Organic Consumers Association

Paul Hawken Exposes Greenwashing: Chiquita, Horizon Organic, and McDonalds

February/March 2003 issue

Letter To The Editor (and Responses) featuring Paul Hawken and Amy Domini

We want to thank author, speaker and long time friend of GreenMoney, Paul
Hawken for raising several important issues in his recent Letter to the
Editor about our Dec./Jan. 2003 issue on Natural Products and Organic Foods.
With Paul's permission, we're sharing his letter, along with the responses
from the people and organizations that he took to task.

On one level, you'll see reflected in the letters a tactical debate among
leaders of the socially responsible investing and business communities, each
of whom seeks a better, more ethical world.

On another level, this discussion reflects a healthy and vibrant SRI family
that has come a long way from the earlier boycott days of "buy this/don't
buy that."

GreenMoney (GMJ) thanks the writers for having the courage and passion of
their convictions. The debate proves that our socially responsible investing
and business communities as well as the Natural Products industry are,
indeed, making a difference. We hope to have Wild Oats and Whole Foods
response in a future issue.
- Ted & Cliff

Letter the Editor from Paul Hawken:

Dear Cliff
I was reading GMJ (Dec/Jan 2003 issue) last night and was appreciating that
you use my quote in the front and even thinking I should give you a newer,
even better one. You are doing great work.

As I was reading it and past issues, a few questions arose that I would like
to share with you. You can publish this if you wish, as these are definitely
to the editor.

1. Why would you run an ad from Chiquita Brands on one hand, and then talk
about boycotting Philip Morris on the other? Excuse me, but Chiquita is a
part of a long effort to create a commodity monopoly. Below is an excerpt
from a paragraph on Chiquita from my piece on the WTO and Seattle. In short,
they have been an unjust company that has caused untold suffering for
decades. I realize that they are trying to change, and that is good. But it
is bizarre to see them in GMJ.

One recent example of the power of the WTO is Chiquita Brands International,
a $2 billion dollar corporation that in 1998 made a large donation to the
Democratic Party. Not so coincidentally and shortly thereafter, the United
States filed a complaint with the WTO against the European Union because
European import policies favored bananas coming from small Caribbean growers
instead of the banana conglomerates. The Europeans freely admitted their
bias and policy: they restricted imports from large multinational companies
in Central America (plantations whose lands were secured by U.S. military
force during the past century) and favored small family farmers from former
colonies who used fewer chemicals. It seemed like a decent thing to do, and
everyone thought the bananas tasted much better. For the banana giants like
Chiquita, this was untenable. The United States prevailed in this
WTO-arbitrated case and what immediately followed was the dumping of
Chiquita bananas into the EU at super low prices. So who won and who lost?
Did the Central American employees at Chiquita Brands win? Ask the hundreds
of workers in Honduras who were made infertile by the use of
dibromochloropropane on the banana plantations. Ask the mothers whose
children have birth defects from pesticide poisoning. Did the shareholders
of Chiquita win? At the end of 1999, Chiquita Brands was losing money
because it was selling bananas at below cost to muscle its way into the
European market. Its stock was at a 13-year low, the shareholders were
angry, the company was up for sale, but the prices of bananas in Europe are
really cheap. Who lost? Caribbean farmers who could formerly make a living
and send their kids to school can no longer do so because of low prices and

Chiquita will respond that their business was being "harmed". They say they
want fair trade rules, but this was forced trade, a violent process of
wrenching open markets under the threat of punitive tariffs. All monopolies
feel they are harmed when they can't get more. The question for all of us is
what is enough? What is big enough? How much power is too much power?

2. Why tout Whole Foods and Wild Oats and then talk of boycotting Philip
Morris when in fact Whole Foods and Wild Oats continue to buy from Phillip
Morris? Why not boycott Whole Foods or Wild Oats until they start getting
their values in alignment with corporate social responsibility? It is my
understanding that Whole Foods would not support a boycott. What does that
mean? Is this neo-liberal economic theory at work? Why not discuss founder
John Mackey's views on big box retailers and why he supports Wal-Mart and
other 'category killers' who contribute to traffic, sprawl, and the loss of
union jobs? Why is it that small family farmers are sacrosanct and needed,
but family retailers like the Provender Alliance are not even discussed when
it comes to social responsibility? Do we support industrial or factory
farming? If not, why do we support factory retailing? Is it even

