Don’t palm us off campaign
December 29th, 2009 at 7:00 am by David FarrarAuckland Zoo is running a campaign to ask Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) to label palm oil on all food products that contain palm oil and its derivatives.
Palm oil is fine when made from existing crops, but in South East Asia, they are clearing the equivalent of 300 rugby fields an hour of rainforest, for new palm oil plantations
I am all in favour of labelling, as opposed to banning. Consumer choice and empowerment is good. You can sign their petition here.
The campaign has been very smart. The Rhys Darby ad above is nicely done, but sending out a large non palm oil chocolate bar with their media kit was a great way to make sure the message got read 
December 29th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Some observations about Palm Oil -
1. No one had even heard of the stuff before all that hysteria over Cadbury’s chocolate back in July (go on – be honest, admit you had never heard of it six months ago)
2. 300 Rugby fields per hour are being cleared in South East Asia …. ummmmm?!?! …so what??
3. I had no idea Rugby was so popular in the Orient
http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Well if they label products containing Palm Oil I will know what to buy.
Quoting bogus Greenpeace claims now David?
The only thing wrong with Palm Oil is it is a very good product on many levels but in particular it has the potential to lift a great many people out of poverty – which is an anathema to over privileged wackos who have never known need or want and have the luxury of having the time and resources to protest instead of living a hard scrabble existence just to merely to survive.
By the way enjoy your Chocolate sans Palm Oil and don’t think too deeply about the origin of the Cocoa butter which was quite likely produced by slave Labor in Africa which is fine by environmentalists because they don’t really like people at all (except their own sort of course who are marginally ok)
December 29th, 2009 at 9:48 am
” in South East Asia, they are clearing the equivalent of 300 rugby fields an hour of rainforest, for new palm oil plantations ”
Citation please. I put this in the same category as Tuvalu is being threatened by rising sea levels and polar bears are facing extinction. Extremist environmental propaganda or if you like, lies.
Then I could be wrong. Either way, there’s no possibility I could ever accept the above claim without some supporting references.
December 29th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Oh come on. Why are they growing more palm oil then? Because the Greens want biofuels to replace fossil fuels. FFS, you can’t have it both ways. The world has gone mad!
Vote:By the way, DPF, if you were paid in chocolate for this “ad” you probably should have declared that!
December 29th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Can we grow Palm Oil plantations in NZ?
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Who are we to say that others cannot convert their ground cover to profitable cropping? We now have grass: should we have kept exotic forestry for animal feed? Green has got to be equated with stupid, allied with self righteous controllers
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 10:19 am
1. I do not believe the 300 rugby fields claim for the simple fact that activists said it. Environmentalists have no reason to honestly report facts that are hard to verify. When’s the last time an environmental group wasn’t caught exaggerating when someone checked?
2. It is not clear what the problem is. CO2 absorbing crops are going to be planted. Some of the world’s poorest people are going to be employed. The world supply of a “sustainable” (whatever that means) valuable commodity is increased. The trade off is less jungle. It isn’t obvious to me at least that this isn’t a massive win for humanity, including those who care about the environment.
Sounds to me like these activsts may be dreaded utility monsters.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Actually, having looked into it after reading the above claim, I find there is a tonne of stuff out there that questions the accuracy of the “300 rugby fields an hour” claim.
For example-
http://www.cfact.org/a/195/The-clearcutting-facts-about-the-rainforest
or
http://www.worldgrowth.org/assets/files/WG_Indonesia_Brief.pdf
I don’t come to Kiwiblog to read environmental propaganda Mr. Farrar. Maybe you need to think a bit about blurring your brand, and whether publishing stories that have their base in the environmental religion, and would be better placed on Frog Blog for example, helps your marketing plan or hinders it.
December 29th, 2009 at 10:33 am
People can make their own choices about whether or not they think palm oil deforestation is good or bad. The point I am making is consumers should have the information so as individuals they can decide. Those who think it is good, can go out and buy more. Those bad, can buy less. A free market works best with perfect information.
December 29th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Recently Greenpeace NZ brought to our attention the fact that an astonishing amount of palm kernels are imported by NZ dairy farmers on a yearly basis in order to supplement the feed of NZ diary cows—an unbelievable 1.1 million tons, almost a quarter of the world supply, in 2007 alone.
