In 1986 the London Greenpeace Group, independent activists not associated with Greenpeace International, began distributing a six-page leaflet, What’s Wrong with McDonald’s? Everything They Don’t Want You to Know. The leaflet charged, among other things, that ‘McDonald’s and Burger King are two of the many U.S. corporations using lethal poisons to destroy vast areas of Central American rainforests to create grazing pastures for cattle to be sent back to the States as burgers and pet food, and to provide fast-food packaging materials.’ It continued: ‘Not only are McDonald’s and many other corporations contributing to a major ecological catastrophe, they are forcing the tribal peoples in the rainforests off their ancestral territories where they have lived peacefully, without damaging their env[i] ronment, for thousands of years . . . It’s no exaggeration to say that when you bite into a Big Mac, you’re helping the McDonald’s empire to wreck this planet.’1
The London Greenpeace activists distributed the flyer over a period of four years, often in front of McDonald’s outlets in London. In 1990 McDonald’s brought libel proceedings against the London Greenpeace activists who had distributed the pamphlet. Libel laws in the UK require defendants to prove in court the truth of their statements. Two activists, Helen Steel and Dave Morris, defended themselves. They were not given any legal help from the court, but they were assisted by the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers on a pro bono basis. This David-and-Goliath fight was dubbed McLibel. As news of it spread, the British media seized upon it and often the trial proceedings ended up as front-page news. The trial began in March 1994 and continued for three years, becoming the longest-running trial in British history.
It was also a major public relations disaster for McDonald’s, which was required to defend itself regarding its labour, marketing, environmental, nutrition, food safety and animal welfare practices. Steel and Morris forced the company’s top executives to testify for days. The McSpotlight Website covered the trial and McDonald’s alleged worldwide abuses. Emails and press releases were sent out and ‘Days of Action’ were held around the world protesting against McDonald’s actions. The original leaflet was translated into 27 different languages and, since 1990, an estimated 3 million copies have been handed out so far.
In the final judgement Morris and Steel were found to have libelled McDonald’s and were fined £60,000, which they refused to pay. The judge stated that most of the Greenpeace charges of environmental degradation were unproven, but he did find that McDonald’s had exploited children, endangered the health of its customers, paid workers extremely low wages and opposed union activity. He also found that the company did bear responsibility for the cruelty inflicted upon animals by many of its suppliers.
Morris and Steel appealed against the decision. On 31 March 1999 the Court of Appeal overruled parts of the original McLibel verdict, supporting the leaflet’s assertion that eating McDonald’s food can cause heart disease and that McDonald’s employees were treated badly. The Court of Appeal reduced the damages to £40,000. In 2000 Morris and Steel filed an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights, who concluded that the defendants’ right of free expression had been violated because they had not been given legal aid and therefore had been denied a fair trial. A documentary film based on the story and titled McLibel was released in 2005.
The environmental movement that emerged in the 1970s was diverse, drawing partisans from both the mainstream and the radical fringe. Environmentalists are concerned with many different issues, such as preserving the natural beauty of the land, saving native plants and wildlife from the threat of extinction, preventing land, water and air pollution, limiting the consumption of scarce natural resources and dealing with the reality of climate change.
Global food systems have been targets for the environmental movement. Activists have advocated improved regulation and control of industrial agriculture and commercial fishing. Environmental organizations have addressed threats to health and environment, such as the use of petrochemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides on crops and antibiotics and hormones in animal feeding operations, waste and contaminants from food packaging, and agricultural pollution (of water, air and land). Environmentalists have developed projects to raise awareness of these issues and have lobbied for the passage of laws and regulations that would lessen agriculture’s environmental impact.
Recently environmentalists have concluded that of all the choices made by consumers, few have as powerful an effect on their own health and that of the planet as what they will – and will not – eat. Food has become a platform for discussion and action on many environmental controversies. The specific environmental charges levelled at McDonald’s by London Greenpeace in the McLibel case may not have been proven, but the fast-food industry is immense and it is global. Through its sheer size and its business policies, it has directly and indirectly harmed the environment through urban blight, the production of un-recyclable waste, the destruction of rainforests and the release of greenhouse gases, which have contributed to climate change.
Fast-food chains have changed urban landscapes. Fast-food entrepreneurs initially focused on cities, particularly areas where large businesses were located. After the Second World War, factories and other businesses began leaving inner cities, and their employees moved out to the suburbs. The older fast-food chains, such as White Castle, with many inner-city locations, confronted a major loss of customers and a significant increase in crime and vagrancy in their neighbourhoods. Without a large working-class customer base, many locations were closed; their abandoned buildings deteriorated, contributing to neighbourhood blight.