3. Why not discuss the fact that companies that are talked about as
investments in Natural and Organic Foods are often predatory with very
spotty environmental and social track records, and in the cases shown, with
some questionable products as well? Just because they sell 'natural'
products, are we supposed to look the other way? The companies you featured
are on their way to becoming mini-conglomerates muscling out smaller
companies. There is a great confusion in this country between
competition and the ability of larger companies to externalize costs which
is what Horizon is doing with its ultra-pasteurized milk being sent long
distances. What about the environmental implications of all this fossil fuel
use when virtually every state in the union has small diaries that are going
out of business because they can't get a fair price? Horizon has had a
devastating effect on small organic dairies as outlined in Michael Pollan's
May 13, 2001 article in The New York Times magazine. What are we supposed to
be investing in? Growth for growth sake? The CEO of Horizon dismisses the
"grassroots" food movement as inadequate to the task. Why is over-the-top
growth seen as socially responsible?

4. In this issue, you talk with concern and sadness about the number of
overweight children in America. You might also have mentioned that
adult-onset "lifestyle" diabetes is increasingly being called Type 2
diabetes because it has doubled in American children in the past ten years
and is no longer limited to adults. Blame for it is placed squarely with
fast food by the Natural Institute Health. In a previous issue, you featured
comments and 'wisdom' from Amy Domini whose social index fund holds 357,000
shares of McDonald's. Bear in mind that in addition to the junk food
McDonald's makes, it is also the largest purveyor of Coke, a beverage that
has been called a liquid candy bar. We won't even get into McDonald's
union-busting activities, the fact that it entices small children to junk
food by giving away toys, or that it has caused untold damage to American
agriculture by forcing down costs.

So what gives? What does socially responsible investing mean? Is it a way
for upper middle class people to launder their money? Do the caretakers take
their job seriously? Is it simply a way to avoid the real issues? It seems
to me that the first thing we have to look at is the business model if we
are to determine whether a company is socially responsible. Getting kids
hooked on junk food doesn't qualify. If the business model is corrupt, then
it hardly matters if a company uses recycled paper or provides daycare.
It is not just what we do, e.g. sell organic foods, but how we do it.
In fact, what we do always comes from how.

All the best, Paul Hawken
3B Gate Five Road, Sausalito, CA 94965
(415) 332 6990 phone
(415) 331 0556 fax

The following are responses from Chiquita, Horizon Organic and Amy Domini of
the Domini Funds. Paul Hawken then responses to them.

January 15, 2003
To: Cliff Feigenbaum, The GreenMoney Journal
From: Jeff Zalla, Chiquita

Dear Cliff:
Thank you for providing an opportunity to respond to Mr. Hawken's comments
to The GreenMoney Journal about Chiquita. It appears that Mr. Hawken's
understanding of Chiquita's performance is outdated, and we would welcome an
opportunity to inform him directly of our more recent record of leadership
in corporate responsibility.

Over the past decade, we have engaged seriously with numerous concerned
stakeholders, including the leaders of several nongovernmental and labor
organizations that had been critical of the company's history. Even some of
Chiquita's harshest critics have become supporters once they began to
understand the company's genuine commitment to achieve rigorous standards of
environmental and social responsibility.

A recent corporate social responsibility profile of Chiquita in the
Financial Times had the headline: "The banana giant that found its gentle
side." A recent benchmarking survey sponsored by the United Nations
Environment Programme had the following praise for Chiquita's environmental
and social reporting: "Chiquita sets new standards with detailed assessments
of its farms in Latin America, using a rigorous set of environmental
standards set by the Better Banana Project, as well as ethical labor
standards in SA8000."

Times have changed. And so has our company. I would invite Mr. Hawken and
others who may share his views to review Chiquita's recent corporate
responsibility reports at- and judge for themselves based
upon current information.
Sincerely, Jeff Zalla
Corporate Responsibility Officer and Vice President, Corporate
Communications, Chiquita Brands International

Paul responses to Chiquita:

I have looked at Chiquita's recent reports and there is a remarkable change
afoot to be sure. But I also read the NY Times (January 18) which reported
how Chiquita is trying to prevent claims against the poisoning and
sterilization of it workers by the DBCP fumigant, a toxic chemical used by
the company on its plantations for many years after it was banned by the
United States EPA. These claims are being brought to court by plaintiffs in
Nicaragua where the injuries occurred. Chiquita has enlisted the Bush
administration to try to prevent these plaintiffs from seeking redress in
U.S. courts. A previous class action suit resulted in $1500 per worker, but
it did not cover all workers made sterile. Chiquita is taking the same stand
as Dow with respect to Bhopal victims, that DBCP is a thing of the past,
that it has no further responsibility. The victims feel differently.

Further, Mr. Zalla did not respond to the charge that Chiquita's aggressive
banana war in Europe devastated Caribbean farmers, and how that challenge
was brought about by donations to the Democratic Party which would be called
corruption if we didn't live in such corrupt times. I don't believe that
Caribbean farmers or Chiquita's poisoned workers would agree with Mr.
Zalla's assessment, so the question remains, socially responsible to whom?

Horizon Organic responses to Paul Hawken:
January 10, 2003
To: Cliff Feigenbaum, GreenMoney Journal
From: Kelly Shea, Horizon Organic Holding Corporation

Dear Mr. Feigenbaum,
Thank you for providing an opportunity to respond to Mr. Hawken's comments
and the inclusion of Horizon Organic in The Green Money Journal's Dec./Jan.
2003 issue on shopping and investing with your values.

In regards to Michael Pollan's article in The New York Times Magazine (May
2001), the author's negative comments about Horizon Organic were not based
on fact, and unfortunately he never visited our dairies nor spoke with any
of our producer partners. The situation was best summed up by one of our
organic dairy producer partners in a letter to the editor following the
release of the article. Christine and Art Couperus of Fish Creek Family Farm
in Heuvelton, New York felt "compelled to set the record straight" and said
in their letter "Dairy farmers like us do not have the time, resources,
experience or knowledge to market our milk directly to consumers. Companies
such as Horizon Organic enable small-scale dairy farmers to connect to
consumers in a way that we never could on our own - they provide a market
for our milk and enable us to make a living farming organically."

The Couperus' letter concludes: "The only point in the article that I agree
with is that Horizon Organic is the leader in the organic industry. It's
this leadership that has helped hundreds of independent family dairies like
mine to convert to organic production. I support Horizon Organic's goal of
bringing organic milk to mainstream Americans because it allows me and other
organic dairy farmers to expand and prosper."

Since its founding, Horizon Organic's vision has been to make a lasting
contribution by encouraging the conversion of conventional farmland to
sustainable organic production. The company's mission statement, "We will
expand organic agriculture by building Horizon Organic as the world's
leading brand of organic food products" has always impressed me, in that the
goal of increasing acres farmed organically is the first part of the mission
statement. The way to get there is the second part, by building the brand.

This cannot be accomplished by negatively impacting communities and farmers,
but rather by developing long lasting, honest relationships with local
organic milk and grain producers, feed mills and processors. There is a
local story behind the national brand. Horizon Organic partners with almost
200 family farms (ranging in herd size from 12 to 1300 cows) throughout the
United States. These dairy farmers in turn purchase organic feedstuffs from
other local farmers who in turn buy supplies from their local stores and
make other purchases that support the local agricultural community. As
Horizon Organic grows, every part of this network grows, spreading the
positive benefits of organic agriculture throughout local communities across
the country.

Our company contributes to many local and national causes, donates its
products to food banks and other charities, and supports environmental
groups and farming collectives. As a dedicated steward of the land, Horizon
Organic has significantly contributed not only to building awareness of
organic foods, but also to demonstrating a commitment to sustainability and
socially responsible practices. This year we were very proud to receive the
Colorado Ethics in Business Award. This award, founded by The Samaritan
Institute, Daniels College of Business and ColoradoBiz Magazine, recognizes
companies that have demonstrated business success together with a proven
record of ethical conduct and socially responsible business practices.
Horizon Organic also earned the Corporate Conscience Award, given by the
Council on Economic Priorities for Environmental Stewardship. The award
honors companies that have demonstrated a commitment to sustainability.

I am personally very pleased with what Horizon Organic has been able to
achieve in cooperation with organic farmers across the nation. Through the
Horizon Organic Agriculture Project (HOAP), we lobby Congress, the USDA, and
other federal, state and local agencies on behalf of our farmers and work
together to build the strength of Horizon Organic's agricultural stewardship
and provide research and education for current and future organic partners.
At the former Naval Academy Dairy in Annapolis, Maryland we have built an
organic Farm and Education Center where we are working to educate children
and their families about the important relationships between agriculture and
the environment. The Farm and Education Center is the largest organic farm
on the eastern seaboard.

