Episode 41 - Exclusion, Privilege, and Ethical Consumption

This episode we interviewed Brianna Scrimshaw Botchwey. Brianna is an aspiring zero waster and PhD candidate at the University of Toronto. Her research focuses on sustainable development and foreign aid. The research note below includes preparatory notes from Kristen and Brianna.

Kristen’s Notes

Brianna, we’re so excited to have you on the show to talk about exclusion and privilege in ethical consumption. We’re going to focus on fashion, but this is a question that impacts any kind of ethical consumption in different ways.

Brianna, I know this is something you think about a lot, and it was your idea to have an episode on this. So, can you maybe describe for the listener what you mean by privilege and exclusion in ethical consumption?

In our series on fast fashion, we talked about the components to building a conscious closet (which we took from the wonderful book by Elizabeth Cline, The Conscious Closet).

The advice is basically to avoid fast fashion as much as you can by thinking about your closet as a wardrobe that you build over time.

As part of that, there are basically three categories for how to shop for clothing as an ethical consumer: (1) when you have to go fast fashion choose Better Big Brands, which are the big brands that are doing better than their peers; (2) look for Conscious Superstars, which are slow fashion brands that really focus on human rights and sustainability; and (3) go for new-to-you second-hand clothing through thrifting, renting, swapping and borrowing. 

I think what I want to do with this episode is to talk about some of the barriers to inclusivity with each of these three approaches. But first let’s have a more general discussion about the kinds of barriers that we might encounter in all three areas:

Barriers to Building a Conscious Closet

What do you think are some of the big barriers that people face in trying to get to a more conscious wardrobe?

• Cost

• Sizing

• Marketing

• Race

• Time

Better Big Brands and Problems with Inclusive Sizing

Brianna, you shared a video about Lululemon on your Instagram feed a while ago, and I thought it was a good way to open up this discussion.

A consultancy firm called Simon-Kucher and Partners surveyed consumers about the considerations for conscious fashion. The four top-rated considerations were (1) fair labour standards, (2) sustainable materials and processes, (3) sending profits to charity, and (4) body positivity.

Have you observed a change?

I was listening to an interview with body positivity writer and photographer Marielle Elizabeth, and she talked about the reasons that clothing companies have been so slow to adopt inclusive sizing.[1] She says basically that until about five years ago the main barrier was fat-phobia and these harmful narratives that stem from it – like the (totally incorrect) idea that larger people don’t spend as much on clothing because they are trying to lose weight.[2]

But in the last five years these fat-phobic narratives are being smashed, so now it’s more about the financial investment. Because there is an initial cost to introducing inclusive sizing, especially if you’re going to be increasing beyond size 18. She made an interesting point that beyond size 18 you basically have to re-think how you design clothing because it’s not just a 1:1 size increase everywhere.[3]

I was listening to an interview with Alexandra Waldman, a co-founder of Universal Standard (an inclusive fashion brand that produces sizes 0 to 40), and she talked about not being able to find a quality white t-shirt that didn’t have a cat or flowers on it.

Sustainable Fashion Superstars Inclusive Sizing

Inclusive sizing actually just makes a lot of business sense. The sizes most frequently sold in stores are 14-18, so having those sizes available allows you to sell to people in that category.

From what I’ve seen, sizing inclusivity generally means having sizes to at least 24. A number of slow fashion brands have introduced inclusive sizing (or had it to begin with). Similarly, inclusive fashion brands are increasing their sustainability. From what I was able to see, most slow fashion brands have made nods to sustainability and also use some level of inclusive sizing. 

Power of My People: an ethical fashion company based out of B.C. They are a slow fashion company and I found their approach convincing – they seem to have thought about workers’ rights and environmental sustainability in how they supply and manufacture garments. On their website they describe where the fabrics were sourced and where manufacturing occurred for each item, as well as any ethical certifications. They have a new net zero emissions target that they are meeting with carbon offsets. For that reason, their products are on the pricier side. But I’m working on trying to buy a smaller number of staple items to build my wardrobe – conscious closet episode – so I don’t mind. I bought a linen button down from them a while back and really enjoy it. Power of My People sizes to 3XL and they have plus-sized models showing their items.

Girlfriend Collective: I have three pairs of leggings and two sports bras from this brand. I bought them in 2018 and 2019 and they are all still going strong after probably 50-150 wears. They have a Good On You rating of “Great”, which is based on a 4/5 rating for the environment and a 5/5 rating for human rights. They have a lot of detail on their website about how they source the water bottles and fish nets they recycle for the fabric, as well as the working conditions for the people that make their clothes. Girlfriend Collective uses diverse models and has sizing up to 6XL. As for price, they are certainly not cheap – leggings go for $68 each according to my most recent search – but they are in line with other athleticwear brands.

On her website, Marielle Elizabeth publishes a list of slow fashion brands that have inclusive sizing. Check it out here.

Thrift Shopping

Brianna, you mentioned thrift shops and clothing subscriptions in the outline that you sent us. Can you tell me a bit more about what you meant?

That was something I had never thought about before. But quality consignment stores so rarely have good selection for people above a size large. Which is ridiculous because all body types have clothing that they want to get rid of.

Why do you think it is that thrift shops have such little selection in plus sizes?

There are a couple of thoughts on why the supply of plus-sized clothing in second-hand markets is so low. First, because fashion brands haven’t been selling in inclusive sizes, people with larger bodies haven’t had the same level of access to the quality pieces that consignment stores look for. There is also some fat-phobia in what consignment stores are selecting for their inventories.

Another factor is the documented impact of fatphobia on the livelihoods of people. There is evidence showing that larger women make less money, which in turn influences the amount that people have to spend on clothing – which in turn means fewer clothing donations and more demand for second-hand clothes.

When it comes to thrift shops, one writer that I encountered said the lack of plus-sized options was due to high demand – that whenever there are plus-sized clothes they go pretty quickly. She also said that there is a problem where non plus-sized people will go to thrift shops and buy plus-sized clothes with interesting patterns in order to cut them up and create new items. Apparently this is a whole thing that people do, and even blog about. So yeah, don’t be that person. There is also a trend of buying oversized clothing, which takes away from nice clothes that would fit a larger body.

It seems like there is some progress on this as entrepreneurs start to create body positive consignment and resale stores. I found a list of options in several American cities. ThredUp, the world’s largest online consignment and thrift shop, has up to 4XL on its website 

On its face, clothing swaps could be great for people who don’t see their bodies represented in thrift shops. But I think about the clothing swaps I have been a part of and how my own insecurities have sort of been at play, and I wonder whether that might not be problematic. What do you think? Is there a way around it?

Ethical Fashion and Affordability

I think class is the next most important barrier to participation in ethical fashion. I know it has been a factor for me. What about for the two of you?

Let’s dig into the reasons. So, obviously, on a one-to-one basis a shirt you buy from fast fashion is going to be cheaper than slow fashion. Lots of blogs have pointed this out. Definitely, there are ways to spend less on slow fashion than on fast fashion. Good quality clothes last longer, so to a certain extent it can make sense to buy for longer.

But the reality is it can be hard to have the liquidity to be able to afford these more expensive, long-lasting pieces.

I think there is also a question of what happens if your style or size changes. Investing a lot in a few pieces can be a good strategy, but if your size fluctuates that can make it more difficult to think about your clothes as a wardrobe. Also, lifestyle changes.

There is also a certain privilege in being able to spend the time to read about what goes into a wardrobe, to research ethical fashion brands, and to go to lots of different consignment shops. Making your own clothes is also about the luxury of time.

Potential Solutions

Size Inclusivity: Brianna, you had some really good suggestions for solutions to size inclusivity problems in the fashion industry. Mind telling us about that?

In General: For ethical consumers, I think it’s important to remember that everyone has different identities and experiences and challenges, and that the ability to make ethical consumption choices is a privilege that not everybody has the same access to. What comes with that is a duty to use your privilege to make ethical consumption easier to access. So that means asking your favourite sustainable brands to size inclusively, to produce makeup in different shades. It also means you have to help push for those more systemic solutions.

Brianna’s Notes

Aim

When people engage with ethical consumption, they often don’t realize the different kinds of privilege they may have access to. Hoping to illuminate how privilege shapes who has access to ethical consumption.

Disclaimer

Not an activist or social justice scholar, my comments are based more on my personal experience when trying to engage in ethical consumption patterns. Also acknowledging that I am on the border of straight sizing so generally can find clothes in most stores and I am a lighter skinned dark person so also can find shades in most places.

Big Questions

1. Who actually has access to ethical consumption?

2. What are the different barriers to access?

Barriers to Buying Slow/Sustainable Fashion

Cost.

Sizing: most brands only go up to size 12, or occasionally 16. Even for brands that have these bigger sizes, finding them in store is like finding vegan food in a steakhouse – Not easy.

Style: a lot of sustainable plus size clothing just isn’t trendy – like not all of us bigger folks want to wear moomoos.

Marketing: a lot of sustainable fashion appears to be marketed to white western audiences, which for me suggests that a lot of assumptions are being made about who wants sustainable fashion which obviously is not just that white western audience.

Some nice exceptions:

• Girlfriend Collective goes up to a 6XL and they use diverse models.

• Nettle’s Tale goes up to 3XL and has a community sizing guide that includes measurements from people with all body types.

• Kotn goes up to a 2XL, but not in all styles.

• Other popular brands like Patagonia also only go up to 2XL in select styles.

Barriers to Other Alternatives to Fast Fashion

Thrifting (also suffers from sizing/access issues)

Clothing subscription (again only for smaller people)

Make your own (lack of time (time is also a privilege) and upfront costs can be high)  

Barriers to Buying “Sustainable” Beauty Products

Cost.

Lack of shade range.

Lack of products for different hair types.

Only sold online a lot of the time.

Examples of people trying to do better: Range Beauty is a black owned company trying to offer clean beauty for all shades. Cheekbone beauty is an indigenous owned company.  

Potential Solutions

Plus-size-only second-hand shopping.

Made to order sizing: some sustainable brands have this option where you can submit your measurements (examples: Pamut Apparel US).

Pressuring brands to be inclusive: Whenever a brand does a survey ALWAYS encourage them to increase sizing/inclusivity in product/marketing. When you are writing a review also consider talking about inclusivity.

What is NOT a solution is telling people who face these barriers that they just shouldn’t consume. It’s one thing to decide not to consume at all (which can be a valid choice) but it’s another thing not to have the choice at all because of structural factors beyond your control.

The onus for sustainable consumption is partially on the individual, but brands and suppliers also need to make sure they are inclusive so that everyone can have access to ethical consumption.

Resources

 https://www.stephanieyeboah.com/2020/03/navigating-sustainability-when-youre-plus-size.html 

https://fashionjournal.com.au/fashion/the-sustainable-fashion-industry-is-size-exclusive-take-it-from-this-model/

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/fashion/designers/a32213676/plus-size-sustainable-fashion/

https://wellinsiders.com/defining-diversity-inclusivity-in-green-beauty/

Endnotes

[1] Medium Well Podcast. (23 September 2020). Creative a More Size-Inclusive Ethical Fashion Landscape and Fat Activism with Marielle Elizabeth. Medium Well Podcast.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

Episode 35 - Eating Insects

Kristen is on vacation, so Kyla took the reigns on this look into the future of eating insects. This was a topic we had discussed when originally brainstorming for the show, and we’re excited to finally eat our cricket powder.

A lot of the information for this episode was taken from a 2013 paper by the FAO, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. It’s called Edible Insects: Future Prospects for Food and Feed Security. Before this report came out, there was very little conversation happening on the subject, so this kick-started the discussion.

History of Eating Insects

The practice of eating insects is called entomophagy, and we’ve been doing it since prehistoric times. Shoutout to the wiki article on entomophagy which is extremely well written. I recommend checking it out as a starting point for those who want to learn more after the episode.

Around 2 billion people eat insects around the world, mostly in Central and South America, Africa, Asia, and even a bit in Australia and New Zealand, although it’s less common from my experience. It’s more taboo in western culture, but it shouldn’t be! It’s slowly becoming more acceptable in western cultures to eat insects, and in Seattle toasted grasshoppers are a big hit at Mariners baseball games.

There are about 2000 arthropods globally that are known to be safe for human consumption. Arthropods are invertebrate animals with an exoskeleton, segmented body, and paired jointed appendages. The category includes insects, arachnids, myriapods (centipedes, millipedes etc), and crustaceans. So if you’re eating crab and lobster, you’re already partway there. Crickets are so similar to shellfish they put allergy warnings on cricket powder saying people with shellfish allergies may react to cricket as well.

It’s kind of funny that we eat lobster, which used to be fed to servants and prison inmates until rules were passed to prevent something considered so cruel. Perhaps we’ll soon be there with bugs!

So why don’t we eat them in the west? A New York Times article suggests that because Europe spent so much of it’s history covered in ice, it only has about 2% of the world’s edible insects and they don’t get nearly as big as they do in warmer climates, so they were never worth hunting. We associate them with things that are dirty or decaying or carrying disease. Also the bible says not to do it (Leviticus 11:41 ‘And every creeping thing that creeps on the earth shall be an abomination. It shall not be eaten.’) so that’s that. Early explorers saw people eating insects in different countries and viewed it as animal-like. As Europeans took over large parts of the world, they took the idea of not eating insects with them, so we can thank colonialism for setting us way back on this one. Missionaries were especially influential in Africa and changed the way people viewed eating insects.

To be fair, it’s not like we’re super weird for not eating insects. Out of 800,000 arthropods, only 2000 are edible. But that same article says we can expect rapid growth in demand in the west for insects in the next few years, which is promising because there’s lots of great reasons to eat bugs!

Surprise, we already eat bugs!

Each year we eat 2lbs of insects! What?? They wind up in food like peanut butter, spices, or canned fruit and veg. The US FDA allows certain quantities to pass into the food Americans buy. “For every ¼ cup of cornmeal, the FDA allows an average of one or more whole insects, two or more rodent hairs and 50 or more insect fragments, or one or more fragments of rodent dung.” - CNN

Not to mention honey. A teaspoon of honey represents the lifetime regurgitation of 50 bees. So we’re already consuming hidden insects and the byproducts of insects. Pass the cricket powder! 

What insects do people eat?

The most popular are beetles, caterpillars, bees, wasps, ants, grasshoppers, locusts, and crickets.

I saw scorpions on sticks in Beijing, and bought mealworm and cricket powder here in Canada. In Australia, on a tour I did in Darwin, ants are picked right off of trees and eaten by brave tourists. They taste citrusy and are high in vitamin C.

In Kushihara Japan there’s an annual wasp festival where wasp-hunters sell snacks like wasp mochi, chocolate wasps, and full wasp nests. It’s all considered a delicacy.

There are loads of insects to eat! Dragonflies, grubs, termites, the list goes on.

Why Eat Bugs?

Everyone who eats insects say they’re tasty. 2 billion people aren’t eating bugs because they DON’T taste good. Apparently stinkbugs taste like apples. But just as important, they’re sustainable alternatives to the meat industry.

From an article by Samuel Imathiu from the University of Agriculture and Technology, Nairobi, Kenya

“The current research evidence shows that edible insects can play a significant role in addressing food and nutrition insecurities and this should be encouraged. Scientific evidence shows that edible insects’ nutritional quality is equivalent and sometimes exceeds that of animal-based foods. This and the fact that edible insects have a faster growth rate, high food conversion efficiency and requires less resources to rear compared to livestock should make them a more attractive quality food source especially to the rural poor in the developing countries.”

Environmental Benefits

We’ve talked a lot already in previous episodes about how animal agriculture is a big culprit in climate change, but as a refresher, livestock account for 14% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and use about 70% of the world’s agricultural land. And production is expected to ramp up as global demand continues to increase. As countries become wealthier, and more urbanized, they’re meat consumption grows. So, fighting climate change means overhauling our current food system. Eating insects can help in a few ways.

1) Insects can be fed on food industry by-products, which helps reduce waste and environmental contamination. This would be more for the insects being raised as feed for other animals. For people, we want to feed bugs food grade food. Or if the waste they’re eating is food waste like apple cores and melon rinds, stuff like that, then it would probably be alright for us. But this needs more study, and most of the farms I looked into feed them a grain meal. Here is a little more information than we went into on the episode.

2) Less food waste, since the whole cricket is being used. In addition, Entomo Farms (where I got my cricket powder) says their crickets’ manure and sheddings, called frass, are sold to farmers and gardeners as high quality fertilizer.

3) Insects emit fewer greenhouse gases and less ammonia than cattle or pigs. Methane, one of the worst greenhouse gases, is produced by only a few insect groups, such as termites and cockroaches. Overall, bugs produce one tenth as much methane as conventional livestock. When compared to chickens, which are greener than bigger livestock, crickets emit half as much C02 and use 25 percent less water. From the FAO paper:

4) They need less land, water, and food, and you don’t have to clear cut spaces to raise them. “Because they are cold-blooded, insects are very efficient at converting feed into protein (crickets, for example, need 12 times less feed than cattle, four times less feed than sheep, and half as much feed as pigs and broiler chickens to produce the same amount of protein)”.

As an email from Entomo Farms put it “less feed means less land, water, fertilizers, and transportation”. However, this is a little contested. When fed certain organic waste diets they’ve been found to have the same feed conversion as chickens. The feed the big farms use do make them more efficient, but everyone is still trying to figure out the best stuff to feed them.

By 2025, nearly 2 billion people are expected to be living with water scarcity, and more than half of our freshwater is being used in agriculture. 1kg of animal protein requires 5-20 times more water than 1kg of grain protein, or 100 times if you include the water required for forage and grain production to feed the animals. 1kg of beef requires 22000-43000 litres of fresh water. Cricket needs less, although the numbers are all over the place when I look it up. The highest estimates were 100-250l, but one source said 10l and another said 1l. Regardless, at the highest estimate it’s still a huge drop from the water requirements of cows.

For land, you need about 200 square metres to grow 1lb of beef, but you only need 15 square metres to grow 1lb of cricket. They could be good for vertical farming if they’re being kept in crates. One farm said 10’x3’ crates are used, but they can be kept in smaller boxes for small scale operations.

5) Insects are ready to eat way faster than other animals. They transform from larva to adults within weeks. There are loads of species of crickets, but most of them die of old age after 10 weeks, and none live more than a year.

As a bonus, all of the ways bugs are more environmentally friendly than livestock also makes them cheaper. While it’s still a little pricey to get insects here in Canada, it will become more cost effective for the consumer when everyone is eating them.

Eating insects isn’t just for people. They can be used to feed pets and livestock! We’ll probably have to start using them as our food’s food. The FAO figures worldwide production of animal feed will have to increase by as much as 70 percent to be able to feed the world by 2050, when we’ll have around 9 billion people on the planet. Switching from meat meal, fish meal, and soybean meal would help mitigate the production problems that come with those industries. We’ve talked about these problems in our milk, vegetarian, and seafood episodes in a bit more detail.

Health Benefits

Insects contain loads of protein, vitamins, minerals, and amino acids. They’re loaded with omega 3 fats, iron, magnesium, calcium, zinc, and fibre. The exoskeleton of insects actually makes their fibre content pretty high. This obviously varies widely based on the insects being eaten. There are nearly 2000 remember! But for the most part they’re hella good for you.

Entomo Farms talk about the nutrients in cricket powder on their site and use what I think is a misleading metric, which is comparing the nutrients to beef, pound for pound. My cricket powder was really expensive, and I won’t be able to eat a whole pound of cricket the same way I could eat a cheese burger. Or at least I can’t yet, I demand a cricket cheeseburger!
Although, 2tbsp have 400% of my B12 intake. So maybe I don’t need a cricket burger. But if I do want one, I just have to wait; as production ramps up, price will go down.

“Compared with mammals and birds, insects may also pose less risk of transmitting zoonotic infections to humans, livestock and wildlife, although this topic requires further research.” So mad cow and H1N1 and salmonella for example appear to be less likely to be transmitted. But because we’re not farming insects on large scale right now, more research should be done.

Pest Harvesting and Lifting People out of Poverty

From the wiki article on Entomophagy: Some researchers have proposed entomophagy as a solution to policy incoherence created by traditional agriculture, by which conditions are created which favor a few insect species, which then multiply and are termed "pests". In parts of Mexico, the grasshopper Sphenarium purpurascens is controlled by its capture and use as food. Such strategies allow decreased use of pesticide and create a source of income for farmers totaling nearly US$3000 per family. Environmental impact aside, some argue that pesticide use is inefficient economically due to its destruction of insects which may contain up to 75 percent animal protein in order to save crops containing no more than 14 percent protein.

“In the past two decades, villagers in impoverished north-eastern Thailand have started housing crickets in concrete pens in their backyards. As demand for the insects has risen, so have profits: One farmer reportedly went from selling 10 kilograms to more than two tons a day. Now around 20,000 such farms have been established, collectively earning more than $3 million a year.” - New York Times

Is It Cruel?

As Kristen has said before on the show, it’s a little tricky when you look at how one cow can feed a number of people, while a number of crickets are needed to feed one person. So is it ethical to do that?

There hasn’t been much research done on insect welfare and laws are suuuuper loose about how to raise and protect insects. The farm I bought my powder from puts the cricket welfare in their advertising, but I don’t think we should rely on the kindness of cricket farmers entirely.

It’s most likely that insects do not feel pain, but we’re not sure. So, the safest thing to do is to regulate the treatment of insects in farming. Kristen was a little skeptical of the “they probably don’t feel pain?” argument I offered, so here’s all the reading I did on it to land on that unhelpful statement.

It’s pretty easy to kill insects humanely and unlike mammals, they like living in high density situations. It’s important to regulate the slaughter methods, because there are humane ways to do it, such as lowering the temperature until they go into hibernation and then eventually die (24hrs to be safe), and inhumane, like boiling, frying, steaming, roasting, etc. There are some that are served and eaten still alive, which ranks pretty low on my humane scale.

Entomo says they treat the crickets ethically. They live at least 80% of their natural life cycle in large open rooms instead of crates. They roam freely and have constant access to food and water. I guess that’s better?

For farms that do use crates, they’re reasoning is that crates can be stacked to use space more efficiently and they’re usually given nooks and crannies and objects to climb on and hide in, for they’re comfort.

Brian Tomasik, who writes about reducing animal suffering, argues that eating insects isn’t ethical, and one of his best points was: is it ethical to bring more insects into existence in farming operations, if their lives are worse off than in their natural habitat? Even if large farms do a good job, amateur farms are likely to cause harm by neglect or making mistakes, like forgetting to feed and water them.

What do you think?

Downsides of Eating Insects

We have to be careful of over-doing it. Most insects are still harvested from the wild rather than farmed, so it’s possible to accidentally destroy the local insect population. From what I could find this is pretty rare, but still something to consider.

Wild caught insects are also more likely to have pesticides if they’ve been hanging around crops, which is a bad thing for us to be eating.

Because production isn’t mainstream, there needs to be more studies done on concentrations of heavy metals, pesticides, and allergens. Also, infrastructure and machinery for mainstream harvesting is still new and it’s loosely regulated or not regulated at all in most countries. It’s hard to know how safe the production process is for turning out food. If insects are being raised on farms with poor quality or straight up rotten feed, then humans are getting that nasty bacteria.

We have to be careful about introducing insects into environments where they might cause harm. It’s difficult to bring live insects into Australia, for example, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. While farms might remain mostly closed, it’s gotta be pretty hard to contain them fully.

Because farming insects is not a well understood industry, scaling it up to meet the demands of a population pushing 8 billion people will probably bring surprise issues that are difficult to see now but obvious in hindsight.

They look nasty as fuck. I read an article by Angela Skujins who tried to eat insects in every meal for a week, and it was a huge failure, she lost 4 pounds and thought she’d die of starvation.

Crickets still need to eat food. So they’ll still require crops and energy from heating their facilities (although because they like darkness, a bit of energy is saved by keeping the lights out).

Overall, if you’re looking for the most ethical diet, it’s still vegan.

So Are We All Going To Be Eating Insects?

The industry is slowly growing. In 2018 Sainsbury’s in the UK started carrying Crunchy Roasted Crickets. Whole Foods and Loblaw here in Canada also apparently stock it, although I’ve never noticed and I’ll have to watch out for it now. More than 100 companies currently exist that produce their own branded foods made from insects.

The industry was worth less than a billion dollars in 2019, but is projected to be worth as much as 8 billion dollars by 2030.

Aspire Food Group, a farm in Texas, is ramping up the size of it’s operation because demand for cricket powder is so high.

So will people eat bugs? Yeah probably someday. Sushi was very stigmatized when it was first introduced in the west but grew popular because restaurants put it on their menus and patrons trusted the chefs to present something edible. We might just be one popular restaurant chain and an influencer munching on a cricket burger away from cricket chips in every cupboard.

Further Info

Fun Fact of the episode: when crickets are ready to mate, they make their chirping noise. If a whole bunch of them are ready to go at once, it gets hella loud in the big farms and farmers have to wear headphones.

Here is a great short video on eating insects!

And another!

And a podcast episode from Wall Street Journal’s Future of Everything

Episodes 26, 27 and 29 - Palm Oil

What is Palm Oil?

Palm oil comes from the fruit of oil palm trees (elaeis guineensis). Palm kernel oil comes from crushing the kernel (the stone in the middle of the fruit). 66 million tons of palm oil is produced annually, making it the most commonly produced vegetable oil. Global production of palm oil has doubled in the last decade. Palm oil plantations cover more than 27 million hectares of the Earth’s surface.

There are approximately 200 alternate names for palm oil and palm oil derivatives used in cleaning products and cosmetics, which can make it really difficult to know if there is palm oil in what you’re buying.[1]

But here’s a trick: there are four root words that give you an indication that an ingredient might be palm oil-derived (but not necessarily so):

Palm-

• Palm kernel oil

• Palm fruit oil

• Palmate

• Palmolein

• Palmitate

• Palmitic acid

• Palmityl alcohol

• Hydrated palm glycerines

• Etyl palmitate

Stear-

• Sodium stearate

• Stearic acid

• Pentataerythrityl tetraisostearate

• Octyldodecyl stearoyl stearate

Laur-

• Sodium lauryl lactylate

• Sodiul lauryl sulphate

• Sodium laureth sulfare

Glyc-

• Glyceryl

• Hydrogenated palm glycerides

But there are a bunch of palm derivatives that don’t use these roots (e.g., sodium kernelate, elaeis guineensis) and sometimes palm oil can be labelled more generically, as vegetable fat or vegetable oil. Here is a list of 25 sneaky names for palm oil. If you live in an EU country, palm oil can’t be labelled as a generic vegetable oil.[2]

More than 50% of packaged supermarket products contain palm oil. Palm oil is in:

• Packaged foods like pizza (dough), doughnuts, chocolate, margarine, noodles, ice cream, bread, chips, cookies. It’s used where you need fat of some kind.

• Personal care products and cosmetics like deodorant, shampoo, toothpaste, and lipstick. Some cleaning products also.

• Animal feed

• Biofuels

It is also a popular cooking oil in Asian and African countries. 40% of the world’s palm oil is consumed in China, India, and Pakistan.[3] The food industry used about 72% of all palm oil, cosmetics/cleaning take another 18%, and the remaining 10% goes to biofuels and animal feed.[4]

Why is Palm Oil in Everything?

Palm oil has a lot of useful properties. It is semi-solid at room temperature, so it can keep spreads spreadable. It is resistant to oxidation, so it can give products a longer shelf-life. It is stable at high temperatures, so it helps give fried products a crispy and crunchy texture. And it is odorless and colourless, so it doesn’t alter the look or smell of food products. 

Palm oil is also used in some products for its health properties. Palm oil doesn’t have trans-fat and has a lower saturated fat concentration than butter. Other vegetable oils have to be partially hydrogenated to make them more solid, but that process of artificial hydrogenation creates trans-fatty acids.[5] Palm oil is naturally hydrogenated. When scientific consensus was forming around trans-fats, Unilever led the shift to palm oil in food products. 

Palm oil and palm oil derivatives also replaced animal-based fats in foods, as well as cleaning and personal care products (E.g., soaps with animal tallow[6]). Palm oil and palm kernel oil possessed the same properties as animal tallow, which made them the only suitable plant-based alternative.[7] Consumers were already pushing the market toward plant-based alternatives, but the BSE outbreaks in the late 1980s and early 1990s triggered a larger shift toward palm oil.[8] The consumption of animal fats per capita reached its peak in the 1980s and has been in decline since.

Palm oil is also cheap because it’s a productive crop and because oil palm trees demand less work and production inputs than other oil crops. For that reason, it is a popular cooking oil in Asian and African countries.

Where is Palm Oil Produced?

Oil palm trees are native to West Africa but were brought to Southeast Asia in the 19th century. Malaysia and Indonesia produce 87% of global palm oil. However, there are 42 other countries that also produce palm oil. That includes countries in West and Central Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central and tropical South America.[9]

Palm Oil Production

Oil palms are grown and harvested on large-, medium-, and small-scale palm oil plantations.[10] The palm oil industry is dominated by about a dozen corporations that operate large-scale plantations and mills.[11] The three largest players – Musim Mas, Wilma, and Sime Darby, account for 25% of palm oil production.[12] (While these are big multinationals, they are small in comparison to the biggest agribusiness corporations, the “ABCDs”, which are headquartered in western countries). There are at least a million small-scale oil palm producers in Indonesia alone.[13]

Oil palm trees grow up to 20 metres tall and have an average life span of 25 years. They start to bear fruit after three years and reach peak production between years 6-8. Fruit bunches can contain from 1-3,000 individual fruits, which are the size of small plums. The bunches weigh 10-25kg. Harvesting palm fruit is physically demanding. Harvesters use long steel poles with a sickle at the end to cut the palm fruit bunches down. The bunches are then loaded onto wheelbarrows and taken to collection points.

Like sugarcane, oil palm fruit has to be processed quickly after harvesting – within 24 hours. For this reason, palm oil refineries are usually situated within-country. 

Environment

Deforestation

Palm oil is a major driver of deforestation. For instance, approximately 55% of newly developed palm oil plantations in Malaysia and Indonesia from 1990-2005 resulted in deforestation.[14] As the palm oil industry expands, the space for new palm oil plantations is often made through deforestation and peatland clearing.

Palm oil is currently responsible for about 8% of deforestation – that’s a big chunk of the 53% of deforestation caused by agriculture. But keep in mind that 24% of deforestation is from land used for livestock, while 19% is coming from soybeans (which are mostly going to feed animals) and 11% from corn (same). So, if we are looking at changing one consumption practice to counter deforestation, palm oil isn’t the place to start.

And even in the big palm oil producing countries like Indonesia, land clearing for pulp, paper, and timber is a bigger source of deforestation.

However, the forests that are being cleared for palm oil plantations are in some cases particularly biodiverse or particularly efficient carbon sinks. Indonesian forests store even more carbon per hectare than the Brazilian Amazon. Some Indonesian forests are called “peatlands”, which are low-lying rainforests located close to coastal areas. The peat is under the forest, and it is basically a below-ground accumulation of decayed vegetation. It was formed in swampy conditions where plant material fails to fully decay and can build up to a depth of 10 metres or more over thousands of years.

The peat lands are an immense source of stored carbon. They can store up to 20 times as much carbon as tropical rainforests on normal mineral soils. As the forests above them are deforested, those sinks are released – making for something some have called a “carbon time-bomb”. Also, as the industry expands there is concern that its impact on deforestation could increase.

And palm oil could be less destructive. Deforestation could be reduced or avoided by planting in areas that are already deforested.

Biodiversity Loss

This problem is connected to the problem of deforestation and other land conversion for palm oil plantations.  Palm oil expansion could affect 54% of threatened mammals and 64% of threatened birds globally.

Some of the species threatened by palm oil expansion include the cotton top monkey, the chimpanzee, Sumatran tigers, African forest elephants, orangutans, gibbons, sun bears, kangaroos, and cassowaries. For example, 10,000 of the estimated 75-100,000 critically endangered Bornean orangutans are currently found in areas allocated to palm oil.

In addition to the loss of direct habitat, palm oil plantations can increase human-wildlife conflict with species like orangutans and tigers. Each year 750-1,250 orangutans are killed during human-orangutan conflicts, often linked to expanding agriculture.

A Jakarta-based ecologist has referred to palm oil plantations as “green deserts” because they are monocultures. While these are plants, palm plantations in Southeast Asia are an introduced species that does not interact very well with local ecology, so very little biodiversity exists within them.

Unfortunately, boycotting palm oil is likely to displace rather than halt biodiversity loss because it would increase the production of other oil crops. So the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and WWF prefer to push for palm oil sustainability, rather than a boycott or ban of palm oil.

Sustainable palm oil would involve putting an end to the clearing of native tropical forests for new palm oil plantations, and limit demand for palm oil for non-food uses. It would also ask existing palm oil plantations to manage their land responsibly by setting aside forest and other areas identified as important for biodiversity and carbon.

Climate Change

Oil palms are a very productive plant. One of the reasons it was produced initially was environmental sustainability: because palm oil is so productive, you need less land to grow it.

Source: WWF

The problem here is land conversion. Forests and peat lands are carbon sinks. When these lands are converted to palm oil plantations, it results in the release of greenhouse gases. As well, we lose those carbon sinks. Indonesia’s peatlands have gone from a carbon sink to a globally significant source of emissions thanks to deforestation. Oil palms do absorb carbon dioxide, but less effectively than forests.

Also, fire is used to clear lands for palm oil plantations, which emits GHG in addition to creating air pollution. 80% of the fires in Indonesia in 2019 were being set to clear land for palm oil plantations.

The challenging thing here is that oil palm production is more productive than substitute crops. And substitutes like coconut oil have their own environmental problems. We would likely have to convert even more land to keep up with demand.

Chemicals Use and Pollution

Palm oil plantations use a range of pesticides and herbicides, as well as large amounts of fertiliser. These products can pollute soil and groundwater. Although palm oil plantations aren’t large users of pesticides and fertilizers overall, these chemicals are often used indiscriminately – which can result in water pollution.

These chemicals also pose a risk to the people working on palm oil plantations. One herbicide used on palm oil plantations is paraquat dichloride. Paraquat is a highly toxic chemical, and for that reason is banned in the EU as well as several other countries. In Indonesia it is a restricted substance. Amnesty International found evidence of the use of paraquat on Indonesian plantations, as well as the absence of training and sufficient personal protective equipment. Workers described negative health effects after exposure to the chemicals. Palm oil mills also pollute, producing 2.5 metric tons of effluent for every metric ton of palm oil it produces.

People

Oil palms are one of the most profitable crops for farmers, which in part is a success story: palm oil has helped to reduce rural poverty in places like Indonesia, for example. Palm oil has the potential to improve incomes and employment where it is produced. Millions of smallholders rely on palm oil for their livelihoods in Malaysia and Indonesia.

On the other hand, the oil palm industry can sometimes hurt communities economically because they lose access to forests and it may not be compensated sufficiently by economic gains from cultivating oil palms.

Working Conditions

Amnesty International has reported on the labour abuses on palm oil plantations. Specifically, they looked at plantations in Indonesia linked to Wilmar, the largest processor and merchandiser of palm oils (they control 43% of the global palm oil trade).

On those plantations, Amnesty International found evidence of forced and child labour, gender discrimination, as well as exploitative and dangerous working conditions.

Amnesty concluded that these are not isolated incidents, but rather linked to the systemic business practices of Wilmar and its subsidiaries and suppliers, such as the low level of wages, use of targets and “piece rates” (workers are paid based on tasks completed rather than hours worked), and a complex system of financial and other penalties. Because of these systems, workers that do not meet their targets get their already low salaries deducted.

Targets are set by individual companies and “appear to be set arbitrarily to meet companies’ needs rather than being based on a realistic calculation of how much workers can do in their working hours.” Because of the targeting system, workers on the plantations get help from their spouses, children, and others to complete tasks. Amnesty documented evidence of the involvement of children in hazardous tasks, which is illegal under Indonesian law, on plantations owned by two Wilmar subsidiaries and three Wilmar suppliers. Some were as young as eight.

Amnesty found that workers, especially women, are employed under casual work arrangements which make them vulnerable to abuse. While most harvesters (always men) are employed on permanent employment contracts, most plant maintenance employees are women and are employed on a casual basis.

Employers can penalize workers for failing to meet targets or for mistakes in their work (e.g. picking unripe fruit). This penalty usually has a financial dimension. These penalties are not transparent, which allows employers to exact work under the threat of loss of pay or employment. Amnesty International has documented instances of this, which it considers to constitute forced labour. 

Indigenous Peoples and Nearby Communities

Indigenous peoples are losing their land to palm oil plantations. This is especially a problem in Indonesia. Land use rights in Indonesia are often disputed due to conflicts between customary land rights and formal property ownership.[15] Weak laws, poor government oversight, and the failure of palm producing companies to fulfil their human rights responsibilities have led to a loss of land and livelihood opportunities for Indigenous people in Indonesia, according to Human Rights Watch. Companies have failed to consult with Indigenous peoples and to provide just and fair compensation for losses suffered.

In some cases, Indigenous peoples are forcefully removed from their lands, which is one reason that the Rainforest Action Network has used the term “conflict palm oil” to describe the industry. Private armies and paramilitary groups are deployed sometimes, and community members have been killed in Indonesia. There are upwards of 600 ongoing land disputes between palm oil companies and rural communities.

Surrounding communities can also be made more at risk of flooding when palm plants are placed on steep slopes, causing soil erosion.

Food Security

Another problem with the conversion of agricultural lands for palm oil production is that it can hurt local food security (same with all cash crops).[16] And because palm oil is increasingly being used for biofuel, prices are increasing which can sometimes make it unaffordable for communities proximate to these plantations.[17]

Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil

What is it?

The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) is a sustainable palm oil certification that was founded in 2004. Like the Marine Stewardship Council, RSPO was founded through a collaboration between the World Wildlife Fund and Unilever, as well as Asian producers and a few other Western brands (e.g. Nestlé, Tesco, Cargill).[18] It has managed sustainability standards for palm oil production since 2008.[19] An estimated 14% of palm oil is RSPO certified.

The backbone of the RSPO standard is a generic set of Principles and Criteria adopted in 2005.[20] There are eight core Principles:

• Commitment to transparency,

• Compliance with applicable laws and regulations,

• Commitment to long-term economic and financial viability,

• Use of appropriate best practices by growers and millers,

• Environmental responsibility and conservation of natural resources and biodiversity,

• Responsible consideration of employees, smallholders, and other individual communities affected by growers and mills,

• Responsible development of new plantings, and

• Commitment to continuous improvement.[21]

Each of the eight principles has corresponding criteria, which can also differ from country-to-country and location-to-location.[22] RSPO creates standards for the growth of oil palms as well as the palm oil milling process.[23] It also has standards for tracing palm oil through the supply chain (which is called chain-of-custody certification).[24]

There are also separate standards for smallholder palm farmers. That was introduced a bit later than the main standard, and it responds to the challenges that small producers can have in obtaining sustainability certifications.[25] Basically, the idea is to ask smallholders to make improvements over time, rather than asking them to do everything before obtaining certification. That program was just introduced in 2019, so it isn’t clear how well it will work.

RSPO is the largest and by many accounts the most robust palm oil certification available, but it has still been widely criticized.

Criticisms

RSPO is a multi-stakeholder organization (meaning there are different voices involved in defining standards). The seven groups of stakeholders included in the RSPO’s general assembly are: palm oil growers, palm oil processors and/or traders, consumer goods manufacturers, retailers, banks and investors, environmental and nature conservation NGOs, and social development NGOs.[26]

However, RSPO has been criticized for being industry-dominated and for failing to engage key vulnerable stakeholders, such as smallholding producers, labour unions, social and environmental groups, indigenous peoples and organizations, and women’s groups.[27]For instance, only a small proportion of palm oil-related land use conflicts are sufficiently acknowledged and resolved within RSPO’s institutional dispute resolution mechanisms.[28]

Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and other NGOs have criticized RSPO for the low stringency of compliance enforcement.[29] For instance, Amnesty International concluded that “the RSPO is acting as a shield which deflects greater scrutiny of Wilmar’s and other companies’ practices.”

Also, the majority of certified palm oil is mixed with conventional oil during transportation and as a result consumer products with the RSPO logo will most likely contain unsustainable palm oil.

Another argument is that the RSPO standard gives national governments an excuse to forego further public regulation of the industry.[30]

Critics also point to weaknesses in the standards themselves. RSPO initially avoided defining what sustainability means, going forward with the standard first.[31] RSPO’s emphasis on consensus decision-making, critics say, makes it incapable of dealing with contentious or controversial issues.[32] Even the moderate stringency of RSPO’s standards have led major stakeholders to leave.[33] 

Although RSPO has devoted some attention to the issue, it is still difficult for smallholder palm producers to afford certification.[34] And small- and medium-sized producers have less of an incentive to get RSPO certified because they often supply Indian, Chinese, and Pakistani markets[35]

Kristen mentioned a book chapter that looks at the role of auditors in sustainability labelling. The book is called Transnational Business Governance Interactions.

Why is Certification Uptake so Low?

Most sustainability labels deal with agricultural products for which there is a specific consumer product with a recognizable link to the agricultural product – e.g., coffee, paper, sugar, cocoa, fish.[36] That isn’t the case for palm oil.

That makes it much more difficult to get companies to sign onto voluntary standards for palm oil. Consumers mostly don’t know that there is palm oil in a product. Producers mostly don’t want to emphasize that there is palm oil in their items, since it has baggage and is not the major ingredient. That makes it more difficult to develop a price premium for certified palm oil. And that problem is compounded because even companies like Unilever that might use RSPO certified palm oil are not necessarily going to put the label on, say, their peanut butter because they want to emphasize the primary ingredients instead.

Another challenge is palm oil’s position in the market. Because it is mostly used as a cheap additive, producers mostly do not want to take on the increased cost and because there may not be much potential to charge a price premium. That problem is compounded because so much of the palm oil market is from non-wealthy countries, and there is very little consumer demand for sustainability labelling there.

Boycott v. Sustainability Certification

Palm oil mainly ubiquitous because it is cheap. And there are no real alternatives that wouldn’t cause problems. So:

What Can You Do?

Social and Environmental Labels

Assuming that you aren’t going to go palm oil-free: the RSPO is better than nothing, but it’s not great.

The WWF has a palm oil buyers scorecard where you can search brands for information about whether they are RSPO members or not (though again RSPO is flawed). It only has a few brands, though.

Rainforest Action Network recommends looking for the Palm Oil Innovation Group (POIG) standard, which they see as the only standard truly free of deforestation, peatland destruction, and exploitation. All POIG retailers and manufacturers are RSPO members, and must be certified – so it’s basically a stronger version of RSPO. POIG doesn’t have many certified products right now, but it might be the solution of the future. Some noteworthy POIG members include: Danone, L’Oréal, and Barry Callebaut. POIG NGOs include: WWF, Greenpeace, RAN, Verité (fair labour group), Sumatran Orangutan Society, and Orangutan Land Trust.

For workers’ rights, try the RSPO Smallholder Standard (although this might mean weaker sustainability standards). Another option is FairPalm.

Fairtrade hasn’t created standards for palm oil yet, but there is one available label that is substantively like fairtrade: FairPalm is a label for palm oil grown by smallholders in West Africa.

Or try doubling up with organic labels – which can at least address the harmful chemicals problem. Organic labels deal with the use of pesticides and fertilizers, so on their own they cannot address the other problems with palm oil. Unfortunately, RSPO is the best we have on that.

Ethical Consumer Worst and Best Ratings

Ethical Consumer has put together a list of brands to avoid (received their “worst” rating on palm oil use). Here are some of the brands that I recognized from that list:

• Nestlé – Kit Kat, NESCAFÉ, Perrier

• Mondelez – Cadbury

• Domino’s Pizza

• Yum! Brands – Pizza Hut, KFC

• Subway

• Itsu

• Prêt-à-manger

• TGI Friday’s

• Pizza Express

• L’Occitane

• Proctor and Gamble – Pampers, Head and Shoulders 

Ethical consumer also has a list of recommended brands (received their “best” rating on palm oil use). I only recognized a few brands from this list:

• Marks and Spencer

• Waitrose

• Lush

• Nivea

• Georganics

Get Involved!

Get involved with campaigns asking companies to implement sustainable palm oil practices. Write to companies to get them to use sustainable palm oil. Find out more about Michelle Desilets by following her on twitter.

Endnotes

[1] Ethical Consumer Podcast. (2018). Complex World of Palm Oil. Ethical Consumer.

[2] Paiement, Phillip. (2017). Transnational Sustainability Laws. New York: Cambridge University Press.

[3] The Food Chain Podcast. (2019). Can Palm Oil Be Sustainable? BBC World Service.

[4] Ethical Consumer Podcast, “Complex World of Palm Oil”.

[5] Ethical Consumer Podcast, “Complex World of Palm Oil”.

[6] Audio Long Reads. (2019). How the World Got Hooked on Palm Oil. The Guardian.

[7] Audio Long Reads, “How the World Got Hooked on Palm Oil.”

[8] Audio Long Reads, “How the World Got Hooked on Palm Oil.”

[9] Paiement, Transnational Sustainability Laws.

[10] Paiement, Transnational Sustainability Laws.

[11] Paiement, Transnational Sustainability Laws.

[12] Paiement, Transnational Sustainability Laws.

[13] Paiement, Transnational Sustainability Laws.

[14] Paiement, Transnational Sustainability Laws.

[15] Paiement, Transnational Sustainability Laws.

[16] Paiement, Transnational Sustainability Laws.

[17] Paiement, Transnational Sustainability Laws.

[18] Paiement, Transnational Sustainability Laws.

[19] Paiement, Transnational Sustainability Laws.

[20] Paiement, Transnational Sustainability Laws.

[21] Paiement, Transnational Sustainability Laws.

[22] Paiement, Transnational Sustainability Laws.

[23] Paiement, Transnational Sustainability Laws.

[24] Paiement, Transnational Sustainability Laws.

[25] Paiement, Transnational Sustainability Laws.

[26] Paiement, Transnational Sustainability Laws.

[27] Paiement, Transnational Sustainability Laws.

[28] Paiement, Transnational Sustainability Laws.

[29] Paiement, Transnational Sustainability Laws.

[30] Paiement, Transnational Sustainability Laws.

[31] Paiement, Transnational Sustainability Laws.

[32] Paiement, Transnational Sustainability Laws.

[33] Paiement, Transnational Sustainability Laws.

[34] Paiement, Transnational Sustainability Laws.

[35] Paiement, Transnational Sustainability Laws.

[36] Paiement, Transnational Sustainability Laws.

Episodes 22 and 23 - Seafood

The seafood industry is large, and growing, as humans are eating more fish each year. You might be surprised to learn that, per capita, annual fish consumption has increased from 9.9kg in the 1960s to 19.2kg in 2012. And the average Canadian eats slightly more than this, at 23.1kg. Americans eat an estimated 17 billion marine creatures annually.[1] 

Fishing is a Global Industry

In addition to capturing spectacular worldwide demand, fish is a global industry because it is a highly traded commodity: approximately 200 countries export fish and fishery products. Canadian fish and seafood imports generally match the global trend. The top five countries of origin for our fish and seafood imports are: the U.S. (36.7%), Thailand (14.9%), China (14.6%), Chile (5.1%) and Vietnam (4.6%).

The Fishing Supply Chain

1. Fish and shellfish (A) living in open waters or (B) raised via aquaculture in ponds, tanks or bounded coastal waters are harvested.  

2. They are packed and transported to processing facilities.

3. Processors convert the fish to consumer products (i.e. canned, frozen, filets, smoked). In some cases, processing takes multiple steps while in others fish are transported live.

4. Wholesalers receive the processed or unprocessed fish and distribute the product to retailers and restaurants.

5. You buy/eat it.

This episode focuses on just step one of the fish supply chain. Maybe we’ll cover the others in future episodes.

Overfishing

The State of Overfishing

85% of global fish stocks overfished. “Overfishing” refers to a situation when more fish are caught than can be replaced through natural reproduction. It has several causes, including rising demand, new technology, and governance gaps.

A study of catch data published in the journal Science in 2006 predicted that if fishing rates continue at the same rate, all the world's fisheries will have collapsed by 2048. The problem of overfishing is so bad that some have argued for giving the oceans their own seat at the United Nations.  The global ocean plays a central role in supporting life on Earth. Oceans cover 3/4 of the planet and contain 80% of all life.

Overfishing affects the entire ocean ecosystem. But especially the top of the food chain: the population of large predatory fish has dropped by an estimated 90% since the industrialization of fisheries in the 1950s.

Overfishing is bad for workers as well as the environment: because fish stocks have been declining, vessels must take longer and longer voyages to find fish, meaning that workers are stuck aboard for long periods of time; declining stocks also make fish processing an increasingly precarious job.

You might recall the collapse of the Newfoundland Grand Banks cod fishery in the 1990s: this put between 50 000 and 40 000 people out of work. Fishing is central to the livelihood and food security of an estimated 200 million people. Sustainable fishing matters for the environment, for animals, and for people.

Illegal, Unregulated, and Unreported Fishing

The problem of forced labour on fishing vessels is extremely difficult to tackle, as it is linked to illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing (IUU fishing also goes hand in hand with overfishing).  

Because international waters are a global commons, regulating fishing has proven extremely difficult. For this reason, people often refer to overfishing as a tragedy of the commons (each individual has an incentive to overfish, even if collectively everyone would benefit from responsible stewardship).

IUU fishing is a huge problem: it is estimated that IUU fishing accounts for 30% of all fishing activity worldwide.  Structural loopholes in international maritime law, specifically on the high seas, allow for IUU fishing to proliferate.

Outside of a country’s exclusive economic zone (on the “high seas”, which cover 64% of the surface area of the ocean) ships are governed by the laws of the country in which that vessel is registered (the “flag country”).

Often, fishing vessels are registered in countries with no meaningful link to their operations. IUU fishing occurs in primarily on the high seas and poorly regulated national waters. For example, along the coastline of sub-Saharan Africa forced labour is a problem on European and Asian fishing vessels in poorly regulated waters.

Seafood Fraud

A recent investigation of seafood bought in Montreal found that more than half of samples were mislabelled. 61% were mislabelled in some way, while 34% were an entirely different species than advertised.

Unfortunately, this is not an outlier. It merely highlights the endemic challenge of falsely and mislabeled seafood. Between 25 and 70 percent of seafood products in Canada are “mislabeled due to counterfeiting somewhere along the supply chain”. Globally, on average 30 percent of seafood products are mislabeled.

Why so high? As fish markets have globalized so too have the supply chains for fish products, resulting in a “notoriously opaque” system in which weak governance provides a hospitable environment for seafood fraud. Also, consumers don’t really know much about seafood – which is a very wide category. Approximately 350 species of seafood can be found in American markets.[2] So, seafood fraud is very easy.

Common frauds:

·      In Canada, cod is often actually haddock[3]

·      One investigation found that three quarters of red snapper was actually another species – most commonly red sea bream or tilapia.[4]

·      Grouper is another seafood that will be mislabelled. It’s often actually catfish[5]

·      And fish labelled as wild caught is often actually farmed[6]

Beyond being a consumer rights issue – if you buy salmon you probably want to know that you are receiving salmon – seafood mislabeling poses challenges for sustainability.

Eco-labels with traceability standards offer a partial solution to this problem, although seafood mislabeling still happens under such schemes (but it happens a lot less). Of course, private regulation has its limits – accordingly, government-mandated traceability requirements will play an important role as well. (For a good summary of traceability standards in the seafood industry, see this report.)

Finally, better tools are needed. DNA testing has generated research attention since it poses a potential solution to the deficiencies of current traceability best practices. For instance, the MSC published a report on the subject in March. 

The Ecological Effects of Fishing

In addition to overfishing, sustainability also concerns the broader environmental impact of fishing processes. For example, if gear is lost during the fishing process or if fishing entails destructive processes, such as the use of dynamite and poisons, this can cause more widespread ecosystem damage.

Commercial fishing gear is becoming more efficient and less efficient, depending on how you look at it. Modern fishing devices are great at finding and catching fish. But they damage the seabed and catch a lot of unwanted species in the process. “Bycatch” refers to marine species captured in a fishing operation that aren’t the target species. Bycatch is usually thrown overboard, dead or dying.

The bycatch ratio varies dramatically from method to method, but in general about a quarter of all fish taken worldwide is bycatch.[7] Sometimes, as is the case for shrimp trawling, there is much more bycatch collected than the actual intended catch.[8] In Thailand’s shrimp industry, the bycatch ratio is 14:1.[9] Dredges, bottom trawls, and drift nets are the worst for bycatch and habitat destruction – well, also dynamite.

Bottom Trawling

Bottom trawling basically turns the bottom of the sea into something resembling a paved surface or plowed field.[10] This causes extensive and irreparable damage to coral reefs and seabed ecosystems.[11] It also stirs up sediment that makes the area unlivable for some species.[12] Bottom trawling is the “marine equivalent of clear-cutting a rain forest.”[13] The average trawling operation throws 80-90 percent of the sea animals that it captures as bycatch overboard.[14] “Imagine using a bulldozer to catch songbirds for food – that’s what it’s like.” (biologist Sylvia Earle)[15]

Dolphin-Safe

Dolphin safe: in 1987 a biologist filmed dolphins being drowned in purse seine nets for tuna fishing. The footage of dolphins shrieking as the nylon nets tore away their fins really affected people, and tuna consumption dropped almost overnight. “Dolphin-safe” tuna was maybe the first ethical seafood consumer movement

Aquaculture

As overfishing impacts more and more species, fish farming is on the rise. For instance, if you are eating Atlantic salmon it is almost certainly from a fish farm: 300 farmed salmon are sold for every wild caught salmon.[16] Fish farming is the fastest growing form of food production in the world. In 1970 it contributed 3% of the world’s seafood, compared to more than 50% today.[17] And the weight of farmed fish exceeds the weight of beef produced globally.[18]

Here’s a description of aquaculture that I found helpful: “In the fjords and coastal inlets along the coast of Norway, Britain, Iceland, Chile, China, Japan, Canada, the United States, and many other countries, cages or nets that may be more than 200 feet long and 40 feet deep have been lowered into the sea and secured to platforms from which workers feed the fish. With salmon, 50,000 fish may be confined to each sea cage, at a stocking density that is equivalent to putting each 30-inch salmon in a bathtub of water.”[19]

 Fish farming is problematic for a bunch of reasons. First, because of the intensity of farming it is not great from an animal welfare perspective. More on this in a bit.

The second problem with farmed fish is that fish farms require lots of fish feed: “Fish farming sounds like a good way of meeting the growing demand for seafood while taking pressure off wild fisheries. But that can be like thinking that if we ate more beef, we wouldn’t need to grow so much corn.”[20] What often happens is that carnivorous fish are farmed and fed high volumes of fish meal. So, in essence, these operations actually use up a lot more fish flesh than they produce – and that means putting more pressure on wild fish populations.[21] And if you’re thinking, hey, at least fish meal is from relatively abundant fish, remember that this is taking away the food supply from vulnerable apex predator populations.

Fish farming also isn’t very carbon efficient for that reason. Whereas a wild salmon will go and catch its own food, fish farmers need to get fish meal from fossil-fuel powered boats.[22]

Fish farming can also cause harm to the wider environment through the spread of farm waste, chemicals, disease and parasites.  

Basically, high concentrations of fish feces and food waste are discharged, untreated, into the water around sea cages. According to WWF calculations, Scottish salmon farms discharge the same amount of waste as 9 million people (double the human population of Scotland).[23] 

The pollution from fish farming can also affect the people that inhabit coastal areas. For instance, in 1996 activists in India won a class action lawsuit against shrimp farms, on the basis that these farms had cost local communities their livelihoods.[24] In Bangladesh, illegal shrimp farms have displaced thousands of local villagers.[25]

And as with factory farming on land, the intensity of fish feedlots means that fish need to be given antibiotics and pesticides. Those leach into the water and cause environmental problems like ocean dead zones.

Lastly, farmed fish sometimes escape when predators or storms cause holes in the enclosure nets. As many as half a million farmed salmon escape every year, for example.[26] These escapees can infect wild fish with diseases and parasites. For example, young wild salmon now have levels of sea lice infestation 73% times higher than previously.[27]

Some kinds of aquaculture operations are better than others. Oyster and mussel farming seems to be relatively benign.

On the other hand, shrimp farming is a major contributor to the destruction of mangrove forests, in addition to all the regular harms.

Animal Welfare

As was the case for the vegetarianism episode, there are sort of two issues here. The first is whether it is ever okay to eat a living being that feels pain. The second is whether the manner of catching or farming fish is justified on welfare grounds.

Because we’ve covered the first bit before, we’ll skip over it here. Check out part one of vegetarianism for this. I will just quickly say that seafood encapsulates a wide variety of animals, with different capacities and levels of intelligence. Some fish – like octopus – are incredibly intelligent. Most are social creatures that have demonstrated pain responses in scientific studies.

The one exception to this may be bivalves. Bivalves are a class of marine and freshwater molluscs that have laterally compressed bodies enclosed by a shell consisting of two hinged parts. They include species like oysters, clams, mussels, and scallops. The evidence for consciousness in bivalves is “barely stronger than it is for plants, which is to say it is vanishingly slight.”[28]

A Good Death? Not So Much

Wild caught fish is somewhat proximate to hunted meat. The fish live normal lives for their species, so the only question is whether the slaughter is unjustifiably cruel. There is no such thing as humane slaughter for wild-caught fish. Take longline fishing, for example. When fish are hooked, they struggle for hours trying to escape. Then they are either clubbed to death or have their gills cut and bleed to death.

In trawlers, hundreds of different species are crushed together, gashed on corals, bashed on rocks – for hours – and then hauled from the water, causing painful decompression (the decompression sometimes causes the animals’ eyes to pop out or their internal organs to come out their mouths). On longlines, too, the deaths animals face are generally slow. Some are simply held there and die only when removed from the lines. Some die from the injury caused by the hook in their mouths or by trying to get away. Some are unable to escape attack by predators […] no fish gets a good death. Not a single one. You never have to wonder if the fish on your plate had to suffer. It did.[29]

Also, your wild caught fish probably came with bycatch.

Fish Farming

Farmed fish are similar to factory farmed cows, chickens, and pigs. They are in very crowded environments. Farmed fish exhibit stress behaviours just like factory farmed mammals and birds.[30]

Eating Animals identifies six sources of suffering on salmon farms: “(1) water so fouled that it makes it hard to breathe; (2) crowding so intense that animals begin to cannibalize one another; (3) handling so invasive that physiological measures of stress are evident a day later; (4) disturbance by farmworkers and wild animals; (5) nutritional deficiencies that weaken the immune system; and (6) the inability to form a stable social hierarchy, resulting in more cannibalization.”[31]

Also like factory farming on land, farmed fish have a high death rate due to illness, abrasions, and sea lice infestations – which Lex so helpfully told us about in the food episode. A recent study found that salmon bred and raised at fish factory farms are forced to grow at such an accelerated rate that over 50% of them are going deaf. Cool. “Another study by Royal Society Open Science found that a significant proportion of farmed salmon suffer from severe depression. The fish are referred to as ‘drop outs’ because they float lifelessly in the dirty tanks they reside in.” (source: Live Kindly)

Farmed fish are typically starved for 7-10 days before slaughter.[32] Because there generally aren’t rules for the humane slaughter of fish, farmed fish are killed in brutal ways that would be illegal in land operations.[33] Sometimes they are simply allowed to suffocate on land, which can take 15 minutes.[34] They are sometimes bashed in the head with a wooden bat, which sometimes doesn’t kill them – meaning that they can be cut open while fully conscious.[35] Sometimes they have their gills cut and bleed to death.[36]

Bivalve Farming

The one type of fish farming that may be ethically justifiable is the farming of bivalves like mussels and oysters. Because these creatures likely don’t feel pain and aren’t conscious, the same cruelty concerns don’t apply. Also, bivalves feed themselves and actually clean up the water around them – theoretically getting around some of the environmental issues.

Generally speaking, “mom and pop” mussel and oyster farms seem to be fine – good, even – for the environment. However, there are some arguments that mussel and oyster farms at a large scale can have negative environmental effects. So, it’s still unclear whether they’re a good idea at an industrial scale.

Human Rights

Thailand is the third largest exporter of seafood in the world (the country’s seafood industry is worth $7.3 billion USD annually); it is also notorious for crewing fishing boats with slaves trafficked from Burma and Cambodia. A form of bonded labour is typical: in this scenario, trafficked fishermen are sold to fishing boat owners and then must work to pay off a given price (the ka hua). In addition to being enslaved, workers on such ships are exposed to overwork, violence, torture, and even executions at sea.

Each year the U.S. State Department produces its Trafficking in Persons (TIP) report. In 2014, that report downgraded Thailand to a Tier 3 ranking due to a lack of improvements. The report revealed that the Thai government ignored instances of human trafficking and even sought to punish those attempting to bring these abuses to light.

Thailand is often used as an example of human trafficking in the fishing industry because of the size of its fishing industry and inaction on the part of its government (regulation of the Thai fishing industry is woefully inadequate). Nonetheless, this is a problem that exists worldwide. While Southeast Asia is the biggest problem region for slavery on fishing vessels, this is a global phenomenon. Human trafficking is endemic in the fishing industry. Some fishing operations in at least 51 countries crew their ships with slave labour. 

Sustainability Labels

Marine Stewardship Council

When purchasing sustainable seafood there may be several different eco-labels available to you, but the one that is largest and most well-known is the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). MSC was founded in 1996 by WWF and Unilever.

The MSC’s standards are based on three principles:

1. The condition of the fish populations: are there enough fish to ensure that the fishery is sustainable?

2. The impact of the fishery on the marine environment: what effect is the fishery having on the immediate marine environment, including non-target fish, marine mammals, and seabirds?

3. The fishery management systems: the rules and procedures that are necessary to meet principles one and two.[37]

The MSC now accounts for about 10% of global wild caught seafood (as compared to aquaculture/farmed fish) but this proportion is often much higher in developed countries, where the demand for certified fish is higher. In Canada, for example, 67% of domestic wild catch seafood is MSC certified.

In addition to being the most widely used eco-label, MSC is also well-known for its rigorous standards. However, it has been criticized for focusing too narrowly on the sustainability of fish stocks instead of the overall environmental impact of fisheries and the fish supply chain, as well as for having a process that is too burdensome for small fisheries and fisheries in developing countries.

If you are looking for sustainably caught seafood, the MSC is probably your best bet: it is the most likely to actually be available in stores near you and has standards that are reasonably stringent and evaluated impartially, based on evidence.

Aquaculture Stewardship Council

The Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) was founded in 2010, also with the involvement of WWF. ASC standards focus primarily on environmental issues, like pollution reduction and protections for biodiversity. There are also a few social standards – no child or forced labour, safe working environments, consulting Indigenous communities, and regulated working hours – in ASC. There are no animal welfare standards as far as I was able to tell.

SeaChoice reviewed ASC and MSC certifications in Canada. They found some weaknesses with MSC, but bigger ones with ASC – lots of evidence of non-compliance with the standards.

What to Think About When Choosing Ethical Seafood

For my own part, I believe that seafood is largely not an ethically justified dietary choice. I would only consider eating bivalves, and in that case only if the method of farming/fishing is sustainable and environmentally responsible.

However, for those that want to cast a wider ethical net, here is what you should think about:

Species

Is it overfished or not? There’s a fairly long list of seafood species you should never eat because they are overfished. But some of the more well-known ones include: bluefin tuna, Atlantic cod, Chilean sea bass, shark, Atlantic halibut, and monkfish.[38]  You can usually feel comfortable that a few seafood species aren’t overfished. Those include: oysters, mussels, sardines, Pacific halibut, herring, jellyfish, mullet, and pickerel.[39]

What is its trophic level? Is it an apex predator? Bottomfeeder recommends eating only bottom-of-the-foodchain species, because the big fish are so overfished.[40]

Does it feel pain/how intelligent is it?

Fishing or farming method

Things you might want to ask yourself about the fishing or farming method include:

• How much bycatch is produced?

• Does it kill coral or otherwise destroy ecosystems? How polluting is it?

• How cruel is this method?

The best catch methods from a sustainability perspective are hook and line fishing, harpoons and scuba, pots and traps, and purse seines.[41] Always avoid seafood caught with drift nets (“walls of death”), dynamite and cyanide, and bottom trawls.[42]

Location

Location matters too. Try asking:

• How far does the seafood have to travel to get to me?

• How did it travel? (e.g. really pricey fish by air freight have a large carbon footprint)

Brands/Certifications

To try to push the market you can ask: is the company that sold it a seafood leader or laggard? You can also look for seafood with MSC or ASC certification. And if there isn’t a certification, ask yourself: do you really know anything about where the seafood came from?

How to Choose Ethical Seafood

If you are going to be a selective omnivore, Taras Grescoe’s Bottomfeeder offers a generally good rule of thumb for seafood: eat as close to the bottom of the food chain as possible.[43]

Bottomfeeder also recommends:[44]

• Avoiding cheap seafood, since it was probably farmed

• Avoiding fish that has travelled far

• Avoiding long-lived predator fish (e.g. Chilean sea bass, sharks, tuna, swordfish)

• Avoiding farmed shrimp, tuna, salmon, and any other carnivorous fish

• If buying farmed salmon, cod, or trout, opt for organically farmed ones (the book was written before ASC was created)

• Opt for seafood at the lower end of the food chain as much as possible

In addition, there are a few useful tools that can help you pick ethical seafood:

• SeaChoice is a good place to go to get informed about sustainable seafood.