Beginning in the 1950s, American fast-food chains turned to the highways to serve motorists. Outlets popped up on the outskirts of cities, where real estate was cheap and automobile traffic was high. Because cars sped by at a fast clip, large signs were needed to catch the driver’s eye. Regardless of their size, signs were difficult to read at night, so neon lighting became common. Fast-food signs were so towering and outlandish that they alienated local residents.
Another way to attract customers was with striking architecture that made the building itself a sign – hence the creation of standardized ‘logo buildings’ that were instantly recognizable to potential customers. McDonald’s was a leader in this, but eye-catching does not equal aesthetically pleasing: their building design met with criticism, especially for its steeply raked roof and the golden arches ‘bursting’ through it. Others objected to the enormous red ‘handlebars’ – purposeless steel brackets – on the roofs of Burger King stands. In the hope of quashing public opposition, both McDonald’s and Burger King modified their designs to make them less visually disruptive.
The concerns were not limited to the design of particular chains or outlets. Commercial strips – unbroken rows of fast-food stands and other national chains along highways – were considered objectionable, too. Communities organized resistance to glaringly illuminated logo buildings. Municipalities have prevented the construction of new fast-food restaurants through zoning, while others have refused to approve new permits for such businesses.
Most fast-food chains package their meals in disposable materials – paper and plastic bags, waxed paper wrappers and cardboard boxes and cups. Because about 70 per cent of American customers leave the premises with their food, discarded burger wrappers, french-fry containers and cups frequently end up as roadside litter. Of all the rubbish found along city streets and highways, an estimated 20 per cent derives from fast-food packaging. Cities have considered charging fast-food outlets and other food distributors a litter fee based on gross sales.2 The revenue was intended to be used to keep the city’s streets, pavements and public spaces clean and sanitary.
Most fast-food chains provide single-use food and beverage packaging. Fast-food establishments, of course, place rubbish containers in convenient locations around their premises. Signs encourage customers to ‘put trash in its place’. (Most chains have compactors to limit the volume of rubbish they generate, but this is a separate issue from that of the litter dropped by customers.) To counteract the damage to their reputations from piles of readily identifiable rubbish in public areas, many fast-food chains contribute to local activities, such as sponsoring highway clean-ups. However, takeaway plastic products, such as cutlery, straws and cups, can be swept into waterways and oceans, where they can harm marine life.
A related problem with fast-food litter is that the vast majority is not recycled. According to a 2012 study in Austin, Texas, 85 per cent of the waste from fast-food chains could have been recycled or composted. Chains use recycled products and recycle waste, but to date this is limited because of the lack of recycle bins, customer understanding and recycling centres, and the extra effort and costs associated with recycling, such as actually delivering it to recycling centres. Yet chains have made substantial progress on reducing waste. McDonald’s Austria, for instance, recycles 95 per cent of its waste.3
Of all the waste generated by fast-food sales, Styrofoam (the Dow Chemical Company’s brand name for its polystyrene products) has been of particular concern. Styrofoam is lightweight, strong, an excellent insulator and far cheaper than paper containers. It was widely adopted in the fast-food industry for hot food containers, such as hamburger ‘clamshells’ and coffee cups. In the 1990s McDonald’s was the world’s largest single user of polystyrene.
Styrofoam was used so extensively by the fast-food industry that it littered city streets, highways, beaches and waterways. Polystyrene has many environmental drawbacks: it cannot be economically recycled; in landfill, it eventually breaks down into small particles but does not biodegrade; if incinerated, it produces toxic emissions. Several studies identified styrene, the precursor to polystyrene, as a possible human carcinogen. Styrene, activists claimed, easily migrated from packaging into foods and beverages served in it. In 1986 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reported that virtually all Americans had styrene in their bodies.
On 1 August 1987 activists from an organization called ‘Vermonters Organized for Clean Up’ picketed a few McDonald’s restaurants for their use of Styrofoam. By October 1987 the Styrofoam boycott had spread to fourteen states. The Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste (CCHW) coordinated a nationwide ‘McToxics’ campaign against McDonald’s to get them to stop using foam food packaging. In 1988 Suffolk County, New York (on Long Island), and the city council of Berkeley, California, banned general polystyrene foam products, including plates, cups and burger boxes. Dozens of other cities and counties around the country followed suit.