Our record speaks for itself. I was raised by an organic mom, have worked in
the organic industry for over a decade, and I am extremely pleased to be a
part of Horizon Organic.
Sincerely, Kelly Shea,
Director of Organic Agriculture,
Horizon Organic Holding Corporation

Paul responses to Horizon Organic:
I think this is an excellent response. But again, the justification does not
address my concerns. My concern is the business model. I don't believe that
a powerful, one-size-fits-all organic dairy conglomerate that effectively
puts all other organic dairies out of business is the right way to go. It
does have the benefits outlined by Mr. Shea and those are not to be sneezed
at. But nationalization of what was and should be a regional business does
not lead to independence in the farming community, but dependence on a
national pricing model that will lead to the lowest organic standards, not
the highest. Diversity is just as critical to economic health as it is to
ecosystem health.

Amy Domini responses to Paul Hawken:
The Power of SRI (and Why We Own McDonald's)
from: Amy Domini, Founder and CEO, Domini Social Investments

Socially responsible investing is, and has been for 20 years, a methodology
for harnessing the power of finance, the power of investors, and turning
that power to good purpose. The responsible investor believes that by
following simple practices the population of the planet can enjoy universal
human dignity and ecological sustainability. The responsible investor does
not believe that there is such a thing as a socially responsible company to
invest in, but rather believes that there are gradations in the progress a
company has made towards becoming more responsible, and that these
gradations are worth emphasizing.

While our industry did grow out of an older, faith-based approach that
focused on the importance of avoiding making money from sin, that approach
was replaced in the early 1980s when the debate over corporate support of
the system of apartheid in South Africa was raging. Nelson Mandela credited
the socially responsible investment movement in the U.S. with giving him his
most important lever in convincing the government of that nation to

Why? What did my industry do? It forced companies to report in a systematic
way each year the data proving their progress towards a more just society.
The Sullivan Principles reports were specific. Questions like "How many
blacks supervise how many coloreds?" were answered and evaluated. In a few
short years civil society had evidence that scandalized decent people, and
the fervor that resulted gave Mr. Mandela his power.

That's when I, along with Peter Kinder and Steven D. Lydenberg, began
structuring something that would create comprehensive corporate audits,
audits that could awaken the power of civil society. We formed a company,
KLD Research & Analytics, Inc., that had as a goal the removal of barriers
to SRI. Back then the primary barrier was that people were sure that they'd
lose money, so we designed the Domini 400 Social Index, which proved
otherwise. Today the primary barrier is that people don't think SRI makes a
difference. This attitude underlies Mr. Hawken's position that the Domini
Social Equity Fund is defrauding the public or is otherwise a farce because
it owns an unpure company.

Socially responsible investors do three things: (1) We buy better companies
so as to create the conversation about what goes into "better," and so as to
create the structure for tracking "better." (2) We are better owners by
raising issues of concern with our companies, through face-to-face dialogue
or through sponsoring resolutions to be voted on at the company's annual
meeting. (3) We are better neighbors through our direct support of community
development financial institutions.

Domini Social Investments does all three things in a highly successful and
highly leveraged way. We buy better companies (more on that later), we have
filed dozens of shareholder resolutions with impressive results, and we have
created investment vehicles that have allowed our shareholders to channel
tens of millions of dollars into community development financial
institutions around the country. I do not believe that it is an exaggeration
to say that we have made a difference.

So why do we own McDonald's? First, understand that we do not look for the
best; we look for the better. That's how you build the Sullivan Principles
of today; that's how you build a complex global corporate accountability

Second, know that we do not punish success; if we were to eliminate beef we
would eliminate all players (just as we eliminate tobacco and for-profit
prisons), not just the household names. That's true of coffee shops,
clothing retailers, hardware stores, and a number of industries with a clear
(and controversial) industry leader.

Third, we try to invest in a manner that reflects what most socially
responsible investors want. Despite the health concerns concerning fast food
that Mr. Hawken highlights, including obesity and the increase in Type 2
diabetes, mainstream social investors have not yet decided that they will
refuse to invest in companies that sell fast food or that make use of
factory farming. For instance, although Ben & Jerry's (now owned by
Unilever) has been criticized for selling a high-fat food product, it has
still been considered a forward-looking company by most social investors.

We own McDonald's because we do not eliminate all restaurants and because we
do not eliminate all beef. As a restaurateur and as a major seller of beef,
the company has done a number of very positive things. In 1990, for example,
the company responded to environmental concerns by entering into a
partnership with the Environmental Defense Fund to reduce solid wastes at
the company, particularly the company's use of nonrecyclable polystyrene

Our diversity profile shows that McDonald's has created more successful
African American entrepreneurs than virtually any other U.S. corporation. It
has promoted minorities and women to middle and upper management positions
in percentages matched by few U.S. and effectively no European companies.

