So-Called "Ethical" Food may accomplish the opposite of what you hope: Source: The Economist, December 9, 2006, pgs. 12, 72-75 Fairtrade Rep, "You don't have to wait for government to move...the really fantastic thing about Fairtrade is that you can go shopping and make a difference" Marion Nestle, New York University, "When you choose organics, you are voting for a plant with fewer pesticides, richer soil, and cleaner water supplies". The philosophy: If you want to help poor farmers, buy Fairtade. If you are worried about the environment, buy organic. If you want to stand again multinational companies and globlization, buy local. ***Organic food, grown without pesticides and fertilizers. But farming is inherently bad for the environment as it results in deforestation. The green revolution of the 60's using chemical fertiliser has tripled grain yields with little increase in the land area under cultivation. Organic methods, relying on crop rotation, require several times as much land as is currently cultivated to create our current yield. ****Fairtrade food is designed to raise poor farmers' incomes. It is sold at a higher pricer than ordinary food, with a subsidy passed back to the farmer. Prices of some agricultural commodies (like coffee) are low because of overproduction. By propping up the price, and continuing to overproduce, the Fairtrade system enourages farmers to produce more of these commodities rather than diversifying into other crops and so depresses prices further - therefore achieving for most farmers the opposite of what the initiative is intended to achieve. And since only a fraction of the mark-up goes to the farmers (less than 10%), most goes to retailer - giving rich consumers an inflated impression of their largesse and makes alleviating poverty seem too easily. It also does not address the farmers who work for plantations. Fairtrade coffee, like organic produce, is sold in supermarkets, is often used by corporations as a means of identifying consumers who will pay more for products. The Rainforest Alliance (RA logo) certifies producers of all kinds, doesn't guarantee a substidy or a minimum price; products must fend for themselves on the market. RA certifies that it has provided training, advice and better access to credit. RA wants farmers to be in control of their own businesses and decisions, learn to survive in the competitive global market and not become dependent on some NGO to survive. *****By choosing local produce and taking a stand against multinational companies, is flawed. Taking into account the energy used in production and transport, local food my be even less green. Producing lamb in New Zealand and shipping to Britain uses less energy than producing British lamb becasue farming in New Zealand is less energy-intensive. Local food movement caould be loosed at suspiciously like old-fashioned protectionism. Conclusion: So what should the ethical shopper do? Shopping is very trivial as a solution. Real change will come in action by governments, e.g. a global carbon tax, reform of the world trade system, abiollition of agricultural tariffs and subsidies. The good thing about the ethical food movement is that sends a signal to politicians that there is an appetite for change. The ballot box is the solution. Vote.
|