If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Motives for ethical shopping
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I watched a programme on BBC4 last night about the changing middle classes, and it discussed the motives of people to buy ethical/organic goods, be seen recycling, and going on "ethical holidays". It said that it's more about being seen to be doing/buying these things as some kind of social symbol, rather than because you genuinely want to change the planet. It pointed to evidence that it is more often than not, the items that visitors to your house are going to see that are the highest selling, and that the same people will have no problem paying for water shipped in from Fiji rather than using the tap. There was a quite funny video showing a bunch of people at the recycling centre in their best designer gear and their huge 4x4.
The documentary essentially suggested that whilst people like to be seen to be buying ethically, all to often it's only when it's already in keeping with their social status and the luxuries that they enjoy. There's no doubt that these people and their spending power are putting these items on the shelf, and forcing companies to take a more ethical stance, which can only be a good thing. But do people think it's hypocritical to claim to be environmentally friendly (or even brag about it, as seems to often be the case) because you buy Fair Trade and recycle all of your stuff, then buy items that have travel several thousand miles to get to you, go on a few plane holidays a year, and drive you children to school?
The documentary essentially suggested that whilst people like to be seen to be buying ethically, all to often it's only when it's already in keeping with their social status and the luxuries that they enjoy. There's no doubt that these people and their spending power are putting these items on the shelf, and forcing companies to take a more ethical stance, which can only be a good thing. But do people think it's hypocritical to claim to be environmentally friendly (or even brag about it, as seems to often be the case) because you buy Fair Trade and recycle all of your stuff, then buy items that have travel several thousand miles to get to you, go on a few plane holidays a year, and drive you children to school?
0
Comments
Of course, same as its a farce to buy Fair Trade items if you shop at Tesco who wouldnt know what the term ment if it was branded on their hand.
Yes and no - obviously if someone is buying organic fair trade coffee for just showing off its ethically an odd thing to do, but the result for the coffee farmer is just the same.
However, if the family is buying a few bits of organic this or fair trade that and then driving three cars and taking 3 airplane holidays a year the end result is negative.
Yes it is. The environmental movement tends to be mainly white middle class, who coincidentily are the largest polluters. I think a lot of it however, is to do with education as well. For example, a lot of people do not know about air miles on their food. So whilst they're buying solar powered lights for around the pond in their back garden, they mayb also be buying sweet potatoes from Isreal, apples from South Africa and corned beef from America.
The fact is that we need to consume less. You don't need solar powered pond lights, a big car, you don't need an extra jacket just because it's Fairtrade. If people really care about the environment, they'd be eating seasonal local goods, cutting out meat and consuming as few commodities as possible.
As for Fairtrade, that is a seperate issue from the environment, although in order to reach Fairtrade standard plantations need to be relatively environmentally friendly. I'm sure many people here buy Fairtrade, but sometimes it seems that people use the Fairtrade mark as an excuse to consume more (which of course is a good thing for the farmers and workers and not so good for the planet).
4X4s should be banned, especially in London imo.
Chemical fertiliser is the number 1 cause of river polution, and of course if it is from the Developing World the practice of spraying over the workers and plants at the same time is common.
Surely the result is the same for the farmer if they're also driving 3 cars and flying abroad and if the people are flying to poorer countries for their holiday and bringing more income into that country he's actually likely to be better off.
If all food were produced organically, would we be able to feed everyone?
Easily, especially if more people became vegetarian.
Societies in thw west consume too much, hence there are so many fatties.
Why were the evil nasty chemicals used in the first place then?
Is it perhaps because organic stuff is a disgraceful rip-off?
chemicals are used to improve yields and therefore profits, it's as simple as that.
it's got nothing to do with not having enough food to feed everybody organically, the sheer amount of food discarded every year by farmers because the big retailers won't accept them based on aesthetics is sickening.
Just to add something relevant to the debate...
In terms of contradicting any good they do with their air miles, food miles, overconsumption... well yes, maybe that is the case. But as Namaste said it's an issue of education. Making people more aware of every aspect of greener living is going to be a slow and drawn out process and I think we should celebrate every small step any person takes toward decreasing the damage they do to the planet and to farmers, workers etc through their consumer and lifestyle choices.
The amount of people composting their relevant waste is enormous now compared to what it was, and that is just something I've noticed from observing my own family and friends. I don't think they do it to be glamorous or be praised, they do it because they're a lot more aware now of that particular issue and maybe then they will move on to also have a heightened awareness of food miles, or organic farming, or cutting down on their air travel. The fact that they aren't a guru of ethical and environmentally sound living doesn't mean that the little efforts they do make mean nothing... or are done for show... or to keep up with the Joneses. I'm sure it makes them feel good about themselves - but who in their right mind wouldn't feel good knowing they are helping rather than destroying the planet?
Oh, and I use ethiscore to judge what's ethically up to scratch as I'm definitely not entirely convinced that the Fairtrade symbol itself is conclusive proof - just in terms of Flashman's link.
Of course. Lack of food is not a problem. Distribution is the problem.
To increase yield and thus profit.
Debunkage.
Organic food energy inefficient. More energy required per tonne produced.
Far more land per tonne required.
Most environmentally benign way of producing food is ?no till?, involving heavy herbicide sprays.
Food grown in Britain often uses more energy per tonne than food from over the world.
Buying locally wastes energy because supermarket distribution is so energy efficient.
Of course, however holidays in poor countries (especially in v. poor countries) dont often contribute much to the local economy, its yo-yo money, the hotel is run by a western company, so 90%+ of the money goes in and then straight out.
is there an echo in here...?
Plus it's a way for the well-off middle classes to expatriate their guilt by doing something they need to do anyway - shopping. It's a nice way to feel better about the situation and think you're actually helping rather than actually getting off your arse and doing anything about it.
Incidentally, the price is the main reason I don't buy any organic / fair trade crap. It's more expensive and being a hard-up student, that's the main reason.
the mark up shops make on fair trade goods is higher than that on their regular stuff........
the purely fair trade markup adds only about 4p to the price for most goods, the shops make up the rest of the markup
Yes, but the hotels employ local people, people often shop in local markets (owned by local people and buying souvenirs produced by local people), the hotels are built by local people, the tourism also helps pay for local infrastructure (funding of decent electricity grids etc).
You can still live ethically and be broke... EASILY, if you learn to cook. I agree, that super markets often make Fairtrade goods slightly more expensive, not terribly so.
I know it's trendy for people to attack the middle classes for attempting to live ethically, but t really is do-able for most people to an extent and a little help is better than no help.
Do you have an article which is accessible? I read one in the Economist before, a half baked article attacking ethical consumerism. It didn't really provide much evidence and the article was too brief to have any real depth.
And as for food grown in Britian, do you mean seasonal goods or people who buy strawberries in the winter? Again, any evidence?
The reason I'm asking this is that I'm invoved in environmental projects and worlk alongside people who have been doing this kind of thing for years, some of who are very well respected. I don't say this to blow my own trumpet, but that they always recommend that you buy seasonal local goods only, not organic food from abroad (although Brazilnuts are always organic!).
As for rainforests, unless I'm mistaken, more rainforest is cut down to support the beef market and growing soya to feed the beef market than for organic sweet potatos (although at the same time, I think a lot of people are more likely to buy organic for health reasons).
And expand please on supermarket distribution. You can also buy local food from markets you know.
Buying strawberries from Essex wastes more energy than importing them from Egypt?
Bollocks it does.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/science/Project_Data/DocumentLibrary/EV02007/EV02007_4601_FRP.pdf
p141.
The article sits on the fence, or so it concludes. Also, people will travel to and from supermarkets so it doesn't regardless of where the food comes from. Also, there is a difference (as has been stated) between seasonal goods and goods grown in greenhouses.
It is true what was said about organic food needing a greater area to grow, but then pesticides aren't used which don't ruin the local environment or get in to streams. Furthermore, it is our excessive consumption, not organic food which is bad for the environment.
Evidence for the rest of what you said?