This relates to
Mr B referred to in the article re: Triodos Bank NV etc
McDonald's Restaurants Ltd, which is a member of the McDonald's group of companies
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA)
Apetito Ltd, which uses the trademark "Wiltshire Farm Foods"*
Hillside Animal Sanctuary, based near Norwich
Mr Peter J Winchester also referred to in the article re: Triodos Bank NV etc
Mr Arthur G Braithwaite also referred to therein
Mr George T Piper, who wrote to the Manchester Metro News in 2008 in support of the letter from Mr Winchester
(The above-named are listed in the order in which they are mentioned below.)
All information herein relating to the correspondence between Mr B and
McDonald's Restaurants Ltd and between Mr B and the RSPCA is based
solely on papers produced by Mr B.
Mr B wrote to the Managing Director of McDonald's Restaurants Ltd, 11-59 High Road, East Finchley, London N2 8AW as follows:
25 April 2008
Dear Sir or Madam
I note that McDonald's sells halal meat in some countries.
I understand that some halal slaughterers kill animals humanely, by
stunning them before cutting their throats but that others cut their
throats whilst they are conscious. However, I understand that
some of the latter stun animals after cutting their throats.
The RSPCA objects to the cutting of any animal's throat whilst it is conscious and so do I.
Does McDonald's sell any meat from animals which have had their throats
cut whilst they were conscious and, if so, is any of the meat from
animals which have not been stunned at any stage?
Yours sincerely
Mr B states that he received no reply. He wrote again, as follows, by Recorded Delivery:
13 June 2008
Dear Sir or Madam
Please note that I have still not received a reply to my letter of 25 April 2008 (copy attached).
Yours sincerely
He received a reply, also by Recorded Delivery, as follows:
19 June 2008
Dear Mr
I am
writing further to our telephone conversation today. I am very
sorry that you have not received our initial response.
Please find attached the letter sent to you on 6 May which I hope
answers your complaint.
I do apologise for the inconvenience
experienced by not receiving this response.
If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me again.
Yours sincerely
Oliver King
Customer Services Administrator
The attached letter referred to was as follows:
6 May 2008
COPY
Dear Mr
I am writing further to your recent letter to our Managing Director with regards Halal products on our menu.
I can confirm that for a limited time only, our restaurant at Southall has been chosen to trial selected Halal menu items, in answer to consumer demand.
Mainly chicken were chosen because our current abattoir methods - "stun to stun' (an electrical shock to knock out the chicken painlessly so that it is unconscious), followed by the kill - meant that Halal accreditation is possible once a verse from the Koran is recited during the slaughter by the appropriate person. This is the only change in our abattoir procedure.
All McDonald's products are made from the highest quality ingredients
and are carefully prepared to precise specifications. As a progressive
burger company we have been working with our suppliers to find a way to
serve Halal food that complies with our stringent animal welfare procedures as well as our guidelines pertaining to food hygiene
and safety.
We are confident that this has been achieved for our trial
at the Southall restaurant.
Thank you for taking the trouble to write and allowing us the opportunity to comment on this matter.
Yours sincerely
Joe Cuffaro
Customer Services Manager
The correspondence which ensued is reproduced below.
30
June 2008
Dear
Mr King
Thank
you for your letter of 19 June 2008 and enclosure.
Your
first sentence is very odd. I have never spoken to you on the
telephone.
Re:
the expression “your complaint”, my letter of 25
April 2008 did not contain a complaint. It contained a question,
which has still not been answered. I note Mr Cuffaro's statements
re: the restaurant in Southall but my question related to McDonald's
restaurants worldwide. Furthermore, his letter lacks information
on the slaughter of animals other than chickens for the trial at
Southall.
Yours
sincerely
2 July 2008
Dear Mr
Thank you for your further letter and I do apologise that my colleague sent an inappropriate covering note with the copy of my previous response.