Palm kernels are a by-product of the palm oil industry so therefore the problem is twofold, but I would like to concentrate on the controversy over the palm kernels. My first question upon hearing about this protest was “were any of the protesters vegan?” I contacted Greenpeace to find out and a spokesperson informed me that some of the protesters may have been vegetarian or vegan, but it couldn’t really be established. Firstly, in most western countries including NZ, vegetarianism includes, among other things, the consumption of diary products, so I really don’t care if they were vegetarian. My question is were they vegan.
How many people who are outraged about this issue, and screaming bloody murder at the diary farmers, are vegans? Judging by the miniscule percentage of the NZ population who are vegan, I would imagine very few. So in other words, the majority of people protesting the issue are themselves consumers of dairy products, and are participants in the demand that the NZ dairy farmers are trying to fill.
The facts and figures involved with palm oil and by default palm kernel production are widely available, and are astounding and distressing. But the NZ farmers are simply business people, responding to demand. A demand that WE create. As the population continues to grow, leading naturally to an increase in the consumption of dairy products (unless more people start going vegan) the farmers are going to look for more ways to fill that demand. They are capitalists. We are the consumers. We want dairy products and we want them as cheap as possible, because money is tight and we have to feed our families. Farmers have to feed their families too, and they are business people, so they will do whatever is most cost effective for their business.
I urge everyone to think critically about what is really going on here. We must take a look at the products we consume before blaming the producers for doing what they need to do to fill our demand in as cost effective a way possible. Any consumer of diary products who feels outraged about what is happening to the orangutans and tigers needs to know that they are contributing to the unbelievable suffering of beings that are just as sentient and innocent as the orangutans and tigers—dairy cows and their calves. Anyone who is concerned about the environmental destruction of the forests in Indonesia and Malaysia caused by palm oil and palm kernel production, should investigate the devastation caused to the NZ environment by dairy farming in order to satisfy our demand for dairy products.
No human being needs to consume dairy products to be optimally healthy, in fact there is plenty of evidence that diary is a terrible thing for our bodies. A balanced vegan diet is possibly the healthiest diet a human being can have. But most importantly it is a rejection of violence, a rejection of injustice against innocent beings, and is a removal of oneself from the demand for animal products. Please let us keep it real—it is our demand for animal products that is causing all this devastation and harm to all other living things, by the billions a year.
Feeding 6 billion human beings is a challenge, and a vegan consumer base does not eliminate all suffering and environmental damage, nor does it claim to. But it greatly reduces them. Please don’t take my word for it—I urge everyone to go out there and do their own research. Keep an open mind, think critically and research it; for your sake, for your childrens’ sakes and for the sake of all other life on Earth. I don’t blame the farmers, I prefer not to ‘blame’ anyone. We are all involved in this problem, and the sooner we face that, the sooner we can start to take action that really counts. I am grateful to Greenpeace NZ for bringing this issue out into the open, but I want to take it a step further. Let’s seriously educate ourselves about what we are consuming, and take some responsibility for that. The power is in our hands. We will always need farmers, I respect farmers for their hard work and their necessary knowledge of climate and soil. Let’s create a demand for them to fill of products that are much more sustainable, and will not cause the deliberate and direct suffering and death, on our behalf, of billions and billions of animals a year. As Leo Tolstoy said “Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.” The choice is ours.
- Elizabeth Collins
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 11:47 am
My understanding is the main bitch about palm oil is that people are growing the plants for it on land previously used for food production in areas that do not produce great quantities of food to start with.
The 300 footy fields thing is simply a green/red invention to cover up the results of one of their bigger fuck-ups (the green fuel thing).
Red, that’s twice I agree with you in just three days.
Am I ill?
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
“A free market works best with perfect information.”
