Palm Oil - the Exhausting Quest for Ethical Shopping
It’s pretty safe to say that most of us try to live ethically, that is avoiding harming others and trying to live up to our own ideals of justice, fairness, or freedom. But one thing you’ll find out fairly quickly when living in our modern consumerist society, is that you can only make your own choices for as far as large corporations allow you to. For the most part, that is. In this series, I’ll share some of my experiences in trying to put words into actions, specifically when it comes to everyday shopping. Today, I’m having a look at palm oil.
Palm oil: what the issues are
One of the main reasons why it’s used so much compared to other types of oils, besides its versatility and its many uses, is because it has higher oil yields per area than any other plant-based oil. So it saves a lot on land use. But what is so terrible about palm oil then?
The oil palm has been cultivated for centuries in Africa, but in the 60s and 70s the industry expanded rapidly, especially in Indonesia and Malaysia. According to a Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) report, around 85 percent of the world’s palm oil is currently produced in those two countries. One of the main issues is that forests are often cut down and peatlands drained to clear new land for palm tree plantations, in order to keep up with the ever-growing demand for palm oil. A lot of carbon dioxide is released during these clearings as the soil and vegetation decomposes, as peat soils hold a enormous amount of carbon (the UCS report cites a study that estimated it around 22 times that of the forest standing above). Furthermore, by removing all the trees, a major carbon sink (something that absorbs carbon dioxide instead of emitting it) is also removed, contributing to global warming. And then we haven’t even mentioned the staggering harm done to wildlife, and the exploitation of workers, children, and local communities. I’ll list a few quick facts to further convey the magnitude of the problem:
Around 10% of annual global carbon dioxide emissions result from tropical deforestation (UCS report)
Tropical forests contain two-thirds of the planet’s terrestrial species, about 15% of which can survive when they’re converted to plantations (UCS report)
Half of the Bornean oranguatan population has been wiped out in 16 years time with habitat destruction by the palm oil industry as a leading driver. They are just one of 193 species that are threatened by palm oil production (Greenpeace)
According to official figures released by the Indonesian government, around 24 million hectares of the country’s rainforests was destroyed between 1990 and 2015 (Greenpeace) That would cover two-thirds of Germany.
Okay, so it’s kind of bad. What about sustainable alternatives?
So this is where things get tricky. Once you make up your mind that you don’t want to contribute to destruction of rainforest, local communities and wildlife, you inevitably ask yourself: how can I change my behaviour so that I’m no longer a part of this?
You’ll start checking out all the labels on products you normally buy, and you start noticing that palm oil is literally everywhere. From butters and potato crisps, to shampoos and lipsticks. So, should we just stop eating anything with palm oil in it? Suddenly buying your groceries turns into some kind of treasure hunt. Even the World Wildlife Fund says you shouldn’t do that. They state that “Boycotts of palm oil will neither protect nor restore the rainforest, whereas companies undertaking actions for a more sustainable palm oil industry are contributing to a long-lasting and transparent solution.” Okay, now we have something to work with. So you start scouring all those ingredient lists for ‘sustainable palm oil’. It takes some initial effort but after a while you know exactly which brands put words like ‘sustainable’ on their packaging, large multinational companies like Unilever and Nestle, who according to an extensive report by the Union of Concerned Scientists have a strong commitment to deforestation-free palm oil. They do however acknowledge how many companies still lack “transparency” and “traceability” when it comes to their supply chains. Pretty essential stuff, surely.
Should it then come as a surprise that Greenpeace announced last week that the deadly red haze that engulfed swathes of Indonesia, Singapore, and Malaysia a few months ago, and which were attributed to the clearing of rainforests for palm oil plantations, can be linked to those same companies that claim to be committed to sustainable palm oil? They’re not directly deforesting rainforests, but just like the clothing, electronics, or chocolate industry claims to have little control over the slavery that consistently occurs in their supply lines, they keep directly contributing to it regardless. And directly profiting from it. How else are we supposed to look at the fact that of the 30 producers most linked to Indonesia’s fires, Nestle bought from 28 and Unilever from at least 27 of these? And isn’t it kind of sad that an Indonesian government spokesperson can credibly claim that the “haze could also have been caused by other fires raging in Malaysia, the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Vietnam, East Timor, and Thailand”?
Here is an example of how problematic the whole concept of sustainability even is. I recently bought a bag of crisps (I’ll avoid naming it, since I’m not mentioning this to discredit them specifically), which used “certified organic” palm oil. I found that this oil was sourced from ‘ethical organic cooperatives in South America’ and ultimately traced it to the Santa Marta mountain rage in Colombia. It then took me little more than a quick Wikipedia search to find out that around 70 to 80% of the original forest has been cleared in the last fifty years, apparently mostly for coca cultivation, the primary resource for making cocaine. I believe wholeheartedly that these cooperatives try to farm sustainably and fairly compensate their workers, thereby providing a way out of poverty that doesn’t include the production of illegal drugs, but at the end of the day these farms are still on areas that used to be home to lush rainforests. (I am well aware that this same argument could also credibly be made for agriculture in Europe, where most of the natural forests cover has already been wiped out for centuries or longer. That doesn’t make it okay when it happens elsewhere, though, and the reason I bring this up is not to criticise these countries in particular, but to show how we’re dealing with a systemic issue)
A study into certified sustainable palm oil seems to confirm these suspicions. When analysing recent tree loss in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Papua New Guinea researchers found “significant tree loss before and after the start of certification schemes” and concluded that “current “sustainable palm oil” is often associated with recent habitat degradation and forest lost. In other words, certified palm oil production may not be so sustainable.”
So if even sustainable palm oil can’t be trusted, what should you do?
And that’s what it always comes back to. We’re told to make responsible decisions as consumers, to make our voices heard by shopping ethically, yet those efforts are undermined and made as difficult as possible every step of the way, either by sheer cost or by obfuscating and befuddling terms like “sustainable”, making it utterly impossible to make an informed choice. It’s simply not enough for consumers to change their behaviour. Is it really a matter of demand driving supply when companies keep putting things in products that no one really asks for or knows much about, and which you can’t even avoid if you try to?
That isn’t to say that you shouldn’t try to buy products from companies that strive for sustainable palm oil, it’s still better than buying unsustainable palm oil. And yes, you can also avoid buying products with palm oil in it altogether, that’s probably even better, as long as you’re not substituting one harmful oil for another. We hardly even need most of the products that contain palm oil anyway, products with barely any nutritional value like crisps and pizza. But ultimately something more consequential needs be done to really make a difference, and to prevent the destruction of unique ecosystems and the extinction of species like the Orangutan. These companies need to be held to account for the consequences of their actions, and ‘transparency’ and ‘traceability’ need to become mandatory before they’re allowed to sell these kinds of products. And perhaps most importantly, rich countries should invest in actual alternatives to unsustainable and unethical farming (or other industry) practices, promote human rights in poorer countries, and ultimately end the dependence of these countries on the production ‘cash crops’ (meaning crops that aren’t used to feed people but make a lot of money, which are then often used to buy cheap imported food) to sustain their economies, which is what often fuels these destructive practices.
Feel free to leave a comment below and contribute to the discussion, for instance if you have any ideas on how to avoid contributing to the devastating consequences of palm oil, or if you have any strategies to share for shopping ethically.
Note: Cover image from David Gilbert/Rainforest Alliance Network, can be found here , and has been used under the Creative Commons BY-NC 2.0 Licence.
Note: This post was first published on www.criticalconsent.com.