• Oceanwise classified seafood as recommended or not recommended. The full list is a bit overwhelming, but you can also search the website pretty easily. SeaChoice ranked this as the best resource for choosing ethical seafood.

• Seafood Watch has a useful website that you can use to search species that are “best choice”, “good alternatives”, or “avoid”.

Endnotes

[1] Singer, Peter and Mason, Jim. (2006). The Ethics of What We Eat. Rodale Publishers.

[2] Grescoe, Taras. (2008). Bottomfeeder: How to Eat Ethically in a World of Vanishing Seafood. Toronto, ON: HarperCollins.

[3] Grescoe, Bottomfeeder.

[4] Grescoe, Bottomfeeder.

[5] Grescoe, Bottomfeeder.

[6] Grescoe, Bottomfeeder.

[7] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[8] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[9] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[10] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[11] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[12] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[13] Safran Foer, Jonathan. (2009). Eating Animals. New York: Back Bay Books at p.191.

[14] Safran Foer, Eating Animals.

[15] Grescoe, Bottomfeeder at p.27.

[16] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[17] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[18] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[19] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat page 122.

[20] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat page 123.

[21] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[22] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[23] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[24] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[25] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[26] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat page 122.

[27] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[28] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat at page 133.

[29] Safran Foer, Eating Animals at p. 192-3.

[30] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[31] Safran Foer, Eating Animals at p.190

[32] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[33] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[34] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[35] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[36] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[37] Singer and Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

[38] Grescoe, Bottomfeeder.

[39] Grescoe, Bottomfeeder.

[40] Grescoe, Bottomfeeder.

[41] Grescoe, Bottomfeeder.

[42] Grescoe, Bottomfeeder.

[43] Grescoe, Bottomfeeder.

[44] Grescoe, Bottomfeeder.

Episode 17 - Zero Waste

The Disposable Society

Zero waste, or waste-free, is a reaction to the throwaway society and all of the problems that it has caused. The disposable society, throwaway society or throwaway culture are terms used to describe the overconsumption of short-lived or disposable items over durable goods that can be repaired.

Short-lived or low-quality items include things like fast fashion, as well as planned obsolescence and e-waste. Making things that don’t last very long is a viable business strategy because consumers then need to buy replacements. It is profitable because businesses aren’t held responsible for their product’s end of life. Next, there are also single-use items like plates, cutlery, straws, and bags. And of course there is also the packaging for all of these goods.

Disposable, or single-use, items are actually a pretty new invention. When disposables were introduced in the 1950s, they were touted as a timesaver for housewives.  Around that same time, plastic was introduced into the mainstream market.

A few plastic facts:

●      It has only been 113 years since plastic was first introduced.[1]

●      It has only been 55 years since the first plastic bag was created.[2]

●      We have produced over 320 million metric tonnes of plastic, which is heavier than every human alive combined.[3] And that figure is set to double by 2040.[4]

●      Only 14% of plastic has ever been collected for recycling, and only 5% has actually been recycled (rather than downcycled).[5]

Today, plastic has become so essential to how we live our lives that it has really gotten out of control. Globally, we generate 3.5 million tons of solid waste every day – approximately 10x the amount we produced a century ago. The average American produces 1,500 pounds of trash annually, sending 4.4 pounds of trash to the landfill every day.[6] And that is a problem for climate change because landfills are responsible for 16% of methane emissions in the US.[7]

Single-use plastics are a particular problem because they are so common and used for such a small amount of time. For instance, Coca-Cola produces 120 billion plastic bottles every year.[8] And plastic bags are used for an average of just 15 minutes.[9]

As William McCallum of Greenpeace UK has described it:

…we managed to create a material and use it at unbelievable scale with no plan for how to deal with it afterwards. Single-use plastic cutlery, plastic bags, and plastic-lined coffee cups have become central to our lives – used once for a matter of minutes, they will not break down for hundreds of years. It is untenable to carry on like this: we are consigning future generations to a world in which plastic might outweigh fish in the ocean in 2050.[10]

Most plastic ends up in landfill, but a lot of it also leaks into our water systems, ending up in the oceans. 12.7 million tons of plastic enter the oceans every year,[11] which works out to one garbage truck of plastic entering the ocean every minute.[12] There are an estimated 150 million tons of plastic in the oceans right now, equivalent to 300 of the Burj Khalifa, the tallest tower in the world.[13]

When plastic gets into the oceans, it really messes with ecosystems. Approximately 90% of seabirds have plastic in their stomachs.[14] And plastic ingestion and entanglement are really bad for seabirds and other wildlife. And because plastic is being eaten by everything and everyone, bioaccumulation is a risk for animals at the top of the food chain[15]

The Zero Waste Movement

The Zero Waste, No Waste, or Waste-free movement is essentially 25 years old. Most of the top advocates for zero-waste are (white) millennial women. Some examples include: Kathryn Kellogg (Going Zero Waste), Lauren Singer (Trash is for Tossers and Package Free Shop), Anne-Marie Bonneau (Zero-Waste Chef), and Bea Johnson (Zero Waste Home).

Principles of Zero Waste

In its simplest expression, the zero-waste movement aims to produce zero trash. But even the most ardent waste-free advocate will acknowledge that this is not possible in today’s society. We will always produce some trash, and we will always be complicit in the production of trash we can’t see.

This is why any zero-waste advocate will tell you that part of being zero-waste is making your voice heard – whether that’s political actions like voting, protesting, and talking to your Member of Parliament or smaller actions like writing a makeup company to say that you’ve stopped buying their product because there aren’t refillable options. 

Although recycling is a part of the waste-free movement, going zero-waste actually means recycling less. So, zero waste means reduce, reuse, recycle, and compost, in order of preference.[16]

Reduce

You can reduce by refusing to buy things with lots of packaging and by not buying things unless you really need them. This doesn’t necessarily mean being super austere: it means finding a balance of what you need. A 2015 survey found that more than half of Americans (54%) are overwhelmed with the amount of clutter that they have. Three-quarters (78%) said they did not know what to do with it or found it too complicated to deal with.

Reuse

Go for reusable items instead of single-use items, and durable instead of short-term. Then keep using stuff as long as you can. That means repairing stuff – and when you’re buying, look for things that can be repaired. Also, shop used when you can. And when something can no longer be used for its original purpose, repurpose it. Waste-free advocates often talk about “demoting” items. For example, the last plastic toothbrush I owned I demoted as a cleaning brush. It’s great for cleaning tiles. Basically, be like your grandparents.

Recycle

Recycle, where you can, but do it well: if more than 1% of a batch of recycling is contaminated, the entire thing may end up in landfill.[17] Zero-waste asks you to really look into what you’re recycling.

Compost

About 75-80% of all household trash is organic matter that can be composted, but we mostly aren’t composting it. If your city or town does composting, it can be really easy to do this. I keep a compost bin in my kitchen (food waste) and in my bathroom (for things like tissue, hair, and compostable floss). In a later episode on biogas, we talk about how food waste could be converted into energy, if you want to learn more!

Generally speaking, compostable plastics are not a solution to plastic waste. Very little of it actually gets composted. And in a lot of cases you cannot compost these items in home composting. There are also “biodegradable” plastics that can’t be composted. And nothing biodegrades in a landfill!

How to Become Zero Waste (ish)

Ultimately, going zero-waste will mean replacing some of the tools that you use to meet your daily needs. But it’s counterproductive to trash stuff that you’re currently using in favour of eco-friendly products, so waste-free advocates suggest a slow approach with small improvements.

Start with a waste audit

Go through your trash to see what some of the most impactful swaps could be for you. For me it is definitely snack foods – chips, granola bars – and receipts (which cannot be recycled or composted). 

Say no to stuff you don’t want

As Sarah Lewis of the Zero Waster puts it: “Just Say No to Crap”. This can include things like straws and paper cups. Being clear about your requests in advance is a good way to avoid problems. One easy solution is to put a “no junk mail” sign on your mailbox. When you are at a restaurant or café, be clear and polite but firm about your requests. Usually people are happy to accommodate, but if they aren’t you can choose not to return there in the future.

Gifts are difficult, because there are social customs and emotions involved. Zero-waste advocates generally recommend: (1) talking to your family and friends about why waste-free is important to you and (2) giving them tools to make it easy for them to give gifts that won’t cause problems for you.  Kathryn Kellogg recommends giving friends and family a list of consumables, experiences, and items you’d really value. It is key to do it well in advance. She even recommends adding notes about why you want something, which can help if people want to go off-list.[18] But ultimately, this is a thing you’re doing: if someone gives you a gift, accept it and thank them. The time to raise the issue is much, much later.

Buy things more intentionally

This means buying things only when you really need them. When you do buy something, try to find ways to buy it used or buy it new but built to last (repairable). Try waiting 30 days before purchasing something you want.

Start with some easy waste-free moves

Some of the easiest ways to reduce your waste include:

·      Saying no to straws (unless you need single-use straws for accessibility reasons);

·      Getting (and actually using) reusable bags. Set up a system so that they are with you when you need them; and

·      Getting (and actually using) a reusable water bottle and coffee mug.

When you’re ready, slowly start replacing disposables and short-term items with stuff that is refillable and/or built to last. Start with the problem areas you identified in your waste audit. For consumables, buy in bulk and avoid plastic packaging as much as possible. Glass and metal containers tend to be easier to recycle.

Think about end of life for your goods

Most people already recycle, but they key is to recycle well. Usually, your municipal government will have online tools to help you recycle properly. But it’s important to know that you can recycle things that your city or town will not accept. Increasingly, you can bring short-term items back to the companies that made them for recycling.

Check out Terracycle to see if any of their recycling programs meet your needs. Terracycle is an organization that collects difficult to recycle items in 21 countries. You have to join and look at their specific programs though – they work in partnership with companies. E.g. You can recycle Boom Chicka Pop popcorn bags through Terracycle. Other programs include: Tweed cannabis, several Burt’s Bees products, Europe’s Best frozen fruit and veg packages, e-waste, Nespresso capsules, and much more. Terracycle has public drop-off locations, or you can mail items to them. In the future we’ll do an episode on recycling so we can give it more attention.

Another great way to think about the end life of your consumables is to try composting! If you’re not composting your food, it goes into landfill where it produces methane. That’s because landfills are tightly packed so there isn’t enough oxygen for it to decompose properly. When food waste breaks down in landfill, it releases methane, which is a super potent GHG. Project Drawdown estimates that composting can reduce emissions by 2.3 billion tons over the next 30 years. About 40% of landfill material is organics – so if we all composted we could make a big difference.

And of course, if you are donating a good, be smart about it. Try starting with friends and family. Then, use the tips we suggested in our clothing series!

Try out a waste-free shop

Waste-free stores are shops where all of the products come with either no packaging or recyclable/compostable packaging. They usually have a system where you weigh your container, then you fill it and are charged by weight. Zero-waste stores have opened up in trendy neighbourhoods in the last five years. An article in the Guardian estimated that 100-200 zero-waste stores had opened in the last two years in the UK.

If you are in a medium-large city, there is probably a waste-free shop somewhere. Toronto has a handful of them, for example. There are some online as well: Package Free Shop is great, and I go to it for anything I can’t find in a local waste-free shop.

If there isn’t a waste-free shop in your area, you still have options. Check out Bulk Barn and other bulk stores for food items: it’s cheaper and there is more selection. If you aren’t sure where to find waste-free or bulk stores in your neighbourhood, this tool from Zero Waste Home is helpful. For produce, choose no/low packaging items at a grocery store or farmer’s market. For personal care products, Lush has an array of low/no-waste products.

You can also try “do it yourself” solutions using bulk ingredients. There are lots of recipes out there from all of the zero waste advocates mentioned above. Try one out! Things like cleaning supplies tend to be very easy and accessible to make. Lotions, lip balms, etc. can be super easy too.

Endnotes

[1] McCallum, Will. (2018). How to Give Up Plastic. London, UK: Penguin Life.

[2] McCallum, How to Give Up Plastic.

[3] McCallum, How to Give Up Plastic.

[4] McCallum, How to Give Up Plastic.

[5] McCallum, How to Give Up Plastic.

[6] Kellogg, Kathryn. (2019). 101 Ways to Go Zero Waste. New York: the Countryman Press.

[7] Kellogg, Kathryn. (2019). 101 Ways to Go Zero Waste.

[8] McCallum, How to Give Up Plastic.

[9] Kellogg, 101 Ways to Go Zero Waste.

[10] McCallum, How to Give Up Plastic at p.3-4.

[11] McCallum, How to Give Up Plastic.

[12] McCallum, How to Give Up Plastic.

[13] McCallum, How to Give Up Plastic.

[14] McCallum, How to Give Up Plastic.

[15] McCallum, How to Give Up Plastic.

[16] Kellogg, Kathryn. (2019). 101 Ways to Go Zero Waste.

[17] Kellogg, Kathryn. (2019). 101 Ways to Go Zero Waste.

[18] Kellogg, Kathryn. (2019). 101 Ways to Go Zero Waste.

Episode 10 - Sugar

This episode featured the inimitable Alexandra Sundarsingh, a PhD student in the History Department at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Lex is an historian of food, migration, and labour. She is also part of the Canadian debate illuminati, which is how she and Kristen became friends. Lex highly recommends that you check out the book Sweetness and Power by Sidney W. Mintz – which Lex drew on for some of the information in this episode. (Actually, Lex wants you to gift this book to pretty much everyone you know; we’d endorse that).

We were really excited to link Lex’s expertise on the history of sugar to some of the present-day practices of the sugar industry. So, the research note below focuses primarily on modern human rights abuses in the sugar industry. There is also some information about sugar and the environment, which Kristen collected but did not discuss – like, y’all, we had been recording for two hours and we thought, ‘Let’s maybe save this for a future episode.’ But we’ve put the notes here just in case you want to know what we found.

Background

What is sugar?

Sugar (sucrose) is produced from two major sources: sugarcane and sugar beets. We did not talk about corn syrup (fructose) in this episode, but it could have (probably will have) an entire episode to itself. We also didn’t talk about maple syrup.

Sugarcane is a grass that reaches 10-20 feet. It grows in warm, humid conditions, typically near the equator. It is a perennial. Sugar beet is a 3-5 pound off-white root crop. It can grow in temperate climates with warm days and cool nights. More than 145 million tonnes of sugar is produced annually in 120 countries.

Here are some different kinds of sugar:

·      Granulated sugar: pure sucrose, the most common form of sugar;

·      Icing sugar: powdered granulated sugar with cornstarch to prevent caking;

·      Brown sugar: produced by crystallizing the golden coloured syrup (before purification?) or mixing molasses syrups with white sugar

·      Liquid sugar

·      Other specialty sugars (e.g. plantation raw, organic)

How is sugar made?

Sugar-making is a multifaceted process. Briefly, here are the steps of the process:

·      Sugar plants are cultivated and harvested;

·      Then they are washed and sent to sugar refineries for processing;

·      Processing sugar starts by slicing sugar beets or crushing sugar cane;

·      Then the sugar is extracted by essentially stewing the sugar in hot water to make a juice;

·      Next, the pulp is removed;

·      Then the sugar is purified using a lime solution and concentrated by boiling it at a low temperature;

·      After a thick juice is produced, it is crystallized, spun in a centrifuge, and dried/cooled;

·      Finally, the sugar is packaged and distributed.

There’s a really good video on sugar beet production from How It’s Made. If you are interested in making your own, here is a link to a DIY process. To be honest, though, it seems a lot less efficient than the manufacturing process. But hey, if you’ve got sugar beets on-hand, you do you. The fibre that remains as a by-product of the sugar refining process is used to generate electricity, or it can be manufactured into paper goods or pelletized for animal feed.

Where does our sugar come from?

Most of the sugar that we consume (60-70%) worldwide comes from cane sugar, while the remainder is from sugar beet. Depending on where you live, that proportion can be very different. Fun fact: sugar beet rose in popularity as a result of a blockade of French trade lines during the Napoleonic wars.

The top five global sugar cane producers are Brazil, India, China, Thailand, and Pakistan. If we’re talking about both kinds of sugar, the only major change is that the EU takes third place. Brazil alone accounts for more than half (52%) of the world’s sugar market. 

Almost all Canadian sugar (90%) is from imported raw cane sugar. The remaining 10% is beet sugar, mostly from Alberta. When we import the raw cane sugar, it is processed by Canadian refineries in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver.

Albertan sugar beets are processed by a Canadian company called Rogers Lantic – the product of a recent merger of an east coast sugar company (Lantic) and a western Canadian company (Rogers). All Canadian sugar beets are processed by a refinery in Taber, Alberta. If you’re buying Rogers sugar with a black stamp on the bag that starts with the number 22, you’re buying Albertan beet sugar. There is also some sugar beet production in Ontario near a processing plant in Michigan.

Canada’s sugar industry is essentially dominated by Rogers-Lantic and Redpath Sugar. There are Canadian sugar refineries in Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and BC. Aside from the Taber facility in Alberta, Canadian sugar refineries all process cane sugar.

Labour Abuses and the Sugar Industry

Human rights and cane sugar farming

Historically, sugar cane has well-documented links to slavery. But what are the practices today? Well, in short: it’s not great. Child labour, forced labour, and bonded labour are still prominent facets of sugarcane cultivation today.

Children between the ages of five and fifteen are engaged in child labour on sugar plantations. They may work as unpaid family helpers or migrate with their parents to find work on commercial plantations during harvest season. In El Salvador, for example, Human Rights Watch found that nearly all of the boys aged fourteen and older harvested sugarcane. And it’s important to remember that this is dangerous work.

Sugarcane may be produced using forced labour in Bolivia, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Myanmar, Pakistan, India, and Guatemala, according to Know the Chain. In Brazil, there are approximately 25,000 – 100,000 people in slavery, virtually all of whom are involved in agricultural work. Sugarcane production is one of the major sources of Brazilian slave labour. Most slaves work on estates in the extremely remove eastern Amazon region, occurring out of view of the population. As researcher Justin Campbell describes:

“Enslavement typically begins with a hired contractor, known as a gato, who recruits impoverished men from the slums of large cities or poor, rural villages. By offering cash up front and the promise of decent wages, he is able to entice these men to leave their homes for work on a distant estate. The men are then driven hundreds or thousands of miles to a remote ranch or plantation, where they are informed that they are in debt for the costs of transportation, food provided on the trip, and even tools. The debts are never erased; the illiterate workers have little recourse and are thus enslaved.”[1]

Research by the Conversation found that even among Bonsucro-certified sugar mills in Brazil (where workers are required to provide at least the legal minimum wage) workers’ earnings fall short of what is needed for a decent standard of living. Sugarcane is sometimes called the “hunger crop” for the poverty experienced by plantation workers.

And more generally, sugarcane workers experience negative health impacts. There was recently an epidemic of kidney disease across Central America, with rates rising by as much as 41% in some places (Nicaragua; 27% in Guatemala; 26% in El Salvador; 16% in Costa Rica). The suspected cause was heat stress from working in unsafe conditions on sugarcane plantations.

Canadian sugar beets and Japanese-Canadian internment

Canadian history: so fun! So many human rights abuses! Did you know that some of the Japanese-Canadians that were interned during WWII were forced to work on beet sugar farms? Well, they were. About 4,000 Japanese-Canadians were sent to work on sugar beet farms in Alberta and Manitoba to fill labour shortages (of about 12,000 total interned). Fuck you, William Lyon Mackenzie King.

Canadian sugar beets and the exploitation of Indigenous people

From the 1940s to the 1980s, thousands of Indigenous families were recruited to work on sugar beet farms across the prairies. Essentially, farmers would go into northern Métis reserved to offer families work harvesting sugar beets. Labour conditions were horrendous – 12-14 hour shifts with no food or water and very low pay. Living conditions were just as bad. In some cases, families received no accommodations and slept in their trucks. In other cases, they slept in tents. Indigenous workers were also subject to racism. Families continued to return because they had few other alternatives. The Department of Indian Affairs would cut off social assistance and apprehend children if they did not work on the sugar beet farms.

This practice only stopped when journalists with the Winnipeg Tribune exposed the labour conditions in Winnipeg in 1975. After that, Indigenous farm workers organized to demand better conditions. That struggle, in combination with the availability of farm machinery, ended the practice in the mid-1980s. (So yeah white Canadians did effectively nothing)

Labour practices on beet sugar farms today

What about human rights and sugar beets? We were not able to find a lot on this, but sugar beet farming today is mostly mechanized, so the labour practices are likely not so bad. However, this does prompt an ethical question of whether the guise of buying ethical – which if you’re buying beet sugar means buying from the global north – is perpetuating international income divides. That’s a tricky ethical question and at some point in the future we want to give it a full episode, because it’s a theme that we expect will recur.

For now, though, we’ll say this: we don’t think that buying beet sugar (or switching to substitutes like maple syrup) is really the right way to approach the problem. Definitely, switching to stevia is a bad way to go (see below). Instead, we think the best you can do is to: (1) support fair trade sugar and (2) support political change. More on fair trade later.

Labour practices in Canadian sugar refineries

It was tricky to find information about labour practices on sugar refineries. At least some sugar refinery workers are unionized, though. Lantic Roger’s Sugar workers in Taber, Alberta are unionized through UFCW (local 383); Lantic Suger workers in Montreal also unionized; and workers at Redpath sugar refinery in Belleville also unionized through UFCW. So even though labour issues might come up at sugar refineries, when we’re talking about labour abuses in sugar we are usually talking about sugar extraction – and mostly sugarcane extraction.

Environment and Sugar

The environmental impact of cultivating and processing sugar includes: loss of natural habitats; water use; agro-chemical use, discharge, and run-off; and air pollution (according to a study by WWF). Because sugarcane deteriorates as soon as it is harvested, it needs to be quickly transported to a refinery; in contrast, sugar beets can be stored for months.

Land use

We were unfortunately not able to find much on whether sugarcane or sugar beets are relatively more land intensive. Articles seemed to point to the fact that both divert land use. A European sugar lobby (le Comité Européen des Fabricants de Sucre) study found that sugar beets are 50% less land intensive, but this is a pretty biased source (Europeans grow sugar beet).

In 2019, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro lifted a ban on cultivating sugarcane in the Amazon rainforest and other areas of primary forest. This surprised even the sugarcane industry, which views the move as an unnecessary reputational risk. Sugarcane in Brazil is used for biofuel as well as sugar. Bolsonaro’s decision has been uniformly criticized by environmental groups. Sugarcane plantations threaten biodiversity and can cause deforestation.

Water use

Producing a 0.5 litre bottle of pop uses between 170 and 310 litres of water. Less than 1% of this is from the actual water in the final product. Most of the rest (95%) comes from the supply chain. A large portion of this comes from sourcing the sugar.

Sugarcane is a more water-intensive crop than sugar beet:

●      1 kg of sugar from sugarcane = 390 gallons of water

●      1 kg of sugar from sugar beets = 243 gallons of water

Oftentimes, to grow sugar producers will siphon water from local populations in water-stressed regions.

Air pollution

Harvesting process for sugarcane involves torching the fields to strip the crop of leaves. That causes air pollution.

Emissions

There is a lot more variability in how emissions-intensive sugar beets are, compared with sugar cane. At the high end, sugar beets and sugarcane are comparable. At the low end, sugar beets have a smaller carbon footprint. One of the big factors underlying this gap is transportation. Sugar beet is processed directly into white sugar (fewer steps than cane sugar) and generally at nearby factories.

Sustainability Labels for Sugar

Want to buy sustainable sugar? Here is some information about the ecolabels you might see.

Rainforest Alliance certification

Sustainable Agriculture Standard includes rules on biodiversity conservation; improved livelihoods and human wellbeing; natural resource conservation; and effective planning and farm management systems

Bonsucro certification

Bonsucro is a sustainability standard for sugar cultivation and processing. Producers must adhere to seven principles: obey the law; respect human rights and labour standards; manage efficiency to improve sustainability; manage biodiversity and ecosystem; continuously improve; adhere to EU directives; and organization of farmers (smallholder standard only).

Fairtrade

What is fair trade?

Fair trade is a set of movements, campaigns, and initiatives that have emerged in response to the negative effects of globalization, especially the often unjust and inequitable nature of international trade.[2] Fair trade began as a small church and Third World solidarity movement in the early postwar period.[3] Generally speaking, fair trade standards include values like decent and safe work, fair prices for producers, and sustainability

What fair trade labels are out there, and which is best?

There are five recognized fair trade labels: Fair Trade International (certified by FLOCERT); Fair Trade USA (certified by SCS Global Services); Fair for Life (certified by Institute for Marketecology (IMO)); the World Fair Trade Organization (a membership organization that recognizes its members by determining their adherence to 10 principles of fair trade); and the Fair Trade Federation (which is similar to WFTO).

Artificial Sweeteners

There are a bunch of artificial sweeteners out there, and we’ll do an episode on them sometime. But we do want to talk briefly about biopiracy and one artificial sweetener – Stevia – because it came up in the episode.

Stevia – Product of Biopiracy

Stevia is actually a product of biopiracy. Stevia rebaudiana is a plant native to eastern Paraguay and Brazil. Indigenous Guaraní peoples have traditionally used it to sweeten tea and medicine. In the late 1800s, stevia was identified in Western science as a sweetener.

Stevia is commercialized as steviol glycosides, which are ‘high-intensity’ sweeteners. Actually, it is not legal to sell Stevia leaves in EU, US, or Swiss markets. That is essentially because there has been little commercial interest in pursuing an approval process for Stevia leaves. Whereas steviol glycosides have been approved. “In practice this means that the products of large multinational corporations are able to access markets far more easily than products based on the traditional use of whole stevia leaves” (from the Bitter Taste of Stevia). Which is especially fucked because companies will play up the “natural” character of Stevia

The Guaraní have received negligible benefits from the global market for Stevia. This is in violation of their right to benefit from the use of stevia, as established under the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Nagoya Protocol. Today Stevia is grown in many countries outside of Paraguay. China is now the main producer and exporter of Stevia leaves. Stevia is primarily produced by smallholder farmers.

“In Paraguay, the average smallholder producer has only 5-10 ha of arable land available, and cultivates Stevia in crop rotation with other crops such as cotton, cassava, sesame or soy bean. Similarly, in China, Stevia is typically produced by contracted smallholders on plots of […] 667 square metres” (from the Bitter Taste of Stevia).