Vote:OK, but there are people like Fenton Communications who specialise in heavily promoting information that can’t exactly be described as “perfect” in order to sway the free market in the direction they want. Seems to me the kind of campaign above is going to set up the good producers of palm oil as food to be done over as a side effect of the campaign against the jungle clearers producing biodiesel. Look what happened to the third world coconut oil producers when the American soy producers went after them through the serious misinformation fed to consumers a couple of decades ago. The coconut oil plantations pretty much vanished – try and buy healthy coconut oil at your supermarket today – and we got fed unhealthy trans fats. There is much evil being done through these tactics. The victims are often the third world poor – and we wonder why they end up hating the west …
I really am not convinced this is about open information, but a deliberate attempt to manipulate consumers to the attain the ends of particular people who think they know better how we should live, often for their own personal or corporate gain.
By repeating this kind of campaign I think you need to take personal responsibility for part of the consequential damage, and not just try and cop out by claiming to be trying to help create a “perfect” market.
December 29th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
300 football fields per hour sounds a bit exaggerated. Can’t imagine that’d go on long enough to make the calculation. Maybe it refers to one particularly busy event? It’s conceivable that it could happen but thats not the same as an ongoing day-in day-out situation which is how its being presented.
Still that doesn’t make it a good thing to do though and David is right, if the labelling is accurate then people can make their own choices.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
As a kid I visited a palm oil plantation in Malaysia. It grows on trees. Palm oil comes from the fruit, which grows as kernals. It is crushed, the oil extracted and the pulp becomes a biproduct/waste product.
Now I am trying to work out what the issue here is. I know people are concerned that natural rain forests are being cleared for palm oil plantations. In sensitive areas such as in Borneo and Sumatra this encroaches upon the habitat of Orangutans. However I would have thought the land was cleared first by illegal logging operations trying to make a buck out of the timber. The palm oil plantations move in opportunistically. On one hand new trees are planted, returning the land to the CO2 sink that it once was. On the other hand the land becomes productive and provides employment and independence for the local people so they are not dependent on UN hand outs.
Now lets look at other areas of chocolate production. Cocoa originates from central and south America. Now there are vast Cocoa plantations in Africa. Likewise, vast areas of forest must have been cleared to make way for cocoa plantations. Probably a similar process occured in South America where vast tracts of rain forest were felled for Cocoa plantations. This would have impacted upon habitats of primates and other species. On the other hand providing employment and independence for local people. Plantation tress also providing a CO2 sink.
The other vital ingredients being milk and sugar. Both of these industries have their own environmental impacts.
So what I am eluding to here is that if you are going to criticise palm oil, then you need to look at the environmental impact of the whole chocolate industry and quite frankly I conclude that based upon the palm oil argument, chocolate production and consumption should be banned entirely. All its ingredients have impacted upon the environment leading to deforestation of native forests and impacting upon wildlife throughout the world. There can be no such thing as environmentally friendly chocolate.
On the other hand, that we should accept that if humans are going to exist, we will manipulate our environment to our advantage
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Good points Grizz but another aspect is that we know more now about the importance of biodiversity than our forefathers did so we can’t really use their behaviour as an excuse for our own.
Manipulate our environment to our advantage yes. To our long term advantage though, not just for today.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Gees Griz,
chocolate production and consumption should be banned entirely.
do you want a country full of insane chocolate freaks? The best things in life are sex, beer and chocolate and all three suffer those issues.
Vote:So should we ban all three or just lie back have a beer and finish with chocolate licks?
December 29th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
I thought the issue with Palm Oil (or at least ‘hydrogenated’ Palm Oil) – was that it is the nastiest of Trans Fat…
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
“I thought the issue with Palm Oil (or at least ‘hydrogenated’ Palm Oil) – was that it is the nastiest of Trans Fat…”
Vote:Quite the reverse … it doesn’t need to be hydrogenated to be solid at the temperatures wanted by chocolate, bakery and similar producers. However many of its competing vegetable oils do, which is why we have been hit so hard health wise in the west by trans fats since the soy producers went after the coconut oils that were previously used. A shocking story when you look into it, and most people are still blissfully ignorant of what has happened.
