Fast-food giant justifies packaging
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.McDONALD'S claimed in the High Court yesterday that in a fast-food restaurant it is more environmentally friendly to use disposable packaging than conventional cutlery and crockery, writes Danny Penman.
Robert Langert, McDonald's director of environmental affairs, made the claims in evidence for a libel action brought by the hamburger chain against two environmentalists accused of writing, publishing and distributing a leaflet stating the company is responsible for acts of environmental destruction and produces food that causes cancer, heart disease and diabetes.
Helen Steel and Dave Morris, who are conducting their own defence to save costs, deny libel, arguing the claims are a fair comment on the company's activities.
Mr Langert claimed the use of conventional crockery and cutlery would require a large dishwasher 'which would probably be the largest energy consumer in the restaurant'. 'It would consume hundreds of gallons of water per hour and it would use detergents and chemicals to clean.'
Mr Langert admitted the company generally lagged behind public opinion on environmental matters but said 'they wished to take into account the science'.
The case continues.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments