Over the past few weeks New Zealand-based green groups and activists have called for a boycott on Cadbury products because of the use of Malaysian palm oil in its chocolate.
The boycott was prompted after Cadbury clarified using palm oil as one of the total vegetable oils used in its products.
And doing so has whipped activists into a tizz. Opponents of palm oil claim that farmers burn forest in poor countries to create available land for plantations.
The claimed cost is less forest, and threats to endangered species that rely on the forest for survival. They also argue that plantations have a lesser capacity as a carbon sink to offset carbon dioxide emissions.
Because of these allegations Auckland Zoo removed Cadbury products from its shelves a fortnight ago, and anti-palm oil activists have established a "Boycott Cadbury" Facebook group arguing "Only d*cks eat Cadbury".
But in doing so they aren't seeing the palm oil plantation from the forest.
Palm oil is a produced all across South-East Asia because it is a sustainable, high-yield product that helps small farmers lift themselves out of poverty. It is also a vital food supplement which can deliver up to a third of a person's daily Vitamin A requirements.
The benefits are so great that the anti-poverty Asian Development Bank (ADB) has a strong repayment rate from palm oil producers who take on loans. And growing palm oil provides an export industry for developing economies like Malaysia into markets like Australia and New Zealand.
But international NGO, Friends of the Earth, has campaigned against the ADB's support for palm oil because it actually helps alleviate poverty. According to a recent report they're "sceptical" about "a broad-based economic growth model lead (sic) by the private sector".
Rather than having evidence that growing palm oil won't increase living standards, FOE's reports expose that their agenda is motivated by ideology, not practical environmentalism.
And FOE's claims and motivations cannot be trusted. According to a 2007 press release the palm oil industry is involved in "illegally logging rainforests, setting forests on fire and violating the rights of local communities". The evidence they provide is a photo of a hilly area in Indonesia that "proves" a forest fire. The problem is that the photo shows no flames amongst the trees, and based on the angle of the sun's reflection the photo was taken at either dawn or dusk, and the "smoke" could just be mist.
FOE might be right, but the evidence they provide is more of a misting, than smoking, gun.
And FOE's ideological opposition to the use of palm oil won't deliver environmental benefits. The palm oil sourced by Cadbury is certified by GreenPalm -- an organisation that certifies the oil has come from sustainable sources. And Cadbury is a member of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil which was founded in part by international environmental NGO World Wildlife Fund.
The supposed impact of palm oil on Malaysia's forest is questionable. Of Malaysia's forest 16 per cent is zoned protected with sixty per cent of the country's total land mass allocated as forest. By comparison the United Nation's minimum zoning target is 10 per cent and Europe's allocation of land mass to forest is only 25 per cent.
It is easy to be an armchair environmentalist from Australia or New Zealand. What consumers are missing is that the financial saving of not buying a block of chocolate is costing Malaysian's their livelihood.
According to their corporate website Cadbury introduced palm oil to "soften (their) chocolate and maintain affordability". Cadbury did so because it offered better value-for-money and that's good for business. But their decision is also providing a development dividend for the world's poor.
If consumers don't like the taste of chocolate with palm oil then they can vote with their wallets.
But by boycotting palm oil what activists are actually doing is shutting down the industry in developing countries, and with it their opportunity to raise living standards and increase wealth. And if you think you can do without chocolate because it goes straight to your hips, imagine the cost to an impoverished farmer's family who can barely afford to eat.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment