Digging the Dirt on Ethical Eating
Ethical eating has become increasingly fashionable of late. Celebrity chefs have glamorised this way of life and one only needs to wander around Clifton village to spy yummy mummies lunching in strictly organic cafes. For students, however, such food labelling often seems expensive and irrelevant. The terms are frequently confused, misunderstood, or regarded with scepticism. Can an organic piece of broccoli really be worth £2 extra per kilo? However, it need not only be the Waitrose shoppers who eat ethically. By making a few changes, students can also eat sustainably and, furthermore, we have a responsibility to do so.
Organic food is often hailed as the ‘ultimate’ in ethical eating and has been keenly promoted by TV chefs such as Jamie Oliver, renowned for his zeal to purge the nation of its fast food heresies. The recent Food Standards Agency study, however, which announced that there were no nutritional benefits, confirmed others’ doubts and should surely be seen as great news to Sainsbury’s ‘Basics’ shoppers?
From an ethical perspective, however, the debate surrounding organic is certainly not undermined by this revelation. Many other arguments also support the purchase of organic food. Eating organic, for instance, is a good way to ensure that the animal you are eating is reared in a humane way.
Furthermore, some environmentalists argue that organic farming is beneficial to the environment. The Soil Association, for instance, contends that organic farming is the only sustainable method of farming; pointing out it is unsustainable to continue to use synthetic fertilisers which are made using fossil fuels.
The environmental argument, however, is not entirely convincing. Researchers at Cranfield University found organic required anywhere between 65 and 200% more land than non-organic. Lower yields means more land must be set aside for farming thereby potentially encouraging further deforestation- hardly beneficial to our environment. Furthermore, organic farming relies more heavily upon ploughing and flame-weeding to control weeds. Both techniques generate carbon emissions and some argue that organic farming actually produces higher carbon emissions.
Most importantly, whilst widespread starvation continues to exist, it seems infeasible that non-organic crops can be dismissed. A method of farming that produces lower yields hardly seems a viable solution. The developed world ought to regard it as a luxury that organic is even an option. Furthermore, it seems difficult to imagine how organic farming could possibly cope with the predicted growth in population. Environmentalists believe that by 2050 we will need the resources of two earths to sustain ourselves.
Such criticisms, however, ought not undermine these valid concerns but, from a student perspective, there are cheaper and potentially more effective ways of lending support. Buying Freedom Food is an affordable way of supporting animal welfare concerns. The farms are all RSPCA vetted. There really is no excuse - a whole chicken is only 80 pence extra per kilo than a battery chicken, which, when considering how many people it feeds, literally works out at pennies extra. Furthermore, if you are concerned about the environmental damage your food may be causing - then try to eat locally sourced and seasonal food when possible. Or even better and even cheaper, grow your own!
Whilst I’m sure many would agree that the idea of pesticides and fertilisers is not a particuarly appetising one, currently, the decision to buy organic ought to be regarded as a personal choice, rather than an ethical imperative.
Another important source of ‘ethical food’ is Fairtrade produce. The Fairtrade Foundation, which just celebrated its 15th birthday, set out with the vision to enable people through their work to maintain a dignified and decent livelihood. Fairtrade not only ensures a guaranteed price to the farmer but also includes a Fairtrade premium, on top of the agreed price, which is paid by the buyer to the producers and is invested in development projects such as healthcare or education.
An insight into the banana trade, for instance, exposes why it is so critical that we act now to try to end the exploitation of workers in developing country. Jan Nimmo’s documentary ‘Bonita: Ugly Bananas’ highlights the horrors of working in a plantation. Labourers had lost their eye sight because they were provided with no safety equipment when handling chemicals, others had developed cancer. Furthermore, when workers attempted to protest about these appalling conditions, armed guards were sent in to shoot at them.
Despite this, supermarkets continue to push down the prices of food. Tesco recently lowered the price of bananas to 35 pence per kilo. Whilst supermarkets have reassured customers that such a deduction is at the company’s expense, pressure will undoubtedly be applied when supermarkets come to renew their contracts. Smaller farmers simply cannot afford to sell at this price, and the bigger plantations which can will surely only be able to at the expense of further lowering labourers’ wages.
It’s a sobering thought but by buying non Fairtrade bananas you could inadvertently be supporting this sort of treatment. The good news is- it’s easy to avoid this. Even Sainsbury’s basics bananas are now Fairtrade, although Tesco own brand are not. As Feodora from Bristol University’s Fairtrade society explained to me: “simple decisions such as buying a Dairy Milk - rather than a Mars bar - will help to combat the exploitation of workers”. A very easy way to know you’re supporting the right cause is to pop along to Bristol University’s own Fairtrade cafe which runs every Friday lunchtime at 1 Woodland road from 12-2pm.
Over a million farmers are now involved with Fairtrade, but this number must increase. Fairtrade has faced criticism by The Economist, amongst others, for its exclusion of certain geographical areas, and of non-Fairtrade farmers. They argue that this has distorted the market to the disadvantage of those excluded farmers, but there are arguments to suggest that Fairtrade actually succeeds in raising the overall local market price of goods. Nevertheless, Fairtrade has acknowledged this criticism and seeks to address this issue in the next few years as outlined by its 2012 goal.
On a grander scale, surely Fairtrade can also play an important role in challenging the way the global trade system currently operates. There needs to be a greater regulation and protection of workers’ rights. Price wars between multi-national corporations must not be allowed to occur at the expense of human lives. Furthermore, we need to challenge the legitimacy of the subsidies and tariffs that the Western world continues to maintain despite the devastating effects they have upon farmers in the developing world.