The largest Stevia (steviol glycosides) producers are the multinational corporations Cargill, Stevia First, and DSM. There is currently an effort to produce steviol glycosides through synthetic biology (SynBio) instead of producing them from leaves. Essentially, that would mean that you wouldn’t need to cultivate stevia farms to produce steviol glycosides. If that happens it could hurt smallholder farmers in Paraguay and elsewhere.

Sugary Drinks

Ethical Consumer recommends reducing packaging and food miles by making your own sugar at home, using Fairtrade and organic ingredients

But SodaStream has some of its own issues. It has been criticized for being complicit in Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights because of its operations in the West Bank. And it was recently bought by Pepsi, which has a number of ethically questionable practices.

Call to Action

Looking for something concrete that you can do? We’ve already recommended a few actions above. As a reminder, you can always seek out more ethical sugar by buying fair trade. It is also important to help keep human rights in the sugar industry on our political radar: tell your friends about what you’ve heard; stay informed; sign petitions and support organizations (like Know the Chain and Human Rights Watch) that work to uncover human rights abuses in sugar and elsewhere. But here’s one action we would recommend taking right now: contact your MP and ask them why Canada hasn’t ratified the Nagoya Protocol.

Endnotes

[1] Campbell, Justin. (2008). A Growing Concern: Modern Slavery and Agricultural Production in Brazil and South Asia. Human Rights and Human Welfare, https://www.du.edu/korbel/hrhw/researchdigest/slavery/agriculture.pdf, p.131-2.

[2] This is from an edited volume: Raynolds, Laura, Murray, Douglas, and Wilkinson, John. (eds.). (2007). Fair Trade: The Challenges of Transforming Globalization. NY: Routledge.

[3] Ibid.

Kyla’s Notes

An interesting and well-sourced article with more on how sugar affects the brain.

An idea of average sugar intake.

More on the Maple Syrup Heist.

More info on residential schools.

Even more info on residential schools, from Secret Life of Canada, a podcast we love.

Episode 09 - Veganuary

Veganism as a Set of Ideas and a Movement

History of veganism

The term veganism was coined in 1944 by a British guy named Donald Watson and a small group of non-dairy vegetarians. When they were creating the word vegan, they also suggested: dairyban, vitan, benevore, neo-vegetarian, sanivores, and beaumangeur.

And that is how the Vegan Society came to be founded. Veganism is, as self-described, “A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals, and the environment.” Veganism is still a bit more of a fringe lifestyle, which is why it is so much harder – whereas almost every restaurant today will have a vegetarian option that is not always true for vegans.

History of Veganuary

Veganuary is a campaign started by a British charity with the same name that was founded in 2014. In 2019, the nonprofit says that 250,000 people took the pledge to try a vegan diet. Veganuary also draws participation from 500 companies, and it has become a hub for launching plant-based products and menus. Veganuary is also supported by Joaquin Phoenix, who lobbied for the all-vegan menu at this year’s Golden Globes. The campaign also aims to raise awareness and to mobilize people into a mainstream vegan movement.

Why veganism?

Although there is a wide spectrum of vegans that have different justifications for their lifestyle choice, most vegans view animal welfare as one of the main reasons behind their choice. From an animal welfare perspective, vegans argue that vegetarianism just doesn’t cut it: dairy and egg family can be just as bad or worse for animal welfare.

The strongest version of the argument says that we shouldn’t use animals as an end at all – so some vegans view it as wrong to even, say, shear a very happy sheep for wool. But most vegans focus on the very real contemporary horrors of our modern food, clothing, and cosmetics industries. The famous historian Yuval Noah Harari (author of Sapiens and Homo Deus), called animal farming “the worst crime in history”.[1]

And many vegans explicitly take aim at the idea that humane meat is possible. Many of today’s “humane” standards, like cage-free eggs, still leave animals in cruel conditions.  

What about wild game? A lot of vegans have ethical issues with killing animals at all, but many will grant that this is a lesser harm than factory farming. However, from an environmental perspective, vegans will often point out that it would be impossible to feed the planet if everyone was consuming this kind of ‘humane’ meat (at least, in anywhere near the quantities that we do today). So, in some sense buying wild game or humane meat from local organic farms is a kind of modern indulgence for privileged aspects of society.

Veganism and whiteness

But the vegan movement has run into some issues of its own when it comes to race and inclusivity. 

For Indigenous people, hunting is a traditional way of life. Especially given the trauma that has been inflicted upon these populations continually since colonization, the ability to connect to traditions is an important part of cultural healing and resilience. Indigenous peoples will also point out that environmental stewardship and respect for the land and animals is embedded in their cultural traditions. So, from their perspective hunting is a morally justifiable part of their way of life. It’s also a crucial component of food sovereignty for Indigenous communities.

This is where vegan activists have sometimes come into conflict with Indigenous people. From an Indigenous perspective, some vegan activists have a White Animal Savior complex, which is inherently anti-indigenous. For example, in 2017 animal activists targeted a new Indigenous-owned and -operated restaurant in Toronto because it had seal on the menu. This was despite the fact that the restaurant (Kū-Kum Kitchen) made a point of vetting the hunters from whom they sourced their seal meat. For more on this issue, check out the documentary Angry Inuk.

More generally, vegan activism has also been criticized for racism against other communities. In 2003 PETA released an ad that related the poultry industry to the Holocaust. Animal activists have made similar associations between animal farming and slavery. 

We also need to talk about the connection between veganism and white nationalism, because Nazis ruin everything. Evidently, a sizable portion of white nationalists are vegan. This has something to do with the concept of “blood and soil” that is a bedrock of white nationalism. Apparently, Hitler was famously vegetarian, which I just learned. But if you recall the uncomfortable association between early vegetarianism and eugenics, it’s not all that surprising.

Finally, until recently been a lack of BIPOC representation in animal rights organizations. As this is starting to change, animal rights activists are becoming attuned to the need to become more intersectional. That means thinking seriously about oppression and developing strategies that are more inclusive.

If you want to be a woke vegan, Gloria Oladipo offers a few tips in an article she wrote for Afropunk. First, non’t culturally appropriate – vegan versions of cultural dishes should come from members of that culture. Next, support initiatives that make plants more accessible – food deserts are often in racialized communities, and solving that problem should be a first focus. Third, feature more BIPOC vegans. (Actually, polling has found that Black and Latinx Americans are vegetarian in roughly the same proportions as white Americans.[2] BIPOC individuals should be represented and should have leadership roles in the movement). And finally, show up for BIPOC causes – acknowledge that BIPOC go through a lot and be an ally.

A friendlier, more inclusive animal-free movement?

That new inclusivity focus has already benefited the movement immensely by underscoring the need to focus on institutional change, rather than individual lifestyle choices. This is one of the core points that Jacy Reese makes in his book, The End of Animal Farming. So, rather than shaming individuals for eating meat, the animal-free movement is now focusing on shaming factory farms and pushing for institutional change.[3] Reese argues that this is actually more efficient because it helps people to overcome status quo bias and mobilizes a wider base of support.  

This is helpful from a strategic perspective because most people already think factory farming is bad; they just feel overwhelmed by the problem and powerless to change things. 32% of Americans believe “animals deserve the same rights as people to be free from harm and exploitation” and another 62% believe they deserve “some rights”, according to a 2015 Gallup poll.[4] The increase in pro-animal rights attitudes over the 1990s and early 2000s is generally attributed to: urban pet ownership, cosmopolitanism, feminism, and religious trends (secularization and the increasing popularity of pro-vegetarian religions like Buddhism). In California, Proposition 2 (a ballot initiative to ban animal confinement in small spaces) drew the highest positive turnout for a citizen initiative in the state’s history.[5]

Tactics like animal farm investigations have also helped, by exposing the conditions in factory farms. The first modern animal farm investigation was carried out in 1992 on a foie gras farm, exposing force-feeding. In the late 1990s and early 2000s these investigations became increasingly popular. “A 1998 PETA investigation of a pig-breeding farm led to the first felony indictments ever for cruelty to farmed animals”.[6] The Humane Society of the US “released a ground-breaking undercover investigation of a California slaughterhouse” in 2008.[7] As these investigations gained prominence, the meat, dairy, and egg industries started to lobby for “ag-gag” laws to limit the ability of activists to document animal farm operations.[8]

Veganism as a Dietary Choice

Vegans don’t eat animals or animal-derived products. This obviously includes meat, fish, poultry, dairy, and eggs. But one of the most difficult things about going vegan is navigating all of the secret animal products in our food.

Animal-derived ingredients

PETA has a comprehensive list of animal-derived ingredients. Dummies.com also has a list. Theirs doesn’t include everything on the PETA list. But it has an easy-to-use layout.

Some of the most common animal-derived ingredients include:

o   Beeswax and honey;

o   Casein (a milk protein derived from animal’s milk), calcium caseinate, sodium caseinate;

o   Confectioner’s glaze, resinous glaze, shellac, natural glaze, pure food glaze (comes from a hardened resinous material secreted by the lac insect);

o   Gelatin (a gelling agent derived from animal collagen);

o   Isinglass (a clarifying agent used in making wine and brewing beer, derived from fish bladders);

o   L. cysteine (a dough conditioner in some pre-packaged breads and baked goods, often sourced from feathers or human hair);

o   Whey (the liquid that remains once milk has been curdled or churned and strained);

o   Carmine (used as a red dye, this is from ground cochineal scale insects);

o   Lactose, saccharum lactin, d-lactose (I found this in chips a lot; it’s essentially a milk sugar);

o   Vitamin D3 (not all, but most Vitamin D3 is derived from fish oil or the lanolin in sheep’s wool) and omega-3 fatty acids (similarly, mostly derived from fish but vegan alternatives are available); and

o   Additives beginning with E (e.g. E904) are often animal-derived.

Veganism tips and tricks

To find out if packaged food is vegan, first look for vegan labelling (“Suitable for Vegans”, “Certified Vegan”). Then you can look for allergen information (e.g.: “Contains milk, eggs, shellfish”). Allergen information won’t generally tell you about meat-containing ingredients, so you should also read the ingredients list. There are some items that can be vegan but typically won’t be (e.g. bread, candy, chips, and beer/wine).

Fruits and vegetables are weirdly not always vegan. That is because they are often coated with either beeswax or a resin called shellac. These make the fruit look prettier, and also can reduce moisture loss and delay rotting. Synthetic polyethylene wax (a petroleum by-product) and carnauba wax (a palm derivative) are common, though problematic vegan substitutes.

If you are looking for a book with practical advice on how to go vegan, check out How To Live Vegan by a pair Youtubers that call themselves Bosh!

Meat substitutes

The first reference to plant-based food that mimicked animal flesh was about tofu in 965 AD. The Magistrate of Qing Yang (China) “encouraged tofu consumption as a more frugal alternative to animal flesh, referring to it as “mock lamb chops” and “the vice mayor’s mutton.””[9]

The first reference to vegetarian meat in Western civilization wasn’t until 1852, referring to a sausage-like mixture made by squeezing chopped turnips and beets.[10] The first recorded veggie burger was created in 1939,[11] and Tofurky was introduced in 1995.[12]

Beyond Meat and the Impossible Burger are two plant-based burgers that are designed to mimic the culinary characteristics of beef burgers. They were both released around the same time. Impossible Burger released its burger in trendy restaurants, whereas Beyond Meat went straight to households by retailing at Whole Foods.[13] The plant-based food industry is now big enough to have an industry association (the Plant Based Foods Association).[14] Major food corporations are now investing in plant-based start-ups or creating their own plant-based food items: Unilever has released its own eggless mayonnaise;[15] General Mills invested in a nut based cheese and yogurt company called Kite Hill;[16] and Tyson Foods invested in a 5% share in Beyond Meat.[17]

Cultured meat

Cultured meat is also called cell-cultured meat, cell-based meat, in-vitro meat, lab-grown meat, and clean meat.[18] In 1998 NASA-funded engineers successfully grew goldfish meat in vitro, but the first cultured meat that people admit to eating was an art exhibition of cultured frog meat created by Australian artist Oron Catts in 2003.[19] There are now four main cultured meat companies racing to the market: MosaMeat, Memphis Meats, Hampton Creek, and SuperMeat.[20]

Endnotes

[1] Reese, Jacy. (2018). The End of Animal Farming. Boston, MA: Beacon Press Books at p.x.

[2] Reese, The End of Animal Farming.

[3] Reese, The End of Animal Farming.

[4] Reese, The End of Animal Farming at p.4.

[5] Reese, The End of Animal Farming.

[6] Reese, The End of Animal Farming at p.24.

[7] Reese, The End of Animal Farming at p.27.

[8] Reese, The End of Animal Farming.

[9] Reese, The End of Animal Farming at p.46.

[10] Reese, The End of Animal Farming.

[11] Reese, The End of Animal Farming.

[12] Reese, The End of Animal Farming.

[13] Reese, The End of Animal Farming.

[14] Reese, The End of Animal Farming.

[15] Reese, The End of Animal Farming.

[16] Reese, The End of Animal Farming.

[17] Reese, The End of Animal Farming.

[18] Reese, The End of Animal Farming.

[19] Reese, The End of Animal Farming.

[20] Reese, The End of Animal Farming.