In relation to the aspects of animal welfare you refer to in the UK McDonald's works very closely with the RSPCA, the veterinary department at Bristol University and an organisation called the FAI, as well as a number of independent experts, to ensure that it uses the most humane practices at the abattoirs it chooses to work with. Animal welfare is an important part of the way that McDonald's conducts its business and the standards in place meet and exceed those laid down by EU and UK legislation. At the end of the day, slaughter is a necessary process in the production of meat for consumption. McDonald's objective is to ensure that the procedures used at its abattoirs are the most humane and ethical. The majority of abattoirs that supply McDonald's beef in the UK use a captive bolt to stun the animal. There are a small number that use electric stunning. Both methods comply with the high standards as mentioned above. The company simply will not work with any supplier that does not adhere to these high standards. All abattoirs must be EU-approved and all are under the care of qualified vets and health inspectors. As with regard to poultry, chickens are unloaded at the abattoir and then carefully inspected under veterinary supervision to make sure each animal is fit for slaughter. They are then individually hung on a line which quickly transports them in a calm environment (they hang against a soft side rest prove to have a calming effect); to where they are stunned to make sure they are unconscious, before the main artery is cut. McDonald's has very stringent procedures in place throughout to ensure that all animals are treated in the right way before slaughter. All suppliers who work with McDonald's must adhere to the extremely stringent guidelines and high standards laid down by local government, the McDonald's Agriculture Assurance Plans, and the British Poultry Council's Assured Chicken Production scheme which controls all aspects of chicken farming, including feed and animal welfare. McDonald's continues to collaborate with global animal welfare experts to ensure that it provides the highest levels of farming quality and welfare.
I trust the above has gone some way further to reassure you of our commitment to animal welfare.
Joe Cuffaro
Customer Services
Mr B wrote to the RSPCA, as follows:
19
July 2008
Dear
Sir or Madam
Re:
McDonald's
I
attach copies of letters which are self-explanatory.
In
view of the persistent evasion of the question in my letter of 25
April 2008, I suggest that you call for an international boycott of
McDonald's.
You are welcome to display this letter and the
enclosures on your website.
Yours
sincerely
Encs.
Copy
of letter of 25.04.08 to McDonald's Restaurants Ltd
Copy
of letter of 13.06.08 to McDonald's Restaurants Ltd, showing copy of
Recorded Delivery receipt
Copy
of letter (received by Recorded Delivery) of 19.06.08 from McDonald's
Restaurants Ltd and copy of enclosure
Copy
of letter of 30.06.08 to McDonald's Restaurants Ltd, showing copy of
Recorded Delivery receipt
Copy
of letter of 02.07.08 from McDonald's Restaurants Ltd
Mr B states that, having received no reply, he wrote again, as follows:
7
October 2008
Dear
Sir or Madam
Re:
McDonald's
Please
note that I have not heard from you further to my letter of 19
July 2008 and enclosures.
Yours
sincerely
He very promptly received a reply, as follows:
8 October 2008
Dear Mr
Thank you for your letter regarding McDonald's use of Halal meat.
The RSPCA has been working closely with McDonald's for the past few years to find a pragmatic solution to the question that you rightly pose in your original letter. I am pleased to say, as the McDonald's response of 2 July shows, that McDonald's is now trialling in Southall selected Halal products that have been pre-stunned. This is a major step forward both for Halal meat and corporate retailers. Feedback to date in Southall shows that it has been well received.
McDonald's, as many international corporate groups works on a national basis, in response to national standards. So the UK policy is different from the EU policy and from Mcdonald's USA. The RSPCA works closely with different country offices of McDonald's either directly or through our associate groups in other countries to ensure that they also adopt the McDonald's UK standards as regards issues such as free range eggs and stall and tether free pigs.
With many thanks for your support on this issue.
Yours sincerely
David Bowles
Head of External Affairs
Mr B wrote again, as follows:
14 October 2008
Dear
Mr Bowles
Re:
McDonald's
Thank
you for your letter of 8 October 2008.
I
note that it does not express dissatisfaction with any aspect of the
behaviour of any company in the McDonald's group. Are you
dissatisfied with the behaviour of any company in the group?
