Earlier this year, Nestle’s Kit Kat made green headlines by announcing its bars in the U.K. will be made with fair trade chocolate. Now, Kit Kats have been making headlines again, this time for combining that ethical chocolate with very environmentally destructive palm oil.
Greenpeace has launched a campaign, with an unsubtly altered Kit Kat logo that declares Nestle a “Killer.” Why? Nestle “uses palm oil from companies that are trashing Indonesian rainforests, threatening the livelihoods of local people and pushing orangutans towards extinction.” Those unethical palm oil companies includes Sinar Mas group, Indonesia’s largest producer of palm oil, whose practices are so destructive that even Kraft and Unilever have cut ties with the giant.
Nestle, however, has stuck with Sinar Mas, thus prompting the Greenpeace campaign. I’m guessing whatever inroads Kit Kat made into the eco-ethical chocolate market with its fair trade sourcing announcement will be derailed by Greenpeace’s efforts, which include a disturbing short video that shows one Kit Kat eater ending up with orangutan blood all over his face.
Have a break? from Greenpeace UK on Vimeo.
Kit Kats aren’t Nestle’s only products named and shamed. Nestlé’s Crunch, CoffeeMate, and PowerBar are among other products orangutan fans should avoid. And this isn’t the first time Nestle’s gotten in trouble for destroying rain forests in Indonesia. Back in 2007, World Wildlife Fund reported that Nestle — along with some other companies — was buying coffee illegally grown in habitat for endangered tigers, rhinos, and elephants.
Nestle’s penchant for using one attention getting green ingredient like fair trade chocolate for a few token products while continuously sourcing its many other ingredients with little regard to environmental or ethical concerns shows me that that ethical consumers make the best shopping decisions by looking at a company’s overall ethical sourcing practices, not just certification for an ingredient or two in a couple products.
Earlier:
>> Sweet Earth Chocolates: Decadent desserts with an eco-ethical center
>> LUSH gets orangutan-friendly with Jungle soap
Update, May 2010: Nestle succumbs to activist pressure and partners with The Forest Trust to come up with more responsible sourcing guidelines. Greenpeace declares victory, thanks Nestle on behalf of orangutans.
Image via Greenpeace
Your information is outdated. Nestle put out a statement that they were not going to use Sinar Mas any longer. (I think they’re going with Cargill according to another report – which no one can say is actually better.)
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/818000-nestle-faces-kitkat-boycott-over-links-to-palm-oil-killing-orangutans-claim
The odd part about this is that demonstrates Greenpeace’s transparently manipulative tactics. Combine the amount of palm oil that is used in all the KitKat bars and I doubt it’d rank that high in the world of what palm oil is used for. It comes after chocolate, flour & sugar in the ingredients but just before sodium bicarbonate. Nestle’s frozen food divisions are probably far greater consumers… but it’s far less sexy to try to make a viral video about Hot Pockets or Drumstick Sundae Cone.
Still, it’s interesting to see how quickly Nestle did an about face on that one source.
Comment by cybele — March 18, 2010 @ 1:02 pm
It’s possible I was “outdated” by a few hours, though it’s impossible to tell what time the article you linked to went up — or when exactly Nestle put out its statement. Greenpeace’s official report about this went out last night.
I think considering how many Kit Kats are eaten around the world, Greenpeace’s tactics really can’t be called “transparently manipulative” — especially compared to Nestle’s getting the fair trade certification sticker while destroying Indonesian rainforests and harming endangered species. I’m also not sure I understand how making the video about the Hot Pockets would be somehow less “transparently manipulative,” but whatever — I’m no fan of Hot Pockets either! :)
Comment by Siel — March 18, 2010 @ 1:44 pm
Sorry Siel – I saw the story last night that they’d already capitulated. (I don’t know if you’re being defensive … I was just letting you know if you hadn’t seen it.)
And I mentioned hot pockets because of your other posting!
Anyway, I saw another story just a few minutes ago on FastCompany that mentioned that Unilever is the worlds biggest buyer of palm oil.
I just wonder about tactics that are more about the hook than the accuracy. KitKats aren’t the problem, though obviously a symptom of a greater issue. (And certainly something that isn’t necessary so a good item to boycott, I suppose.)
I thought we were having a discussion, but I get the impression that we’re not on the same wavelength when I come over here to comment.
cybele´s last blog ..Wonka SweeTarts Jelly Beans 2010
Comment by cybele — March 18, 2010 @ 1:49 pm
Wow — That was indeed a fast capitulation then, if it happened last night! I’m afraid you’re taking my disagreeing with you to suggest I’m not open to discussions…. You’re always welcome here to discuss issues — but of course I won’t always share your perspective….
Kit Kats ARE a part of the problem — They use the implicated palm oil. I’m a bit confused — If buying and using palm oil known to destroy rain forests is only “a symptom of a greater issue,” what exactly do you believe to be the greater issue?
As to your Unilever question — As mentioned in my post, Unilever cut ties with Sinar Mas already. Basically, there was activist pressure trying to get all big companies to cut ties with Sinar Mas. Nestle’s getting targeted now because unlike the other companies, it kept buying from Sinar Mas.
Comment by Siel — March 18, 2010 @ 1:59 pm
What you say here and what you say on Twitter to me are two different things.
Comment by cybele — March 18, 2010 @ 2:18 pm
Nestle has also been sued in Michigan and California from opponents who charge that the company is depleting local water supplies (see Flow) – anyone know if they have taken constructive action on that?
Sherri´s last blog ..Welcome to the Mar Vista Green Garden Showcase!
Comment by Sherri — March 19, 2010 @ 6:54 am
guys, Greenpeace responded already to Nestlé’s last announcement (which appeared last night in the guardian) saying that the campaign will continue until Nestle has cut the Sinar Mas group from its supply chain completely. And that Nestle must stop buying Sinar Mas palm oil and pulp products from third-party suppliers, and engage actively in delivering solutions by engaging with the Indonesian government and industry to deliver a moratorium on forests clearance, and full peatland protection.
Comment by Teresa — March 20, 2010 @ 9:26 am
Exactly, Teresa… Nesdtle wrote to me saying that despite not buying from Sinar Mas, they do purchase from Cargil who purchases a percentage of its palm oil from, yes, you guessed it — Sinar Mas. Nestle are waiting til the end of April when Cargil responds to Greenpeace’s allegations and seem satisfied in stating, ‘ they [Cargil] have INDICATED they will delist Sinar Mas if they do not take corrective action by then.’ They add that they have made a commitment to using only “Certified Sustainable Palm Oil’ by 2015 when sufficient quantities should be available. Oh, hurray, only another few years of slaughter in the meantime then.
Comment by Roz — April 11, 2010 @ 1:30 pm
What’s especially appalling about Nestle’s “commitment” to use sustainable palm oil later is that it makes it sound like there’s not enough sustainable palm oil on the market to be bought right now. In fact, WWF came out with a report pointing out that only one percent of the sustainable palm oil available on the market has been bought! If companies like Nestle actually bought some of it instead of pretending that there’s not enough of the stuff, the conversion to sustainable palm oil could happen a lot quicker.
Comment by Siel — April 14, 2010 @ 2:05 pm