Spending power: Is McDonald's kind to animals?
One of the little-known facts about McDonald's in the UK is that its record on animal welfare is quite good.
All the beef in the burgers comes from cows in the British Isles, where welfare standards are higher than on the Continent. The eggs in the Egg McMuffin are free-range (though Golden Arches chicken isn't). The fish in a Filet-o-Fish is made from Marine Stewardship-certified Alaskan Pollock.
McDonalds progress on animal welfare recognised last week when it won the restaurant chain category of the RSPCA's Good Business Awards 2008, ahead of more "ethical" competition from fast food chain Leon.
So in the UK, where consumers are more concerned about such issues than in the US, McDonald's has done some good things. In the US and the rest of the world, its policies are less stringent, suggesting perhaps that its low-cruelty menu here owes more to marketing than ethics.
On its commendable public Q & A website makeupyourownmind.co.uk, customers can ask McDonald's any question they like. Some of them are mischievous (such as: "What is the semen content of a Big Mac?'). This is one of the serious questions, reproduced in full:
Q: When will the animal welfare standards that have been implemented in the UK be implemented in the U.S? There's no roaming in the field for cows or chickens that get served up in their millions over here! Also, how can you justify the fact that beef production causes so much environmental damage, both in terms of methane emissions/global warming, as well as the amount of fossil fuel it takes to grow grain to feed beef cattle?
A: Thank you for your question and sorry for the slow response - unfortunately your question seems to have slipped through the records. Each country considers the wants of its customers on a local level as well as any legislative requirements. Therefore, the information given about animal welfare, sourcing and ingredients, for example, on this site are pertinent for the UK. However, as a global company, McDonald's takes it world-wide position very seriously and, even if this might manifest itself in different ways according to the local markets, the principles remain the same and can be found on mcdonalds.com."
Best of luck...
(Photo: Getty Images)
The simple answer to this question is "no". However, they do shove a lot of money the way of the RSPCA. Given that the "royal charity" is (ahem) reputed to have lost a lot of money recently, has PR and HR departments in meltdown, a prosecutions department which has been infiltrated by animal rights activists, and an Inspectorate seems to bring it into disrepute (Gangotri, targeting the old, infirm, young and the sick, killing old pets, prosecuting the innocent, failing to disclose documents, using dodgy vets etc) they need every penny they can get to feed their fat-cat lawyers and headquarters staff with big salaries and index-linked final salary schemes which are £30m under-funded.
Posted by: David Tyne | Tuesday, 14 October 2008 at 08:06 PM
There is something very wrong with an animal charity in which not only is the winner of their "ethical" competition a company which specializes in meat products, but every other one of the contenders for the food section of the awards is also there because of how they treat animal based food.
Posted by: David | Wednesday, 15 October 2008 at 08:49 AM
It's not exactly news when McDonalds, or one of the RSPCA's other business partners in Freedom Food, wins one of the RSPCA's so-called "awards". They've been consistently "winning" RSPCA "awards" since the charity started the scheme in 2005. If other "awards" work like this, then what's the point? Local authorities that support the RSPCA win awards, businesses that bung loads of cash to the RSPCA's shameful "Freedom Food" operation win RSPCA awards together with supermarkets that support "RSPCA week" win too. Tesco couldn't win this year, because of their sensible stance over the RSPCA's infamous Freedom Food chicken, though.
Posted by: Ashok Kumar | Wednesday, 15 October 2008 at 10:59 AM
We welcome The Independent bringing this debate to the table. To clarify, the RSPCA Good Business Awards are judged not by the RSPCA but by an independent panel of experts in each of the fields that the awards cover: food retail, restaurants, fashion, and cosmetics. Each winner is judged according to criteria set by the Society, on the processes it has in place to improve the welfare of the animals it uses in the course of its business. The overall objective of the awards is to encourage better animal welfare practice across all of these industries.
McDonald’s was praised by judges this year for extending its commitment to use free range whole eggs in restaurants across Europe, and its implementation of a poultry round table discussion to determine a long term strategic approach to the humane killing of chickens. Recognition was also given for its strong support of research into animal welfare improvements across the whole industry, through funding the Food Animal Initiative.
Of course there is a valid debate as to whether animals should be farmed for food. The RSPCA, however, believes that as most people do eat meat, fish, eggs and / or dairy produce, that all animals kept for food should be reared, transported and slaughtered humanely.
For further information please visit www.rspcagoodbusinessawards.com
Rebecca Hawkes, RSPCA
Posted by: Rebecca Hawkes, RSPCA | Wednesday, 15 October 2008 at 12:23 PM
I appreciate the RSPCA representative responding, but this is PR fluff if ever I've heard it - even relying on deferring to a panel of "experts" as a way of deflecting blame.
At least Mussolini made the trains run on time, eh ?
Except, of course that he didn't make the trains run on time. Perhaps that is comparable with how the "ethical" McDonalds is still responsible for the deaths of millions of animals a year, many in dreadful conditions.
Relativism at its worst.
Posted by: David | Wednesday, 15 October 2008 at 12:33 PM
I don't think that there is "there is a valid debate as to whether animals should be farmed for food". The RSPCA plainly does not think so - it takes a huge proportion of its income from farmers within its protection scheme called "Freedom Food". If you are inside the scheme, you never get prosecuted for cruelty. If you're outside the scheme, and especially if you are a small farmer, you get loads of "unannounced visits" from the RSPCA, DEFRA and Trading Standards, especially if the local departments have been infiltrated by the animal rights movement.
Posted by: Giles Tamer | Wednesday, 15 October 2008 at 07:04 PM
So, the "implementation of a poultry round table discussion to determine a long term strategic approach to the humane killing of chickens" and "support of research into animal welfare improvements across the whole industry, through funding the Food Animal Initiative" gets an award? I suppose it must, given that the FAI is an RSPCA project, funded by Tesco as well as Muckdonalds.
Posted by: James Pembroke | Friday, 17 October 2008 at 06:32 PM
""So in the UK, where consumers are more concerned about such issues than in the US, McDonald's has done some good things. In the US and the rest of the world, its policies are less stringent, suggesting perhaps that its low-cruelty menu here owes more to marketing than ethics.""
This shows that public pressure really does work. All large companies are formed to make a profit, its up to us, the customer, to make sure they make it ethically. If the Americans aren't interested enough in animal welfare then neither will McUSA
Posted by: Alan | Saturday, 18 October 2008 at 09:25 AM