Do
you know the answer to the question in my letter of 25
April 2008 to McDonald's Restaurants Ltd? (“Does McDonald's sell
any meat from animals which have had their throats cut whilst they were
conscious and, if so, is any of the meat from animals which have not
been stunned at any stage?") NB With reference to my letter of 30
June 2008 to that company, the question related to McDonald's
restaurants worldwide.
Yours
sincerely
Mr B states that he received no reply. He wrote again, as follows, by Recorded Delivery:
4
November 2008
Dear
Mr Bowles
Re:
McDonald's
I
have still not received a reply to my letter of 14
October 2008 (copy attached).
You
should call for a boycott not only of the whole McDonald's group of
companies but of
a)
every company which sells meat but does not publish an assurance that
all meat it sells has been reared and killed entirely in accordance
with RSPCA policies and
b)
every company which wholly or partly owns any such company and
c)
every company wholly or partly owned by any company referred to in
(a) or (b) above.
Yours
sincerely
Mr B is
urging people to boycott not only all companies in
the McDonald's group but many others. An example is
Apetito Ltd, which uses the trademark "Wiltshire Farm Foods".
In February 2009, he drew our attention to the fact that its
Autumn and Winter 2008-9 catalogue not only contained no assurance to
the effect that
all meat it supplied was from humanely killed animals but (on p66)
contained
the following:
“You can order ... Kosher main meals and desserts, Asian Halal and Asian Vegetarian dishes.”
On 4 July 2014, he pointed out that Apetito Ltd had still not published any
such assurance and was still advertising halal and kosher meat.
He received a reply as follows:
14 November 2008
Dear Mr
Thank you for your letter of 4 November. The RSPCA does not agree that a boycott of McDonald's UK is conducive to a change in the company behaviour for two reasons:
1. Boycotts seldom work.
2. McDonald's UK have some of the higher standards of animal welfare in the fast food chain industry including in their slaughter, pig and egg standards.
The RSPCA believes that it is best to work with companies to improve their standards to those of the RSPCA and this approach has achieved results with improvements in the policies and standards of McDonald's UK, Sainsbury's and Tesco to give only three examples.
Yours sincerely
David Bowles
Head of External Affairs
Mr B wrote again, as follows, by Recorded Delivery:
17 December 2008
Dear Mr Bowles
Re: McDonald's
Your letter of 14 November 2008 is unsatisfactory in several respects.
You have still not answered the questions in my letter of 14 October 2008.
I have advocated a boycott of the whole McDonald's group of companies, for a good reason. Your letter does not even mention the group but refers to "McDonald's UK" (by which I think you mean the UK registered company McDonald's Restaurants Ltd). Even if that particular company maintains standards of animal welfare entirely to your satisfaction, my reason for calling for a boycott of the whole group of companies is valid.
Furthermore, you should call for a wider boycott as proposed in my letter of 4 November 2008.
You assert that boycotts seldom work but the meaning of this is not clear enough. Such a boycott would influence some customers' behaviour and hence benefit animals in various ways, even if it did not cause any company to change any of its policies.^
You would not need to spend much money on a call for a boycott; it would cost very little to issue a suitable press release and add a suitable piece to your website.
Re: your last paragraph, I have never suggested that the RSPCA stop working with any company.
Yours sincerely
^On 3 September
2011, Mr B stated that he should have worded the sentence "Such ...
policies" as follows: "Even if the wide boycott proposed in my letter
of 4 November 2008 did not cause any company to change any of its
policies, it would influence some customers' behaviour in ways which,
in some cases, would prevent cruelty and / or neglect but I cannot
envisage any way in which it could cause harm, except relatively
unimportant harm." However, he added that he considered it
extremely unlikely that, had he used the different wording, he
would have caused the RSPCA to answer either of the questions in his
letter of 14 October 2008 or to call for a boycott as described in his
letter of 4 November 2008.
He received a reply as follows:
23 December 2008
Dear Mr
Thanks you for your letter of 17th December re McDonald's.
I am sorry to hear that you feel I have not answered your question but will do so again now. The RSPCA does not believe in boycotts such as you are suggesting either of McDonald's UK or the global company for precisely the reasons outlined in the previous letters ie that change in any company occurs more rapidly by meaningful dialogue than by boycotts.
