My response to (or rewrite of) Jason D Scorse’s post “Local, organic, fairtrade: Better for the environment?” on Grist:
______
This is why I deride the Economist magazine. They take cutting edge issues and use simplistic, straw person arguments that only serve to preserve the status quo.
Turns out, the Economist discovered organic and fair trade aren’t utopia-perfect, and buying local alone won’t cure all human woes. Wow! Brilliant observation! Wait — Haven’t the activists in the organic, fair trade, and local movements been pointing out the issues brought up in this article for years, and actually working to do something about them? Could it be that the Economist is simply taking these movements’ healthy self-critiques, and trying to use these critiques to bash the movements altogether?
This is a great example of how a mainstream pub puts down innovative and complex solutions-in-process, thereby leaving us with nothing but the current bad ideas and bad policy — and a sense of apathetic resignation to boot. Solving our environmental problems isn’t a simple issue, and those deep in the organic, fair trade, and local food movements are most aware of the kinks that need to be ironed out. Taking this Economist piece seriously requires putting aside any attemt to rethink our assumptions, categories, and biases, and passively accepting that the status quo is as good as it gets.
_______
Hate to do this to one of my fave online mags (I went to your party, yo! I’ve even donated money!), but I expect more from Grist. The comment stream below Jason’s post’s a highly recommended read –
Update, 12/17/06: Just a note to say that the NY Times has reported on the debate on this issue: “The Economist seems to be on more slippery ground when it concludes that neither organic nor locally grown food helps the environment.”
Update, 12/24/06: Lloyd of Treehugger gives you a quick rundown of how silly The Economist’s article is.
Update, 1/4/07: Tom Philpott, guest writer at Grist, debunks The Economist’s article. Grist redeemed!
At the very least, the Economist article should open the eyes of many organic, Fair Trade and local food believers (and the public in general) and hopefully encourage them to look beneath the surface before accepting the mantra and jumping on the bandwagon.
P.S. The Economist is my favorite magazine.
Comment by Eric — December 13, 2006 @ 6:19 pm
If The Economist article honestly sought about encouraging supporters of these movements to “look beneath the surface… before jumping on the badwagon” then I would have no problems with it. However, it did not do this – instead the tone of the article was much more akin to that of a ’shock expose’ and it used strawman arguments against FT to misrepresent it, was poorly researched and utilized a condescending tone that was consistent throughout the whole article. In short, it was a far cry from being a genuine evaluation of the merits and weaknesses of the movement – and instead, was a piece of polemical rheotoric.
Comment by Bobby — December 14, 2006 @ 5:31 am
I am glad you posted this – I just recently started learning about green living/fair trade/organic food – and was surprised to hear about this on Grist. I wasn’t able to read the article because I don’t have a subscription (but plan on going to the library to read it), but was concerned that maybe I was doing the ‘wrong’ thing by trying to live a ‘better’ life. But I do agree with Bobby that we need to be informed about the decisions we are making – this helps us be able to explain ourselves too when others ask us why we are doing this (living greener, buying fair trade, etc.).
Comment by Megan — December 14, 2006 @ 7:37 am
Sure, go ahead and ruin it for people who want to make small steps for good and are intimidated by the complexities of the issues. Small steps lead to big changes, man.
Comment by Jasmin — December 14, 2006 @ 11:57 am
My comment was directed at the Economist, not you, just to clarify :)
Comment by Jasmin — December 14, 2006 @ 11:58 am
Once again you have pointed out why the status quo aka Economist is having such a hard time getting a grip on reality. Economics as a discipline is only just waking up to the science of the environmental crisis. It’s always much easier to criticise the activists (or anoraks as we are known in the UK) than to come up with a viable solution to the problem.
Comment by Leighton Cooke — December 14, 2006 @ 12:13 pm
I read this article as well and was underwhelmed. Enough has been said, however, it is certainly a balanced rendering of a very diverse movement and a set of complex issues. The article, in general, didn’t read as a bromide against change, IMHO. My impression is that the author was sniffing at members of this movement who construct solutions to real problems upon spurious assumptions. In other words, it was aimed at the reader who believes that local, organic, fair trade goods and services are always and everywhere optimal for the environment and human welfare generally. They aren’t.
That said, the Economist, indeed, trusts too much in the market (or market-based policy) to deliver. The article hit a low point when discussing F.T.’s fixed commodity prices. The author foolishly glossed over the fact that growers in the South have no access to forward markets in which they could sell their produce in the future at a fixed price. Even if they could, price and wage contracts are often fixed for long periods of time, resulting in some inefficiency if they deviate from the spot price. Singling out fair trade products here is just bad journalism. Worse, they often discount the way in which a good is produced as a good in and of itself. If a consumer is willing to pay for a good simply because it is local and organic, then the Economist has no basis for argument. Assuming transparency, ethical consumerism doesn’t clash with neoclassical economics.
Comment by Fletch — December 14, 2006 @ 6:03 pm
Hey Fletch — I totally get the “underwhelmed” perspective — from someone who’s already aware of these issues. And while I think Economist left SOME room for change, the article certainly made it seem as if the fair trade, organic, and local movements were NOT effective parts of this change — a charge that’s quite untrue.
I guess my point is that I haven’t actually run into people who think that by buying organic, they’ll save the world.
Ditto on all you said about FT –
Comment by Siel — December 14, 2006 @ 10:44 pm
Interesting responses.
I audit (for the union) applications for the nosweatshoplabel ethical clothing system in Sydney, Australia. It’s certainly true that the movement for trade justice (across the board) will continue to evolve through internal critiques – THANK GOODNESS – but let me just say this: the economist is full of crap to put it bluntly. I’ve seen sweatshop workers and their conditions, and know that on the retail price of each garment being made, a piddling 5% would cover legal, safe and ethical conditions and a living wage. Thats if the brands would pay correctly, oh yeah and if the middle men actually passed this on to the workers… At the heart of the issue is the manner we undertake trade, the distancing of responsibility for the product (both socially and environmentally) and the dictate to see only the profit…. and not the true cost. This is the invaluable contribution that the fair trade movement brings to international trade: a shifting focus of attention, the spotlight has been turned on the full impact of a product and the blinders are finally coming off.
Comment by Dez — December 17, 2006 @ 1:40 pm
hi siel
The Ecologist in 2006-12-12 has a podcast about this:
“The Economist magazine ran a cover story suggesting that buying ethical food was a useless, ‘feel good’ gesture. The Ecologist says that they are wrong. We spoke to Jeanette Longfield, coordinator of the food and farming charity Sustain, to find out why.”
Comment by Johan — December 19, 2006 @ 2:02 am