Third Memo Detailing McDonald's Meeting

Facsimile

To: Mr. Bob Langert, McDonald's Corporation
From: Dr. Steven Jay Gross, PETA
Date: June 25, 1999
Re: Conversation of June 22, 1999

4 pages via fax: 630-623-7488

This memorandum covers my understanding of the conversation among Mr. Bob Langert, Dr. Temple Grandin, and me on June 22, 1999.

The conversation lasted from approximately 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. (CST). Steve indicated that he had obtained articles about "killer" roosters and enriched environments for chickens from Professor Ian Duncun at the University of Guelph. Steve noted that he would read and summarize the articles and mail references and a summary to Temple within a few weeks.

Steve asked Bob if he had items on the agenda that he would like to discuss. Bob answered, "No." Steve asked Bob to address the issue of what has happened to the plant that failed Temple's inspection as noted in the April 5 memorandum. Bob stated that McDonald's works with their suppliers, who are viewed by McDonald's as part of an extended family. Bob suggested that McDonald's was a leader in their industry in addressing animal welfare issues. He indicated that McDonald's sees meeting Temple's criteria as a priority. Temple indicated that she would be reinspecting the failed plant tomorrow. Her visit would be an announced audit.

Steve asked Bob what would happen if the plant failed again to meet the criteria that Temple defined in the April 5 memo. Bob reiterated how much McDonald's had done in the animal welfare field. When Steve asked Bob to define the consequences for plants that failed to meet standards, Bob indicated that he knew that McDonald's would take progressive steps but did not know what those steps would be. Steve asked what plants had been terminated for failure to meet standards. Bob did not know of any plant that had been terminated for reasons of animal welfare.

Temple reported that she did an USDA audit in 1996 of 11 plants that process meat for McDonald's. In 1996, four of 11 plants passed the announced audit. In 1999, eight of 11 plants passed. Temple indicated that she perceived this as a major improvement. Steve asked Temple if the failure to pass meant that these plants were engaged in egregious conduct that should not have occurred in the first place. Temple agreed, but questioned whether any plant could achieve a 100 percent rating. Steve noted that their accounting departments seem to achieve a 100 percent rating in meeting payroll and that such a standard is possible.

Steve stated that announced audits often produce temporary behavior change as the plant's processes are geared to passing the audit. Temple agreed that if one is auditing 100 head that this would be possible, but not when you audit 1,000 head. Temple noted that she did one 1,000-head audit in 1999. Other 1999 audits were of 200-300 head, while the 1996 audit was based on 100 head.

Bob did not perceive a need for unannounced audits. Steve stated that there is a significant body of literature that suggests organizations behave very differently when they know an audit is taking place as opposed to when audits occur unannounced. Temple agreed that plants do put on shows, but reiterated that if you audit long enough, the plants cannot keep up the show. Steve respectfully disagreed and suggested the need for unannounced audits. (Please note that this issue was raised in the April 5 memo.) Temple also agreed that for certain things, unannounced audits would be critical.

Temple stated that her audit system is simple and could easily be taught to others. Steve asked Temple if Ph.D. students in animal science would be able to reliably use her audit system. Temple agreed that they would and that there is a ready supply of such students as animal science programs are located near most of these facilities.

Steve asked Temple what led to a current plant failure rate of approximately 30 percent. Temple indicated that two-thirds of the plants failed because their lines were going too fast for one person to stun the animals properly. Temple noted that if plants put two people on the stunning line, it would clear up a lot of the problems. Steve asked Bob why McDonald's does not require such remediation from its suppliers. Bob stated that McDonald's does not work that way, that the suppliers are an extended family and that they are actively embracing this program. Steve suggested that McDonald's commitment to animal welfare seems to be more a public relations activity than a commitment that involves passion and a sense of urgency. Steve asked Temple what might happen if McDonald's recommended or even "whispered" to the suppliers that they need to put a second person on the stunning line. Temple felt that the suppliers would respond instantaneously to such a suggestion from McDonald's.

Steve and Bob had a vigorous discussion about what commitment from a corporation looks like. Steve asked Bob why McDonald's is not working to address how animals live and are treated on farms. Bob indicated that McDonald's is focused on the slaughterhouse process, and that McDonald's needs to focus on one thing at a time. Bob stated that "we have our hands full at this time." Steve suggested that an organization that can build four new stores a day, should, if they are committed, be able to address the two major issues of animal welfare simultaneously. Steve noted that it was hard to believe that an organization like McDonald's could not "walk and chew gum at the same time."

Steve raised the issue of rehiring a former consultant to address living conditions for animals on farms that supply McDonald's--Temple's category two issues. Steve indicated that it was his understanding that a former consultant had a discussion with Bob and someone named Dr. Gonzales, saying that it would be possible for McDonald's to obtain a reliable supply of cows and pigs that had been more humanely raised. This consultant also believed that more humanely raised chickens would be available if McDonald's would commit to purchasing them. "More humanely raised" means enriched environments, no dry stalls for sows, no dehorning of adult animals, no branding, no feedlots, access to the outdoors, no isolation stalls, etc. Bob reiterated his statement that McDonald's would not address these issues at the present time. Bob also noted that McDonald's is the leader in animal welfare issues and asked Steve to indicate another company that is doing as much as McDonald's in the field of animal welfare.

Steve noted that if McDonald's wanted to compare itself to companies that are doing nothing, and claim leadership based on doing something, then McDonald's is a leader. Temple indicated that she spoke to Burger King and that they indicated that animal welfare issues were on the back burner. Temple stated that Wendy's is engaged in some audits, but not at the magnitude practiced by McDonald's.

Steve asked Bob when he would provide PETA with the information about progressive discipline steps for plants that were not in compliance with McDonald's standards. Steve also asked when Bob would get information about unannounced audits and the consideration of hiring the former consultant to address living conditions. Bob answered that he would get the information in three months. Steve said that this is an example of McDonald's lack of commitment and absence of urgency in addressing these horrific problems. Bob indicated that he could get an answer in one month. Steve suggested that commitment would look like an answer in a couple of days with a week being an outside limit. Bob indicated that he would try to get an answer sooner, but that people could be on vacation.

Steve suggested that if McDonald's were committed to animal welfare its behavior would look different. Specifically, commitment would involve the following types of behavior:

I. With regard to Temple's category one issues:

1. Suppliers would be given specific criteria such as those spelled out by Temple.
2. Since meeting these criteria is simple, suppliers would be given a short time-frame to meet the criteria (one month).
3. A one-warning system would be implemented.
4. Unannounced audits would be a regular ongoing part of the animal welfare process.
5. Plants found to be out of compliance would be subject to at least one unannounced audit per month until the plant had demonstrated compliance for six consecutive months.
6. Failure to pass an audit after one warning would result in instant termination as a McDonald's supplier.

Steve suggested that you would have compliance in all plants within 30 days.

II. In order to implement these standards, a few additional steps would be taken:

1. Project personnel would include experts in the field of animal science. A good example would be Ph.D.'s in animal science, such as Dr. Gonzales.
2. Authority would be given to these people to require compliance with standards that end egregious practices such as inadequate stunning, animals still conscious on the bleed rail, conscious animals being placed in scalding tanks, etc.

III. More generally:

1. Public statements regarding McDonald's commitment to animal welfare would include criteria, time-frames, and consequences for failure to comply.
2. McDonald's would negotiate in good faith with PETA. For example, questions would be addressed in a timely manner that reflects the urgency of the issues discussed. McDonald's staff would be prepared for meetings. McDonald's staff would be proactive and partner with PETA, rather than reactive and reluctant to "talk with us." The focus would be on solving animal welfare problems, not providing public relations statements, e.g., "McDonald's is a leader." Conversations with PETA would be given the time accorded to serious issues. Periodic face-to-face meetings would be scheduled.

Steve asked Bob who was in charge of this project. Bob stated that he reported to two managers, Mike Donahue and Ken Barun. Steve asked if these were managers with knowledge of animal welfare or more administrative managers. Bob indicated that they were managers, but that there were technical people available. Steve asked if any of the technical people had Ph.D.'s in animal science. Bob noted that he was not aware of any Ph.D.'s directly involved in the project. Bob stated that he had a meeting and needed to end the conversation.

Steve spoke to Temple about where she would like material sent. Temple requested that PETA mail the summary and article to her work address at Colorado State University, Department of Animal Sciences, Fort Collins, CO 80523.

Brief Summary:

Considering an unwillingness on the part of McDonald's to even address farm welfare issues, an unwillingness to approve unannounced audits, an unwillingness to ask plants to meet USDA standards for stunning, an unwillingness to suggest to plants methods of moving into compliance with Temple's suggestions (such as hiring another stunner), and an unwillingness to impose sanctions for violations of slaughterhouse recommendations, PETA wonders about McDonald's leadership in the area of animal welfare.

Respectfully submitted, Dr. Steven Jay Gross, for PETA

cc: Dr. Temple Grandin, Colorado State University