The Styrofoam issue was also raised in the McLibel trial. Paul Preston, the president of McDonald’s UK, testified that if 1 million customers each bought a soft drink, he would not expect more than 100–150 cups to end up as litter. He asserted that Styrofoam packaging was less environmentally damaging than washing reusable plates, knives and forks. Despite the defence, McDonald’s did eventually switch from Styrofoam clamshells to paper boxes. The chain continued to use polystyrene foam coffee cups until 2013, when it replaced them with double-walled paper cups. Other companies have yet to phase out polystyrene from their hot beverage cups and virtually all continue to use rigid polystyrene for their takeaway coffee-cup lids.
The London Greenpeace group and other organizations have charged fast-food chains with contributing to the destruction of the rainforests. Some chains do buy products, such as beef and palm oil, from suppliers in countries with rainforests. Environmentalists claim that these large purchases encourage ranchers to burn down rainforests to create feedlots for beef cattle.
The fast-food industry has also acquired palm oil and coffee from tropical nations in Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. Environmentalists argue that the demand for these products encourages planters in these areas to level rainforests to create agricultural land for growing coffee and planting palm trees. As rainforests are home to an estimated half of all the earth’s species, the destruction of the forests for farming and other uses, such as logging, has eliminated the habitats of many flora and fauna and harmed indigenous peoples who live in the rainforest.
Mike Roselle, one of the founders of the environmental advocacy organization Earth First!, wrote an article on how beef imports from Central America harmed the rainforest. He began speaking at rallies on what he called the ‘Hamburger Connection’ and its threat to rainforests.4 While on a speaking tour, he formed a loose coalition of about 30 local environmental groups that were concerned about the rainforest. He identified Burger King as having contracts with a Costa Rican beef supplier. In April 1983 Roselle held a demonstration in front of a Burger King outlet in San Francisco and then launched a national boycott of the company – the world’s second-largest hamburger chain. Burger King brushed off the accusations, claiming that only 2 per cent of its beef came from rainforest areas.
Out of these boycotts emerged the Rainforest Action Network (RAN) in 1985. Its goal was to inform the American public about the plight of rainforests and the peoples who lived in them. Burger King remained RAN’s primary target and its revenue declined by a reported 12 per cent. Since 1967 Burger King had been owned by the Pillsbury Company, and in 1986 RAN held a major demonstration at a Pillsbury board meeting in Minneapolis. At the time discussions were under way between Pillsbury and the British conglomerate Grand Metropolitan, which was acquiring the American food giant. When the deal went through, in 1987, new management was hired for Burger King and the company cancelled $35 million of contracts from beef producers in Costa Rica, announcing that it had stopped importing rainforest beef. The cancellation caused havoc in Costa Rica, which lost 60 per cent of its beef exports.5
Environmental groups went after other hamburger chains, most of which eliminated direct purchases of beef from countries with rainforests, but the loss of rainforests continued. Between 1996 and 2008, more than 15 per cent of the Amazon rainforest in Brazil was cleared for agricultural use – 75 per cent specifically for cattle ranching. By 2008 the Amazon was home to more than 80 million cattle. Fast-food establishments in countries with rainforests continued to purchase beef ranched on their own deforested land. Beef not consumed in Brazil is mainly exported to Europe.
In April 2006 Greenpeace released a report claiming that McDonald’s and other companies were destroying rainforests by purchasing chickens fed on soy beans farmed on deforested land in the Amazon rainforest. It was estimated that McDonald’s acquired 50 per cent of the poultry served in its European outlets from this source. Activists demonstrated at McDonald’s restaurants dressed in chicken suits. McDonald’s worked with other companies also named in the report and in July 2006 announced that they were collectively ending the purchase of chicken fed on soy grown in newly deforested areas of the Amazon rainforest. Greenpeace subsequently praised McDonald’s for taking this action.6
Palm oil is another product that has contributed to the destruction of the rainforest, particularly in Southeast Asia. Less than half of the world’s production of palm oil is produced under an environmental policy known as ‘No Deforestation, No Peat, and No Exploitation’. RAN has charged fast-food companies with using ‘Conflict Palm Oil’ in making french fries, and doughnut companies such as Krispy Kreme, Dunkin’ Donuts and Tim Hortons use palm oil or palm-oil blends for frying. As a result of consumer pressure brought about by RAN and other environmental groups, Dunkin’ Donuts, Krispy Kreme and other companies have agreed to switch to other oils. Other fast-food chains, such as Yum! Brands, Domino’s, Wendy’s, Carl’s Jr. and Dairy Queen, ranked bottom in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ palm-oil scorecard in 2015. Yum! Brands subsequently pledged to acquire their palm oil from sources that do not contribute to deforestation by the end of 2017. Their commitment, however, did not apply to their suppliers.7
Fast-food chains sell lots of coffee, virtually all of it sourced from tropical countries. Fresh-brewed coffee has always been a key factor in the success of Dunkin’ Donuts. In 1999 the chain announced the sale of their 8 billionth cup of coffee since opening in 1950. Starbucks is currently the largest retailer of speciality coffee in the world, with more than 15,000 stores in 55 countries. McDonald’s launched the ‘McCafé’, a coffeehouse-style chain, in 1993. As of 2014 there were about 1,300 McCafés and more are in the planning stage. Their coffee is typically grown on vast plantations in tropical and semi-tropical areas of Africa, Asia and Latin America. The environmental costs of coffee are high, as forests are cleared for its culture, pesticides are used extensively and intensive cultivation has depleted the soil.