However, we, like Mr. Hawken, believe that when a company is the largest, we
can expect more of it, and should hold it to a higher standard. That's why
we support initiatives to pressure Starbucks into providing Fair Trade
coffee, and products free of genetically modified organisms. It is why we
filed resolutions with Home Depot to address their record of promoting women
and minorities. And that is what led to the removal of Wal-Mart and of Nike
from our portfolio, for we felt that these industry leaders ought to have
taken a leadership position regarding the sweatshop issue. It does not mean
that the companies in their industries that we retained have a spotless

By strong contrast, McDonald's has an impressive record of
responsiveness to our concerns. They responded on the beef sourcing issue,
and annually reassert that they do not purchase beef from rainforest lands.
They responded to concerns on the chicken sourcing issue, forcing a
sweeping change in the way chickens are farmed, as farmers were forced to
comply with McDonald's stricter standards. They responded to Domini Social

Investments on the sweatshop issue, inviting concerned shareholders to work
with them towards strengthening their social compliance programs, and their
level of public accountability. As a result of this dialogue, McDonald's has
produced its first public reports describing how it works to ensure that the
products it sources are produced in decent working conditions. None of this
makes McDonald's a pure, "socially responsible company." It is strong
evidence, however, that McDonald's is responsive to these concerns and is
doing a better job addressing them than many of its competitors.

Accusing me of being inconsistent or misleading because I own McDonald's is
naive and hurtful. It demonstrates that Mr. Hawken would place socially
responsible investors into the same camp as fundamentalists: all about
personal purity and throwing stones. Socially responsible investing is about
building a structure. That structure has demonstrated that McDonald's is one
of the better burger sellers. It doesn't address whether burgers should be
for sale at all because, to date, most social investors have not taken that
position. It doesn't address my own position as a non-eater of beef (which I
avoid out of solidarity with the poor and not out of personal health
concerns). However, it does address the need to bring investors - and with
them the financial services industry, the most powerful global institution
on the planet -into active dialogue on better defining the role corporations
must take if they are to continue to dominate our lives.

I believe that Mr. Hawken and I are in complete agreement as to the threats
humankind faces and even as to the solutions. I have tremendous personal
admiration for the work he has done. It is my hope that he will learn more
about my work, more about where finance would be taking us were it not for
SRI, and more about the tremendous impact we have already had on
corporations. My greatest challenge is that people like Mr. Hawken, people I
think of as struggling toward the same goals I struggle toward, do not see
the important role socially responsible investors as political advocates
have played. We are not applying eco-fundamentalism to investments, we are
entering the belly of the beast of the financial/corporate juggernaut and we
are shaping it. That's our role, and that's why I own McDonald's in the
Domini Social Equity Fund.

Paul responses to Amy Domini:
I am a big fan of socially responsible investing. And it is my enthusiasm
for the redirecting of financial capital that makes me surprised at seeing
McDonald's in any portfolio called socially responsible. What is most
noticeable in Amy Domini's response is the Orwellian logic that justifies
McDonald's being granted this standard.

Beef or my personal beliefs about what people should eat are not my concern.
Harming children, workers, and the environment are concerns. What is at
issue is the business model. McDonald's business model is not burgers. The
business model is to entice and lure children with clowns, toys, and
advertisements into a lifetime of junk food consisting of burgers, fries,
Coke, and food additives. This diet causes obesity, heart disease, and type
2 diabetes, a debilitating and devastating disease. If you read the
literature, (even the company's own manuals), the burgers are a low margin
come-on in order to sell high margin fries and Cokes (91% profit). We know
that fast food is the number one cause of childhood obesity and diabetes. We
know that McDonald's spends $2 billion dollars a year to convince children
to eat badly. In a survey of nine and ten year olds, half of them said they
thought that Ronald McDonald knew best what kids should eat. And we know
McDonald's is aware of the scientific and government data pointing to their
food, promotion, and business model as being a cause of suffering for
children and adults in later life. We also know that they are a client of
the Golin/Harris PR agency who formed the "Global Obesity Task Force" last
year so that companies can "withstand brand trust" erosion from consumers
and special interest groups who want to hold big corporations partially
responsible for the alarming rise in childhood obesity.