We as students can play an important role too. Whilst in an ideal world we would witness all large corporations take a greater ethical responsibility, they are ultimately driven by a commercial goal, and strive to reflect the desires of the consumer. Shops will only continue to stock non-Fairtrade products and battery-reared chickens whilst we continue to buy them. On a more personal note, how long can one postpone doing the right thing for the sake of convenience or a very small financial advantage?
Lizzie Greenhalgh
Public Protest for Environmental Change
Perhaps surprisingly, I decided to become a green activist with a little bit of trepidation. My campaigning style has always been rather quieter with letters to Stephen Williams and organising film evenings. Effective, nonetheless, but not quite the same as my previous misconception that activism involved scaling bridges and paddling the wrong way up Alaskan rivers.
When I decided to volunteer for Oxfam South-West for their ‘Here and Now’ campaign, which focuses on the human impact of rising sea levels and unpredictable weather brought about by climate change, I was rather relieved to know that this wasn’t quite what they had in mind.
On Saturday 24 October, hundreds of people gathered in Bristol’s Millennium Square to campaign, educate, and learn at the ‘Climate Countdown’ event organised by a variety of charities including Oxfam and the Stop Climate Chaos. After I had painted forty blue faces, collected 50 signatures and seen a plethora of bands wearing scuba masks and pink leggings, did I feel greener? Perhaps. But what was impressed on me that afternoon was that more than any other campaign that I have ever been involved in, the campaign against climate change truly encompassed everyone. From the RSPB speaking of the extinction of species, to Oxfam talking about the devastating water-borne diseases such as cholera spread by floods in the Philippines, climate change really does permeate every aspect of our world, affecting human rights to economics to ground nesting birds.
Yet as students, just how green are we? Happily increasingly so, it would seem. With Bristol University Sustainability Team winning ‘Best New Society’ last year, and the launch of the university ‘Green Impacts Awards’, which gives recognition to departments committed to reducing their environmental impact, it is apparent that practical actions are taken.
Undoubtedly university is one of the most convenient and useful forums for meeting and networking with like-minded people. But how many people not directly involved in green circles take action everyday, on an individual level?
I know that sometimes I struggle to remember to practise what I preach when I’m at home. For the time I wrote a letter, there’s the time I forgot to switch my light off. However, to some extent, student life does encourage the green lifestyle. Bristol bus fares make having an old bike rather a blessing to the bank balance, and frankly, if we didn’t recycle in my house, we’d need 3 bin collections a week. Being green is sometimes seen as the expensive option, but expensive eco-friendly clothes could perhaps be substituted for charity shops, and currently, a London group of students are planning on developing a carbon neutral student recipe book.
For students in a recession, surely one major concern is the prospect of getting a job after graduation. An article on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s website ‘Tackling Climate Change Creates Jobs,’ predicted that soon, the environmental sector will “be larger in global terms than the pharmaceutical or civil aviation industry”.
In the final month leading up to the Copenhagen climate change conference, student activism all over the world will help to raise the profile of what has been called by Thomas Schultz-Jagow, campaigns director of Oxfam “the most single important meeting mankind has ever had”. Whether you’re trekking to Copenhagen by bike, attending a film night, dressing in blue for The Wave march on December 5, or simply turning off the lights left on in your lecture theatre, climate change is a universally accessible campaign.
Anna Guyatt
Countdown to Copenhagen
For those of you who aren’t on the mailing list of Greenpeace or common attendees of BUST meetings, you could be forgiven for thinking the recent hype about Copenhagen is just ‘summit’ to do with Denmark. In actual fact, it is arguably the most important coming together of nations in over ten years.
Copenhagen is a meeting of 192 different countries meeting to discuss the future of climate change, in the capital of Denmark, Copenhagen. The summit revolves around the idea of cutting global greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible. The official name for the summit is ‘COP15’; the 15th Conference of the Parties under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
What is the purpose of COP15? Well firstly, the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 expires in 2012 so some new international agreements on action to reduce carbon emissions need to be made urgently. The Kyoto Agreement was sadly rejected by the US government back in the 90s as Bush said 5% reductions in their emissions would “like totally wreck” the US economy. But there is new hope this year for the US to start pulling their weight. Obama is pledging targets of reducing US emissions by 80% by 2050. However, he is yet to commit to anything on paper.
It’s not just the US that is a focus of this international coffee morning. A vital issue to be discussed is how much China and India are willing to limit their economic growth. The consistent argument of the last few years has been why the developing world should cut their emissions when they’re already struggling to compete in the global economic market.
This is largely been a China versus USA situation. These two countries are not only in massive economic competition, but China has recently taken over from the US as the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide. However China argues that the majority of its CO2-releasing activity is to do with the large scale production of goods for consumers in the Western world. So we are essentially outsourcing our carbon emissions to China and then penalising them for their huge contribution to climate change. The Chinese argue this is not fair game. The US and China together, account for 40% of greenhouse gas emissions. Fortunately these two carbon greedy giants are willing to talk at COP15 and try to find a compromise to suit both sides.
Technology is a fundamental part of this issue; who is willing to pay for the developing world to keep growing economically with technology that should make its growth greener? This is another major objective of COP15; to sort out how the help needed by the developing world in adapting to climate change is going to be financed. Once this has been resolved, the world’s nations then need to sort out who is going to manage the financing. There are many complex issues to be discussed and resolved at Copenhagen this December.
Somewhat depressingly, a poll carried out by the Guardian claims that 9 out of 10 environmental scientists believe it is too late for the Copenhagen Summit to make any difference to the predicted 2C temperature increase. Hopefully Al Gore’s headline-grabbing statement will travel with the leaders to Denmark.
Olivia Barnett
16/11/2009
