"McDomination," by Gina Kramer
Harvard International Review; Cambridge; Summer 2000, 2.2, 12-13.

Abstract:
Through successful global marketing of the McDonald's franchise, the "Golden Arches" have come to symbolize consistent,
routine American fast food. Yet in recent months the calm facade of McDonalds has been marred by shattering glass and
squawking poultry set to roam freely throughout the restaurants, accompanies by the yells of protestors who have led these
attacks on the chain restaurants. The anger behind the protests stems from a set of inter-related issues: escalating trade
tensions and the importation of hormone-treated beef, dispute over the openness of the Europe Union markets to US goods,
and French fears of the decay of their national culture as the US burrows deeper into French society.

Trade and the Golden Arches

Through the successful global marketing of the McDonald's franchise, the "Golden Arches" have come to symbolize consistent, routine American
fast food.

Yet in recent months the calm facade of McDonald's has been marred by shattering glass and squawking poultry set to roam freely throughout the
restaurants, accompanied by the yells of protesters who have led these attacks on the chain restaurants. Protests from Millau, France to
Seattle,Washington have grabbed headlines.These protests reflect a set of legitimate and salient trade and cultural grievances situated along a
Franco-American divide. The anger behind the protests stems from a set of inter-related issues: escalating trade tensions about the importation of
hormone-treated beef, disputes over the openness of European Union (EU) markets to US goods, and French fears of the decay of their national
culture as US popular culture burrows deeper into French society. Both because it sells large quantities of beef and because it symbolizes US
culture, McDonald's has become a focus for dissent.

Much of the discontent between France and the United States can be attributed to controversies over the two trade issues. The first dispute, which
has been dubbed the"banana war," stems from US complaints that certain EU markets (including the banana market) are unfairly limiting imports
from US producers in Central America in favor of imports from former European colonies.When the EU refused to alter its import policies in early
1999, tensions grew. The dispute that has played a greater role in these protests has been labeled the "beef war." In 1989, the EU placed a ban on
imports of beef produced with the aid of synthetic growth hormones, a common practice in US cattle raising.After outbreaks of the Creutzfeldt
Jakob or "mad cow" disease in 1996,tensions between the EU and the United States came to a head when the World Trade Organization (WTO)
issued a controversial ruling in 1997. This decision, made by a three-judge WTO-appointed panel, ruled that not enough scientific evidence existed to
justify the beef ban.The EU did not rescind its policy in response to this finding, but rather countered in May 1999 with findings that at least one type
of hormone used in some beef production could cause cancer,while carcinogenic effects from five other hormones could be hypothesized.The WTO
held its ground, and the United States responded in July 1999 to both the banana and beef disputes by imposing a high tariff on European luxury
goods, including French products such as Roquefort cheese and pate de fois gras.

One month after sanctions were imposed, Jose Bove, the leader of the antiMcDonald's protests in France, explicitly stated that this US tax on
luxury goods was a direct motivation for the August 12, 1999,protest in Millau,France that caused US$120,000 worth of damage.The
disproportionate economic impact of the US luxury tax on France may explain why reaction was more pronounced in France than elsewhere in the
EU.

But the motivation behind these protests lies also in French fears that McDonalds engenders cultural decay in France. Bove expressed these
fears:"We have done everything we can to make Roquefort a pure and safe product. The Americans had already doubled the tax on it, and then
they arrived on our doorstep, cooking their cheeseburgers. It was too much.We had to go in." Indeed, Bove has become something of an offbeat
cultural hero among some culturally defensive French citizens because of his desire to protect the French culinary tradition,a desire expressed in the
protesters' chant, "McDo Dehors, Gardons le Roquefort!" (or McDonald's Get Out, Let's Keep the Roquefort!). McDonald's is representative of
cultural threats, Bove insists, because "McDonald's is shorthand for food that is bland and uniform."

Bove's is not alone in his position.The French newspaper, Le Montredon Journal, noted in October 1999 that the radical Bove was constantly
mentioned in French media, which "laud[ed] him for his refusal to bow to globalization," while a radio broadcast on the popular French station RTL
(Radio Television Luxembourg) called him "the spirit of France." Daily newspapers such as Le Monde and Liberation have also singled out Bove as
a galvanizes of the popular mood. Even the French president, Jacques Chirac, while acknowledging that violent tactics were an inappropriate means
of expression, praised the content of Bove's ideas and affirmed that no single power should have control over world food markets. He even
remarked that he also "detests McDonald's food."

These protests have underscored the severity of the ongoing trade and cultural debates. Since economic and cultural grievances are both crucial
and inter-related components of the anger that spurs people like Bove,any solution would need to address both facets. Yet the trade aspect seems
easier to approach than the cultural tensions. One proposed solution to the trade war would raise the amount of hormone-free beef imports from the
US allowed into the EU to compensate for a sustained ban on the hormone-- treated variety.Another plan would allow imports of hormone-treated
beef into the EU, but require that they be specially labeled. Proposed solutions to the "banana war-" often involve a compromise on the level of EU
market openness or reduced tariffs on US imports to the EU. Searching for such a resolution, French and US negotiators brought their respective
claims to Seattle in late November 1999 for a round of crucial WTO talks, an event disrupted by another attack on a local McDonalds. No
progress toward a compromise was made at the Seattle talks.

While the more subjective banana dispute has been difficult to solve, even hard scientific evidence has proven inconsequential in past trade disputes.
Thus while the true dangers of hormone-- treated beef must certainly be assessed and studied, a scientific consensus would not guarantee a
resolution. After the EU dropped its ban on British beef in August 1999, declaring that Creutzfeldt Jakob disease no longer presented a safety
hazard in beef exports, France continued to uphold a unilateral ban on British beef alleging new evidence that it was unsafe. Likewise, the United
States and the EU, specifically France, may well continue their trade policies, ignoring scientific evidence.

If the trade issues cannot be solved through negotiated settlements, they will continue to act as catalysts for cultural unease and resentment.
Scientific efforts to gain knowledge about the health implications of hormones are crucial, but they must be complemented by a WTO-sanctioned
process of bargaining and compromise that respects the views, concerns, and grievances of both France and the United States. Without such steps,
cultural animosity will continue to flare, and the weight of the golden arches may bear ever more heavily on the souls of Francophiles like Bove and
his compatriots.