Effective boycotts do cost a lot of money (I have been involved in a number in my campaigning life) and are difficult to cause change in the company's or indeed in the consumer's behaviour.
Yours sincerely
David Bowles
Head of External Affairs
He wrote again, as follows, by Recorded Delivery:
30 December 2008
Dear Mr Bowles
Re: McDonald's
I refer to your letter of 23 December 2008.
Re: your second paragraph:
a) You have STILL not answered the questions in my letter of 14 October 2008.
b) Your previous letters have given no valid reason not to support either a boycott of the McDonald's group of companies or a wider boycott as advocated in my letter of 4 November 2008.
c) Promotion by the RSPCA of a boycott of a company would not prevent dialogue with that company and, indeed, would put it under pressure to engage in dialogue more usefully.
Re: your third paragraph, it is obvious to me that the simple measures suggested in my previous letter would produce significant benefits at minimal cost. Even if you doubt this, you have no good reason not to try them.
Yours sincerely
He states that, having received no reply, he wrote again, as follows:
24 January 2009
Dear Mr Bowles
Re: McDonald's
I have still not received a reply to my letter (sent by Recorded Delivery) of 30 December 2008 (copy attached).
Yours sincerely
He received a reply (if one may call it a reply) as follows:
This was accompanied by a copy of Mr Bowles' letter of 14 November
2008 (as shown above), with the date changed to 27 January 2009.
WE KID YOU NOT.
Mr B is not the only person who is dissatisfied with the RSPCA. Hillside Animal Sanctuary (www.hillside.org.uk) has severely
criticised it several times in recent years, especially in relation to
its “Freedom Food” scheme.
In February 2009, at Mr B's
suggestion, we invited Mr Winchester and Mr Braithwaite (referred to in
the article re: Triodos Bank NV etc) and Mr George T
Piper, who had had a letter published in the Manchester Metro News on
16 May 2008, in support of the one from Mr Winchester, to view Mr
B's correspondence with McDonald's Restaurants Ltd and the RSPCA, on a
large screen. When we reached Mr Bowles' letter of 23
December 2008, a conversation as follows took place:
Mr
Winchester: Look at that! It says "I am sorry to hear that
you feel I have not answered your question but will do so again now"
but it still doesn't answer either of the questions. How can he
write such rubbish?
Mr Braithwaite: He's probably had years of experience ...
Mr Piper: ... or been a pupil of Lord Irvine.
We then displayed the subsequent correspondence, ending with the
bizarre material sent by the RSPCA on 27 January 2009. The
conversation continued thus:
Mr Piper: Well, this is a remarkable achievement in the field of rubbish-writing.
Mr Braithwaite: It makes Lord Irvine look like a novice.
We then showed some of the earlier correspondence again and the conversation continued thus:
Mr
Winchester: It beggars belief that anyone wants to buy halal meat
from McDonald's. If I believed what Moslems - of whatever
denomination - seem to believe, I wouldn't want halal meat to be cooked
and served by people of other religions, or no religion at all.
I'd regard it as holy and I'd consider it disrespectful to
Allah to think of it only from a commercial point of view.
Mr Braithwaite: What will they try next? Waiters dressed as priests?
Mr Piper: American iced tea made with Islamic holy water?
*Addendum 30 March 2012 re: Apetito Ltd / Wiltshire Farm Foods
We have seen a file which appears to show the following:
In June 2011, a customer of a mail order company noticed that a
magazine he had received with one of its catalogues contained an
advertisement for Wiltshire Farm Foods. He wrote to the editor of
the magazine, asking him not to accept any further advertisement from
Apetito Ltd and referring to this article on this website. In
August 2011, having received no reply, he wrote to the mail order
company, enclosing a copy of the letter he had sent to the editor of
the magazine. Eventually, he received a letter of 8 March
2012 from the mail order company, assuring him that advertisements from
Apetito Ltd would no longer appear in any of the magazines. We
are not naming the mail order company because we do not wish to prompt
reasonable suspicion that we have been improperly influenced. It
is, of course, open to that company to publish its policies on its own
website and / or otherwise.
Last updated 4 July 2014