How can a company whose mission harms children and its workers be called
socially responsible? To call this into question is not throwing stones, it
is asking if the emperor has any clothes on. To say that "mainstream
socially responsible investors" haven't made up their mind about this
implies that social responsibility can be defined by large money managers.
Again, who appointed these people caretakers of the language? Who among them
ever worked in a McDonald's? Who among them was fired for trying to
unionize? Who among them worked at the McDonald's at LAX where workers were
forbidden to fraternize with union workers at other restaurants and escorted
by Pinkertons to their car? The work at McDonald's is numbing, stupefying
and demeaning by every account.

The vast majority of workers at McDonald's lack full-time employment, do not
have any benefits, have no or little control over their workplace, and quit
after a few months. Ninety percent of the workers are paid hourly and have
no benefits. Fast food pays a higher proportion of minimum wage to its
workers than any other industry in America. You say they offer good jobs,
but turnover is 3-400% a year. Workers have tried to improve working
conditions but have been harassed and fired. The only time a restaurant was
unionized recently was in 1997 in Montreal. The restaurant was closed just
before the union was certified. To say McDonald's has actively worked to
crush trade unions is an understatement. McDonald's jobs have been purposely
de-skilled so as to be able to hire minimum wage workers on an
interchangeable basis. One-third of fast food workers speaks no English. You
call that diversity, but most people call that exploitation. McDonald's
trade organization, the National Council of Chain Restaurants, has fought
hard to prevent enforcement of OHSA regulations at fast food chains. Ask the
workers if I am throwing stones. Ask them if they think well off people
should be benefiting from their working conditions. If Domini is serious
about socially responsible investing, maybe it will start listening to the
workers instead of highly paid executives. Maybe it would be good to talk to
an obese child with clogged arteries and diabetes and get his or her
feelings on the subject.

I don't believe I am being purist or fundamentalist. I think I am being
real. I see a SRI movement that has gotten lazy about standards and meaning.
Using money to change practices at a company is called shareholder action.
Everyone applauds that as do I. Selling McDonald's as socially responsible
investment is socially irresponsible. Getting them to stop doing things they
never should have done in the first place (buying antibiotic laced chickens
for example) is good, but that doesn't mean they are socially responsible.
If I am hitting someone and asked to stop it, that doesn't make me a gentle

The question I have to ask you is when is McDonald's big enough for Domini?
Since you invest, you must think that shareholder money will grow in value.
Is it enough for you that one in five meals in the U.S. is a fast food meal?
As a SR investor, do you want that figure to be one in three; how about
every other meal? What about the developing world? Do you want to see
McDonald's help convince the rest of the world to drink the equivalent of
597 cans of soda pop ("liquid candy" according to Michael Jacobsen) a year,
as do Americans? Would you think your investment successful when 30% of the
world is obese just like Americans are? Do you think every third global meal
should be comprised of greasy meat, fries, and
caramelized sugar? I hope you do, because that's McDonald's mission, and
that's the company that is "better" by your standards.

"Sustaining" McDonald's requires a simple unsustainable formula: cheap food
plus cheap non-unionized labor plus deceptive advertising equals high
profits. McDonald's recent sustainability report was a mish mash of
generalities and platitudes. A real report to stakeholders and investors
will tell how much it truly costs society to support a corporation like
McDonald's. It would detail the externalities - the societal and
environmental costs not counted in corporate annual reports and accounting
documents - borne by other people, places, and generations.

In McDonald's case, these externalities include: the draining of aquifers;
the contaminated waterways; the strip-mined soils; the dangerous meatpacking
plants where migrant workers are employed; the inhumane, injury-prone
dead-end jobs preparing chicken carcasses for Chicken McNuggets; the global
greenhouse methane gas emitted by the millions of hamburger cows in
feedlots; the impact of their $2 billion advertising and promotional
campaigns to convince young people to demand their food; the ethics of using
toys and dolls to induce girls and boys into their restaurants. The list is
longer than this. Unless the core values of the company are to nourish and
protect children, you cannot make the supply chain socially responsible
because the final outcome is destructive to life. McDonald's should not be
sustained by people thinking their money, placed in SRI funds, is going to a
good cause. McDonald's recent initiatives, which you think make them
socially responsible, are best described by Henry Thoreau as "Improved means
to an unimproved end."

Email your comments to-

Home | News | Organics | GE Food | Health | Environment | Food Safety | Fair Trade | Peace | Farm Issues | Politics
Español | Campaigns | Buying Guide | Press | Search | Donate | About Us | Contact Us

Organic Consumers Association - 6771 South Silver Hill Drive, Finland MN 55603
E-mail: Staff · Activist or Media Inquiries: 218-226-4164 · Fax: 218-353-7652
Please support our work. Send a tax-deductible donation to the OCA

Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.