In an attempt to stop the destruction of rainforests, organizations have developed voluntary programmes that certify and label commodities, such as palm oil and coffee, as not coming from recently cleared tropical land. The same organizations publicly criticize companies that continue to use products from non-certified suppliers.
Fast-food companies have responded to environmental issues by modifying their packaging; redesigning unsightly buildings; changing their suppliers; and making their outlets ‘greener’. There has been an upsurge of interest in creating more environmentally friendly fast-food establishments. Chains such as Burgerville in Oregon and Washington use alternative energy sources, serve more local ingredients and offer more vegetarian items. Rather than handing out a toy, Burgerville includes a packet of garden seeds in its kids’ meals. Other chains encourage cyclists to use drive-through facilities.
Some fast-food businesses have begun to use renewable energy sources, such as solar power and wind turbines, to help decrease their dependence on the power grid. Research has shown that restaurants could cut 50 per cent of their power needs by using more energy-efficient appliances. Burgerville, for example, employs wind power for its electrical needs. In 2010 Burger King unveiled a new energy-efficient restaurant in Waghäusel, Germany. It uses renewable energy for about one-third of its electricity needs, and has greatly reduced its overall energy use, thereby substantially reducing both energy costs and emissions.
Many fast-food companies have attempted to lower their carbon footprint. McDonald’s, for instance, has made strides in key areas, including product offerings and managing its supply chain. Chipotle Mexican Grill, an American chain that also has about 1,000 outlets in the UK, Canada, Germany and France, is recognized as an industry leader when it comes to sustainable practices and sourcing. Sustainability efforts in the fast-food industry range from promoting healthy food choices like salads, carrot sticks and low-fat milk to using green building techniques and sourcing sustainable ingredients and materials.
New eco-fast-food restaurants are popping up around the world. Amanda’s Feel Good Fresh Food restaurant in Berkeley, California, was launched in 2006 by Amanda West and survived in this highly competitive field for only a few years. It served naturally raised beef (in smaller-than-standard portion sizes), freshly made sodas sweetened without corn syrup, baked sweet-potato fries and salads. All packaging was biodegradable and could be disposed of in receptacles along with food waste for composting.
Elevation Burgers, launched by Hans Hess in the U.S. in 2005, is a ‘fast casual’ franchise restaurant chain with about fifteen locations. Its hamburgers are made with 100 per cent organic beef, and it offers a variety of vegetarian options. The outlets make use of sustainable materials such as bamboo and are designed to be as energy efficient as possible. The corporate headquarters are in Arlington, Virginia.
In 2010 Otarian, a small chain launched in London, New York and Australia, served low-carbon-emission vegetarian fare in its fast-casual restaurants. The menu included vegetarian burgers, wraps and flatbreads, curries, pasta dishes, soups, salads and desserts. Otarian’s ‘Eco2tarian Labelling’ compared the greenhouse-gas emissions of the ingredients in its dishes with similar ones containing meat, fish or egg. The small chain was widely praised for its attempt to make its customers aware of the environmental consequences of the foods they ate, but it fared badly and most outlets closed.
Perhaps the most environmentally conscious fast-food chain is Max, Sweden’s first hamburger chain. Founded in 1968, Max pioneered a lower-fat menu, uses locally produced beef and chicken, and was the first restaurant chain to provide carbon labelling for its meals. In 2008 the chain began to label all products with their climate impact, which gives customers the ability to choose food that has a lower impact on the environment. Customers started ordering more non-beef burgers; sales of low-carbon burgers, such as their veggie Greenburgare, jumped by 16 per cent. Max offsets the environmental impact of its operations by planting trees in Africa.8 The chain now has outlets in Denmark, Norway and the United Arab Emirates.
Fast-food firms have reduced the amount of waste in their corporate operations. For many companies, the goal is to have zero waste going to landfills. To achieve this, they have instituted or intensified composting, recycling and other practices. While these efforts are welcome, they affect only a small fraction of the total waste produced by their outlets and franchises.
Fast-food chains have also altered their architectural designs to incorporate the latest environmental technology. The new eco-friendly fast-food restaurants have greatly reduced their energy consumption; some have solar panels integrated into their design. In 2009 Burger King launched an ambitious plan to make over most of its outlets by installing new technology and building materials that would reduce gas consumption by 52 per cent and electricity by 90 per cent.
The U.S. Green Building Council certifies structures that promote ‘environmentally responsible, profitable and healthy places to live and work’ as part of their Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) programme. While many fast-food outlets have made environmental innovations, as of 2013, fewer than twenty fast-food restaurants in America had received LEED certification. Large chains, such as Dunkin’ Donuts, Subway, McDonald’s, Arby’s, Starbucks and Yum! Brands, have one or more buildings with LEED certification. The McDonald’s LEED outlet in Chicago includes a vegetative green roof, a storm-water management system and Energy Star-rated kitchen equipment. It uses an estimated 25 per cent less energy than their other outlets of the same size.
Most fast-food chains require that franchisees change the outlet’s design every few years to meet company specifications. Constant rebranding keeps the company’s image fresh, telling consumers that there’s always something new and innovative on the way. Rather than making only cosmetic changes, McDonald’s sought advice on how to make its operation more environmentally friendly. In 1990 the company created an alliance with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) that led to the switch from polystyrene to paper products and a programme to encourage recycling. McDonald’s claims to have eliminated more than 300 million pounds of packaging, recycled 1 million tons of corrugated boxes and reduced waste by 30 per cent between 1990 and 2010.9 The collaboration between McDonald’s and the EDF has continued, spawning additional programmes and partnerships. For instance, McDonald’s requires that its meat and poultry suppliers pass an annual animal welfare audit conducted by the EDF. In collaboration with Conservation International, McDonald’s developed a scorecard to measure and reduce the water, energy, air and waste impacts of its bakery, beef, poultry, pork and potato suppliers. In addition the chain has purchased more than $4 billion of recycled materials for its own operations. As a result of these efforts, McDonald’s has garnered a good deal of positive press coverage.
Fast-food companies are experimenting with greener packaging. Yum! Brands claims that its fast-food companies, including KFC and Taco Bell, use napkins made from 100 per cent recycled content. Their drink-cup carriers are also manufactured with recycled content. KFC has introduced reusable food containers for side dishes, such as mashed potatoes, green beans and coleslaw. In 2010 Greener Package (GP), an organization devoted to sustainable packaging, gave KFC an award for significantly reducing the environmental footprint of their packaging. The container lids are embossed with the words ‘KFC Reusable, Microwave & Top Rack Dishwasher Safe’. The container requires 25 per cent less energy to produce than the previous package, and generates 50 per cent less greenhouse gases, according to GP.10 KFC proudly announced that it planned to cut total energy consumption by 10 per cent during the period 2005–15.11 The company has yet to announce whether it has been successful in achieving this projected reduction.
McDonald’s UK claims to have greatly improved its carbon efficiency by investing in low-energy hand dryers, LED lights and energy-saving kitchen equipment. For these efforts, the company was awarded the Carbon Trust Standard in 2010. McDonald’s UK hamburgers are supplied by Esca Food Solutions, which won the UK Food Manufacturing Excellence Awards for its burgers in 2007. McDonald’s UK announced in 2010 that it was launching a three-year study into reducing the carbon emissions caused by the cattle used in its burgers. The study’s results have yet to be released.
These steps are welcome, but fast-food chains contribute indirectly to massive environmental degradation through meat, seafood and poultry acquired from suppliers. Most companies depend on animal feedlots and slaughterhouses that produce vast amounts of waste, which greatly contributes to pollution. Fast-food companies do not operate ranches or meatpacking facilities, but many environmentalists believe that fast-food companies should be held responsible for the actions of their suppliers, particularly those who supply meat and poultry.