explicitly vegetarian
group. To find out when and how this happened, probably through an
amendment to their documents, could not be easily done without the
cooperation of the current EarthSave leadership, which is not favorably
disposed to the present author.] John McDougall, who has produced
much excellent literature promoting veganism, said that he ate turkey
once a year on Thanksgiving. It has been claimed that Dean Ornish, also,
occasionally eats fish, notwithstanding his groundbreaking research on
diet and heart disease. Some other groups are neither controlled by
vegetarians, nor do they work for vegetarianism generally, but have specific
projects which support vegetarianism. Loma Linda University has done
some of the best research on vegetarianism in the world, but they do not
work for explicitly vegetarian goals.
Which of these types of groups are truly "vegetarian
groups" and thus worthy of getting settlement money? The settlement
money goes to groups which fit all of these categories. It goes
to some "traditional" vegetarian groups which are controlled
by vegetarians (NAVS, VRG, AVS); it goes to some vegetarian-friendly
groups not controlled by vegetarians (Vegetarian Nutrition
Dietetic Practice Group, possibly Dean Ornish), and it goes to some nonvegetarian groups
which say they want to do vegetarian-friendly projects (Tufts,
Loma Linda). [Actually, the VNDPG is in a complicated situation:
it is controlled by vegetarians, even though the group is a chapter of a
nonvegetarian group, the ADAF, to which it must answer.]
The situation is further complicated by the fact that the court's
overall task is to somehow benefit vegetarians, not to reward
specific organizations. A vegetarian-friendly project done by competent
and unbiased nonvegetarians might be of more value to vegetarians than
pouring money into an inefficient but vegetarian-controlled group.
Surely, the court should consider this, too.
To object to the settlement, there are two broad possible strategies
one could follow. One way would be a "purist" strategy: a
vegetarian group must be controlled by vegetarians and have
primarily vegetarian goals -- not animal rights, environmental, health,
or religious goals which happen to include vegetarianism. That would
allow only the traditional vegetarian groups to get the money: VRG, NAVS,
AVS, and possibly FARM, but not PETA, EarthSave, any of the academic
institutions, McDougall, or Ornish. But VegSource does not support the
strict definition of "vegetarian group"; they want to give
money to EarthSave (an organization in which Jeff Nelson is active) as
well as to Dean Ornish and probably John McDougall.
The second way, which is a bit more difficult but also arguable,
would be to drop objections to the "purity" of the owners of
the organization, and to focus on whether what they're doing will
benefit vegetarians. Is Tufts really going to be objective in their
research? How will this benefit vegetarians? However, this approach
essentially drops the whole subject of whether they're a
"vegetarian organization." [Tufts proposed a scholarship
fund for students studying vegetarianism, which the plaintiffs argued
would in fact benefit vegetarians, since Tufts is committed to objective
research.] VegSource does not take this path
either; they admit that Loma Linda has done vegetarian research, but
don't want them to get any money because Loma Linda is not a vegetarian
organization. They object to the
Vegetarian Nutrition Dietetic Practice Group in
the ADA [actually ADAF], but not to Dean Ornish.
Because VegSource and the other objectors do not consistently follow
one path or the other, the result is a confused set of objections which
didn't really help the judge. This confusion is one of the main reasons
the objections to the settlement failed.
The discussion of this lawsuit has perhaps done as much damage to the
vegetarian movement as McDonald's did by falsely advertising its french
fries as vegetarian in the first place. If there is an appeal, the
lawsuit may not be finally resolved for a long time. On the merits of
the settlement, I believe that VegSource had some valid points to make
in objecting to the settlement. However, the issue is considerably more
complex than VegSource apparently thinks. Some appeals court may yet be
able to give us an intelligent, well-thought-out definition of what a
"vegetarian group" is, or some other good reasons for
rejecting the Muslim Consumer Group for Food Products, but I don't see
this in the VegSource brief.
Most critically though, the way in which this complex and confusing
issue has been pursued was excessively political. For months we have
seen the allegations of "sleeping with the enemy" directed
towards VRG and NAVS. How much damage has been done to the movement
through these careless charges? The import of these charges, that VRG
and NAVS would betray the vegetarian cause to benefit themselves, are
clearly unsubstantiated. Now, fortunately, these articles seem to have
receded, and if you don't know where to look, you can't even find the
articles on the VegSource site -- such is nature of the internet. (As
of 5/23/2003, however, they have returned to the VegSource
main page.) [And by 2005, of course, they have disappeared once
a good thing. But the damage has been done. We may be dealing with it