December 29th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
“No one had even heard of the stuff before all that hysteria over Cadbury’s chocolate back in July (go on – be honest, admit you had never heard of it six months ago)”
Well, I had. Auckland Zoo has information on it around the monkey area, discussing the damage to enviroments and the foods that use it. The Cadbury decision certainly ramped up the awareness though.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Anyone who thinks that deforestation for Palm Oil Plantations isn’t bad is an idiot. I have been working in South East Asia for nearly 2 years now and see daily the destruction caused. Its the whole gamut of issues – corruption, habitat destruction, pollution. In Pekanbaru to the south of where I am based the airport has often been closed because the visibility drops below ILS minimums purely because of the burn-offs to clear land for Palm Oil Plantation’s – often done illegally. The illegal logging which plantation owner’s take advantage of is often a completely separate issue.
The pollution alone is a serious issue. Combine that with the massive population of 2-stroke scooters and burning rubbish on the side of the roads it is no wonder so many people get hospitalised for breathing difficulties. It also contributes to a lower life expectancy. Not to mention the poor flight visibility it creates hampering visual navigation.
The Plantation’s are often controlled by a small group of corrupt individuals who then pay workers well below the supposed minimum wage to toil the land. This does not advance the people. Its is immensely sad to see the destruction in what is an amazingly beautiful country that has tourism potential far in excess of neighbouring Malaysia and Thailand.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
The perfect information argument really misses the point. Yes, markets work with good information, but not information in just any form. It is information transmitted via prices which makes markets work. The miracle of the price mechanism is that end consumers need never know about the details of a strike in Japan or rainfall in Malaysia or oil discoveries in Saudi Arabia – yet with prices they are unknowingly given the information they need to increase consumption or find substitutes in response to those events. All events are relevant to the next shirt you buy, and the effects of each are weighed into the price you pay.
The counterpoint to the argument that consumers should know about palm oil is: what shouldn’t they know about? If market efficiency is aided by knowing about palm oil, what else can help. Palm oil is only one aspect of production of a chocolate bar – there are all the other ingredients, the recipe used to mix them, the variouos ways it was transported, the labour conditions at each stage, the laws of each of the countries each factor was produced in, the time each took, and so on.
A market does not become more efficient the more consumers know about the product they are buying. On the contrary, it would take a lifetime to fully understand every aspect of production of a chocolate bar – not a receipe for happiness i.e. efficiency.
My point here is that I think this sort of consumer labelling is a small step in the wrong direction. The sort of information markets need is necessarily transmitted via prices. Indeed Hayek argued the reason for the economic superiority of markets is that prices are uniquely capable of transmitting the vast quantity of information required to allow resources find their highest value use.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
DPF, when did you join the Luddites?
If so, could you please produce the evidence that the statistics you quote are correct. I’d like to know how the figure of 300 rugby fields (why not 400 or 1,000?) was arrived at.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
these bastards! clearing rain forrest to plant crops… so they can make a living. it mustbe stopped!
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Support compulsory labelling huh?
Should all NZ produce sold in Europe be labled with the “food miles”?
Should all tourists be told of their carbon footprint?
Oppose the clearing of rainforests? Should NZ replant 50% of the land with native forest?
FFS Farrar, go and join the Greens you communist!
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
To Viking2 I would say … have sex so long as you don’t make babies, drink beer in moderation, and enjoy chocolate likewise.
I am pretty sure we could plant 50% of NZ with forest without upsetting our food production capabilities. The problem is that the government stole the profit from that industry so little is being planted.
I see a major question in all this … does mankind have a moral right to convert the habitat of other species so that it no longer supports them simply to provide sustenance for mankind. A better solution to me in a finite world is that we limit our population growth to match existing resources instead of the stupid capitalistic ethic of growth, growth, growth. Practiced by the left as well with their empire building in beaurocracies. The univese may be infinite but earth is definitely finite.
Vote:December 29th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Why do I not have permission to edit the spelling mistake I noticed in the above post and to add “finite for mankind despite NASA’s efforts” yet I was able to edit this post?
Vote:December 30th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
As expected, DPF didn’t produce any facts to support his “300 rugby fields” figure, so you have to conclude he’s fallen prey to Green lies, myth, and propaganda.
I know as National Party stalwart you supported the dreadful and knee-capping ETS, but don’t count on the gullibility of your readers to help you push Nick Smith’s Green Party agenda. Some of us are not asleep at the wheel.
Vote: