PETA replies to McDonald's PR statements on animal welfare, June 2000.

June 27, 2000

Jack Greenberg, Chief Executive Officer
McDonald's Corporation
1 Kroc Dr.
Oak Brook, IL 60523

3 pages via fax: 630-623-7409

Dear Mr. Greenberg:

I am writing to assure you of PETA's belief that McDonald's can have a positive impact on animals raised for food. It is true, as you stated at McDonald's annual meeting, that PETA is interested in seeing people become vegetarian. But in the meantime, we are dedicated to seeing that the horrific conditions in which animals are raised for food are alleviated.

Let me begin by thanking you for beginning to improve conditions for some of the animals killed for McDonald's. The February 1999 implementation of audits was desperately needed, as evidenced by a comparison of conditions before and after that date. As you are aware, in 1996, 70 percent of slaughterhouses serving your company were found to stun cattle ineffectively. By mid-1999, that number had dropped to 36 percent and apparently continues to drop. Certainly, your willingness to delist slaughterhouses that are atrocious is helpful.

That you have made an effort to introduce chicken catching and handling incentives is also a positive step for which we thank you, although PETA would prefer that workers be fined and fired for abusing animals. We understand that PETA's protests?which resulted in more than 400 demonstrations in more than 300 cities, combined with our placement of advertisements, billboards, and fly posters?anger you, but they no doubt contributed toward your decision to move forward after many years of inaction, and that is, ultimately, in the company's best interests, surely?

As you well know, three years ago, McDonald's was found to be responsible for cruelty to animals in six different ways. Protests are understandable, given that thus far, McDonald's has still not addressed five of the six issues that Justice Bell spelled out in a more-than-80-page indictment of McDonald's animal welfare practices. We anxiously await McDonald's action in those areas, for we have too great an obligation to our members to pretend that there is no problem or to be satisfied with what McDonald's has done to correct some of the abuses to pigs and cows. We are, therefore, asking you to take the reasonable steps outlined below. It is on these areas that our new campaign for the fall will focus if we are unable to secure any commitment from you to take tangible steps to reduce this suffering.

1) Phase out purchases from suppliers that raise hens in battery cages. Your U.K. representative, Mr. Mike Love, agrees that battery cages are cruel to animals and tells us that McDonald's U.K. phased out battery cages even before the U.K. outlawed them. If you can do it there, you can do it here.

2) Phase out purchases from suppliers who debeak hens. Debeaking is the industry's cruel response to the destruction of nature's pecking order, which causes animals to fight because of tight confinement and intense overcrowding. The solution is to improve conditions so that animals do not go insane and attack one another, not to hack off their body parts.

3) Phase out purchases from farms that confine sows to stalls. In the U.K., McDonald's was a leader on this issue as well, refusing to purchase from farms that used stalls even before they were outlawed.

4) Require that suppliers give chickens 2 square feet of space. Presently, chickens have less space per bird than a standard sheet of paper (.55 square feet).

5) Require that your suppliers stop breeding animals for weight. As it is, chickens are at full slaughter weight in less than two months. These unfortunate birds suffer chronic leg pain, as their upper bodies grow so quickly that their legs cannot keep up.

6) Require that slaughterhouses effectively stun chickens before slaughter. To do this, steps must be taken to ensure that every chicken's head passes through the stun bath, and stun baths should be set at a level that renders chickens insensible to pain. Right now, these "baths" are set at a level that immobilizes chickens but does not render them unconscious. Thus, chickens who are still alive after their throats are slit enter the scalding tank for feather removal still conscious and are scalded to death.

7) Revise the standards for "Beef and Pork Handling Practices" to meet the Humane Slaughter Act's 100 percent stunning efficacy requirement for cows and pigs. Your current goal of 95 percent (cows) and 99 percent (pigs) stunning efficacy is in violation of federal law. Hiring a second stunner on the "kill floor" and slowing down the slaughter lines should be required.

8) Require your suppliers to immediately and humanely dispatch any animals who arrive at the slaughterhouse unable to walk, with broken limbs, or in severe pain (frozen, suffering from heat stroke, etc.). These animals should not be dragged or forced to walk to the kill floor and should not be left in "dead piles," the most common methods of dealing with disabled animals.

9) Conduct only unannounced audits. Many of your slaughterhouses can't even pass announced audits at a level of performance that is below legal standards.

10) Increase audits. Your current audit practices require a slaughterhouse that passes an inspection to be inspected for (at the very most) one hour in an entire year, and most of your (50) slaughterhouses are never inspected.

Finally, the formation of the "Blue Ribbon Panel," which you announced at the annual meeting, gives us cause for concern. The panel representative from the egg industry, Jeff Armstrong of the United Egg Producers, has already expressed his support for battery cages. His appointment suggests that the panel is committed to defending the status quo rather than truly exploring humane alternatives to current inhumane conditions. Certainly, the panel could be made up of qualified experts in the field who, while a far cry from being animal rights advocates, are more committed to animal welfare, experts such as Dr. Ian Duncan from the University of Guelph and Dr. Bernard Rollin from Colorado State University, both colleagues of and recommended by Dr. Temple Grandin. Both are willing to assist McDonald's. Additionally, panel meetings and reports should be announced and PETA allowed one mutually agreed-upon observer, such as Dr. Steven J. Gross. Such appointments and openness would demonstrate McDonald's commitment to reform, rather than the appearance of the reinforcement of current conditions.

If a $36 billion-per-year corporation were to refuse to use some of the cruelest practices in farming and slaughter, it could easily and swiftly achieve all the goals we suggest above. That said, we readily admit that McDonald's is doing more than other industry giants. If you are true to what your representative, Mr. Walt Riker, told USA Today ("McDonald's is absolutely committed to animal welfare and won't tolerate any kind of abuse in that area," Jun. 20) and will address the matters outlined above, it would make an enormous difference for the animals and PETA will gladly leave McDonald's alone.

At this time, PETA is planning a McDonald's blitz for the fall. We are developing new advertisements and billboards, and we will be distributing the "Unhappy Meal" in the U.S., in the U.K, and on other continents at schools and McDonald's restaurants. We also plan to issue an international call to "sponsor a restaurant," which will involve activists from around the world committing to regular demonstrations at McDonald's restaurants in their cities, with PETA supplying all materials free of charge. We now have our McDonald's leaflet produced in six languages. The focus will be on the treatment of animals in the U.S.

As a sign of our good faith, we would be happy to abandon our campaign altogether if you would agree to expeditiously bring McDonald's egg and pig suppliers up to the U.K. animal welfare standards regarding treatment of laying hens and breeding pigs. These are points one, two, and three (above), each of which were mentioned in the McLibel verdict. If the entire European Union (and your U.K. representative) can agree that certain practices are cruel, McDonald's in the U.S. should be able to quickly indicate its commitment to animal welfare and the reduction of suffering by bringing all U.S. farms up to this basic and most reasonable level, which we have spelled out above.

We hope to hear from you soon. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Bruce G. Friedrich
Vegetarian Campaign Coordinator

cc: Dr. Temple Grandin