Letter: McCruelty that's hard to swallow
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.GIVEN THE propensity for McDonald's to attempt to conceal its activities by litigation, I can understand the muted tone of your feature "Everyone loves a McNasty" (4 April). What is not recorded is that McDonald's did not appeal against the judge's finding that most decent people about to bite into a Big Mac would find it troubling that the company had been "culpably responsible" for cruelty to laying hens, guilty of "cruel practice" in relation to broiler hens and guilty of cruelty to sows. Mr Justice Bell found that allegations of cruelty "in the rearing and slaughter of some of the animals that are used to produce [McDonald's food]" had been justified by the defendants and were "true in substance and in fact". Not everyone loves a "McNasty", or even a Big Mac.
DAVID MASON
Newcastle on Tyne
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments