Topic
Love The Tyee? We need your support. Become a Tyee Builder for as little as $5/month.
How current food greenwashing feeds profits not preservation.
Whole Foods: whole paycheque?
With apologies to Kermit, it's just too easy being green. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say that it's just too easy paying lip service to being green.
Nothing hits home the way greenwashing undermines the environmental movement like a trip to Capers Markets, the "natural" food store chain owned by the Boulder, Colorado-based Wild Oats Markets that recently announced a proposed merger[*] with the Texas-based Whole Foods chain. (Wild Oats has 110 stores across the U.S. and Canada and annual sales of about $1.2 billion. The Whole Foods chain, which has about 200 stores in the U.S. as well as outlets in Canada and the U.K., is a Fortune 500 company that did $5.6 billion in sales in 2006.)
Let's leave aside my reason for being there -- a truly amazing supply of superior imported junk food including my favourite root vegetable chips -- and consider the organic carrot soup.
It's mystifying. The roughly two-bowls' worth of soup, in a metallic envelope, is imported from New Zealand.
Why? Are there no organic carrots grown in the Pacific Northwest? How about North America? Is there some genius-of-a-chef in New Zealand cornering the soup market? And how does it get here? In tankers? The label said it was packaged in Ontario, and all I could think was that some smarty-boots in the oil industry had found a resale market for those single-tank oil carriers that were prone to major spills.
On the plus side, we won't have to worry about the environmental impact of a carrot soup disaster.
But the biggest question of all is: just how the hell do these people have the nerve to market themselves as "sustainable?" To be fair, Capers isn't the only food fair doing this, but it's the loudest and the most self-righteous, and that sort of blatant hypocrisy is always eye-catching.
Sustainable hand washing
While "sustainable" has no real definition -- like other marketing buzzwords, it allows consumers to make inferences that benefit the seller -- it implies a kind of environmental sensitivity that includes producing food locally, limiting the carbon footprint, buying from small, environmentally-sensitive farmers, yada, yada, yada.
So what, exactly, is sustainable about Capers's freezers full of processed frozen foods trucked in from places like Amy's Kitchen in California? Capers has a dandy selection of soft drinks sure to make any tea-totaller's heart race, including non-alchoholic wines and beers, herbal drinks and a dizzying array of fruit-flavoured spritzers. Of course they're imported from all over hell's half-acre. And how sustainable is it to import my favourite licorice from Finland -- not that I'm objecting. Well not to the availability of the licorice, anyway.
I'm a fan of Capers for everything other than what my mother would have called proper food. But as someone who has a thing about food-born illness, Capers's generally shoddy merchandising habits, which include the astounding number of dairy products I've found on the shelf long past best buy dates, means that most of their offerings make me twitch. I've skipped their takeout ever since they had that Hepatitis A outbreak in 2002, specifically because I think it was a direct result of their cynical marketing. The culture of smugness that these all-style-no-substance types seem to cultivate, leaves them believing their shit don't stink, which I suspect is what led them to think it's not necessary to wash it off their hands.
And before you ask why I continue to shop at a place that seems to have such contempt for its customers, have I mentioned the cream soda made with real vanilla?
It's all Newspeak to me
As propaganda goes, sustainability is probably no more offensive than, say, "wellness." (Although, while we're on the subject, what does that one mean? I've seen it applied to astrology, fergawdsake.)
I've been amused watching as a term that once popped out of the mouths of captains of oh-so-dubious industries has evolved into a favourite buzzword of those who swore to shut-down the eco-rape-and-pillage crowd. I first heard "sustainable development" in the 1980s, when CEOs faced with hard science that current industrial models would get our species killed argued that they were weren't enviro-outlaws because they practised "sustainable development" -- like tree farms.
One reporter I recall staunchly refused to quote the term on the grounds that it was just so Orwellian. "Sustainable development: now there's an oxymoron -- it's classic double-think," she snapped, referring to the name Orwell's 1984 gives to propaganda that requires people to hold two contradictory ideas simultaneously.
I was reminded of her astute observation that Orwell's Newspeak had become business-as-usual when I read the news release about the merger of those sustainable grocery empires that own Capers.
"Our companies have similar missions and core values, and we believe the synergies gained from this combination will create long-term value for our customers, vendors and shareholders as well as exciting opportunities for our new and existing team members," said John Mackey, chairman, chief executive officer, and co-founder of Whole Foods Market.
It's not all bad: at least my yam chip supply is safe.
Yuppy chow undermines real eco-goals
Finally, the academics are on to these people. The Globe and Mail reported that a PhD candidate in communications and culture at York University has hard research confirming that what we lowly hacks observed: fashionable greenwashing is co-opting the vague language of the environmental movement to undermine its concrete goals.
In a paper delivered to the 2007 Congress of Humanities and Socials Science, Irena Knezevic came to the conclusion that much of the so-called organic food is little more than "yuppy chow" for the privileged that is increasingly packaged with as little concern for the environment as other food factory products. That could be because major organic brands have been bought by corporate parents like Coca Cola, Pepsi, and Kraft, and are delivered by the same sort of corporate food retailers that brought us processed cheese-foods.
"Most of the organic food supply in Canada travels to consumers from California and includes convenience foods like individual-sized and single-serving granola bars. Transportation and packaging involved result in environmental consequences comparable to those of conventional food production," Knezevic told the Globe.
She writes that, in Canada, the organic industry is growing by 15 to 20 per cent, annually, no doubt because of consumers' willingness to pay top dollar for products that have been green-washed. The government is proposing organic labelling for foods produced sans pesticides, probably because there's such good business in the name.
But consumers who are concerned with related issues such as the environmental impact of food manufacturing, shipping, and packaging, farmers' compensation, working conditions for farm labourers, and factory-farming problems like e.Coli infected produce, won't find answers to their questions on the marketing stickers.
Of course the consumer smugness generated when shelling out for anything labeled organic, will still be, as the ads say, priceless.
Furriers in bamboo clothing
"Organic foods have less and less to do with the ethics of environmentalism, anti-globalization and social justice, indeed less to do with organic agriculture as a concept, but more and more with hip consumerism, cultural and economic capital and the moral pedestals of those who have the luxury to make such purchasing choices," Knezevic wrote.
What is being created, she told the Globe, is "a system in which organic products are more and more removed from the actual problems with food production and incorporated into the dominant agricultural model. The core problems of the global food system, mainly distancing, remain unaddressed."
This should come as no surprise to Capers fans who, I desperately need to believe, always knew they were flirting with a furrier in bamboo clothing. The mere thought that anyone of voting age might be gullible enough to believe that such a prodigious purveyor of junk food was environmentally sensitive leads me to nightmares of the "we're all doomed" variety.
Come to think of it, I suppose that's some of what the Green Party is banking on -– that the same consumers who are seduced by Capers and the like can be duped into voting for them.
In the 21st century, "Green" has become shorthand for "virtuous," much the way "Christian" was the mantle 19th century hucksters donned to con the masses. I suppose that means we can expect to hear more and more people threatening us with brimstone and hell fire -- or, in this case, global warming -- if we don't buy into whatever it is they're selling. Preferably without looking too closely at what it is they actually do.[*]
Oh well, at least I'll be able to toast the apocalypse with a fine Californian apple cider.
*Correction: Wild Oats Markets and Whole Foods have recently announced a proposed merger (reported on this line). The U.S. Federal Trade Commission applied for an injunction to block the merger.
*Correction: At 12 p.m. on July 4, we changed the two paragraphs before this asterisk.
Related Tyee stories:
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
47
Login or register to post comments
organiccanadian...
5 years ago
Easy Faking Green yes, but
True. A lot of businesses seem to find it is easy faking green. Just the same, some of what is offered in those stores is a vast improvement over what people can find in most conventional stores.
It's our job ( as awakened citizens) to work to keep organic and environmental health standards as high as possible, against the relentless push from corporatist governments like the federal Conservatives.
For instance, did you see that Harper's government recently established new rules that will will allow more pesticide residues on the produce you buy?
The Harper Government's spin goes like this: Allowing more pesticides doesn't mean they will actually be there. Feel ok about that?
Under the guise of the "Security and Prosperity Partnership" "a wide-ranging plan to streamline regulatory and security protocols across North America," Harper continues to downgrade Canadian standards, and sovereignty, for the benefit of Wall Street.
The Conservatives will allow more pesticide residues on fruit and vegetables to avoid 'trade irritants' with the U.S. Full story here. Or here
In case anyone forgets, pesticides are linked to birth defects of genitalia, cancers, and mental illnesses. Studies increasingly have shown that the damage is done at lower levels than previously imagined possible.
Eat local food as much as possible. Eat certified organic when you can, and work to make sure that means the following, without exception ( this from Canadian Organic Growers);
Organic agriculture does not allow the use of:
* Synthetic pesticides, including fungicides, insecticides, rodenticides, defoliants, desicants and wood preservatives
* Synthetic fertilizers
* Materials and products produced from genetic engineering
* Sewage sludge
* Synthetic growth regulators (hormones)
* Synthetic veterinary drugs, including antibiotics and parasiticides
* Irradiation
* Synthetic processing substances, aids and ingredients, and additions to food including sulphates, nitrates and nitrites
* Equipment, packaging materials and storage containers, or bins that contain a synthetic fungicide, preservative or fumigant
* Genetically modified organisms
As imperfect as the organic label is, our only logical option is to work to protect the integrity of its meaning, to ensure that retailers know we are serious about that, and to protect other environmental health standards wherever we can.
organiccanadian...
5 years ago
It's good to point out
that there is more and more attempted green-washing going on Shannon, and good job. I didn't mean to disagree with you, but to say let's not scare people away from the organic choices that ARE a good idea for them and the environment, and let's protect our standards. More on organics and pesticides and related at organiccanadiandotcom.
seanorr
5 years ago
Progress not perfection
Does anybody who shops at Capers/Whole foods believe that the stores are the be al and end all of sustainability? The point is that Capers is more sustainable than Safeway/Save-on/Loblaws/IGA which also import 'junk' from across the planet, but full of pesticides, yada yada yada. The same arguments have been posed about the Fair Trade Movement; obviously it is not the final answer, but it is a tremendous improvement. Similar comments have also been made about alternative fuels; but it is well known that a combination of such fuels like biodiesel and ethanol as WELL as cutting back our consumption is needed.
Hildy
5 years ago
Facts not marketing
Sean: What is “sustainable” about an American corporate conglomerate shipping soup from New Zealand to Canada?
I think the writer’s point was that Capers is no different from Safeway or Loblaws, except in the way it markets itself. It’s a particularly cynical and hypocritical marketing plan because it preys on the naive who believe they are doing good by buying processed frozen foods from California.
In turn that distracts them from doing something effective about a social and political climate that supports factory farming. In that sense Capers and places like it might be worse than stores whose come on is best price in town.
But if you’re the Sean Orr who is (was?) a Green party candidate, you’re part of the greenwashing network that thinks that merely labeling something green is enough to make it so. While your hearts may be in the right place, it would be more helpful if you actually got your heads in the game.
seanorr
5 years ago
Sean Orr
Yes, I am part of a massive international syndicate of greenwashers. We are a clandestine cabal making it easier to alleviate guilt while continuing to shop at monolithic megacorporate Whole Foods Incorporated. Cue creepy villain music.
Hildy
5 years ago
Thanks for clarifying that
And here I thought you were just gullible fools.
flattax
5 years ago
Not so sustainable after all
I once heard a quote, not sure if it is true or not, that if everybody on earth ate organic food, 3/4 of the earth's land mass would have to be given up to agriculture. This is because of increased spacing of the crops, lower crop yields and growing non gmo crops.
The eat local part of sustainability makes sense to me, but the organic part does not.
This organic fad is an elitist rich country phenomena, more due to excess liquidity in the world financial system than anything else (ie we have too much money to spend).
We should be foucusing on how to feed the world by increasing crop yields and improving the genetic makeup of crops so they grow in more adverse saline and dry conditions.
As well, I believe most of the food sold as organic is not, it passes through so many middlemen to really know. When I see in the news people arrested and organic scams uncovered and police resources in this area, maybe I will believe it. But for now, I think there is some big frauds to be uncovered. Call me an organic skeptic.
Growlhisss
5 years ago
Flattax, lets be careful of
Flattax, lets be careful of the stats we pull out of nowhere. Does whatever study that stat came from account for all of the land used in the mining and processing of petrol-chemicals for conventional agriculture? Does is consider the amount of food that is wasted in its production and consumption (of both organic and non-organic food)?
Consider that there is currently enough food being produced in the world to feed people and account for population growth, our problem isn’t one of technology but is more about flawed human institutions.
This article is great!! Being a former employee of Capers, I have to agree. They are more marketing than anything else! They have also just implemented this strange "Certified Organic Grocer" program that involves using a completely different set of cutting boards, knives, utensils, etc. for conventional and organic products. Like if an organic apple even touches a knife that has touched a conventionally grown pear, it undoes all of the things that went into making it organic, and poof, it turns into a pumpkin... I mean a lowly un-organic apple, just like that. Conventional and organic goods shall be stored on separate shelves, and must never touch! If they do, they are sent to a "quarantine" area where they are held for a certain period before being chucked in the dumpster. This kind of marketing caters to only to the crazies who have religiously bought into the health benefits of eating organic. It is a perfect example of a movement that has been hijacked and denatured so badly that it misses the whole point.
Another issue I have with them is how can a company that pays its employees so poorly sell "Fair Trade" products? I, the underpaid grunt, had touched the fair trade sugar and contaminated it with unfairness, should it not have been sent to the quarantine area before being thrown away?
Don’t even get me started on their "Corn-tainers" (plastic containers used mostly in the deli), that are made from GM corn. "But don’t worry, the GM characteristics are lost in the processing of the corn into plastic, and there are no associated health affects" and therefore they are good, right?
Its too bad that a company whose local management is quite intelligent and aware has been gobbled up by these nasty transnational food giants and their shareholders. Otherwise, it might have had a useful role to play in creating a better food system.
organiccanadian...
5 years ago
'Flattax' wrong again,
but as you pointed out, you were basing your contribution on 'a quote you once heard, not sure if it was right or not.'
It is not.
Rather than present you with relevant facts, why not go outside your normal channels of information, do some homework, and be informed?
I'll offer you some other facts to consider. As for your opinion that eating organically does not make sense - here are some actual facts for you; Your sis or wife or daughter, and any other woman in your life, and every other woman on this continent, harbors an increasing saturation in her body and in her breast milk of pesticides, heavy metals, pcbs and many dozens of other known contaminants. Certain toxins. Undoubted poisons. It is not a matter of opinion whether or not these substances present risks, only to what level we will allow ourselves to be saturated in them. Try this recent actual study showing about double the rates of brain cancer in people occupationally related to pesticides by Dr. Isabelle Baldi of the University of Bordeaux, - published in the journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine, and highlighted for us laymen in this Reuters article.
The 'occupationally related' for sure are at higher risks, but the substances are accumulating at increasing levels in your family.
Also and related, this in Scientific American reported yesterday that farming is linked to higher rates of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, and to "other health consequences, including higher risks of asthma and lung cancer, possibly due to pesticides or other chemicals."
I sometimes wonder if certain right wing 'think-tanks' pay people like you who are on every forum, always automatically defending what ever is the general position of the governing right-wing ideology, but if you actually aren't interested in keeping your own family safer from what is irrefutable evidence that pesticides are health risks, I do feel sorry for them and you both. I'm sorry if that sounds personal - but it IS flattax, it is your family's exposures that are being debated, as well as everyone else's and your position is uninformed, reckless and foolish.
Eating organically to attempt to slow the rate of pesticide accumulation in our bodies, is just one of the many reasons it makes sense. Some easy open-minded research will help you discover the others.
snert
5 years ago
Is flattax wrong.
Growlhisss & organiccanadian
If so come up with some facts that refute the statement.
I.E. Just what is the amount of land that would be required to raise organic food for all?
organiccanadian...
5 years ago
are you sure thats a reasonable demand snert?
because he made a claim that he admitted he wasn't sure about, you presume its reasonable for me to do his research or yours to come up with a definitive answer?
I will give you another fact to work with, in addition to what I supplied earlier. It takes at least seven times as many acres to produce a caloric equivalent in livestock to that which can be produced in grains. Do you see the infinite variables? Which grains? How much beef? If any? How much poultry? So your search for a simple black and white exact answer is asking for a lot, depending on your idea of a reasonable diet. But if you really want the answers, study the tables within the relevant literature available from the WorldWatch Institute along those lines, and you will find what you are looking for.
I think you missed the central point though. Catch up on the rising levels of pesticides, fire retardant chemicals, industrial solvents in your wife's daughters family's tissue and breast milk, collect even a few of the studies illustrating the connections between each of those families of chemicals and tragic mental illnesses, physical ailments and deaths, and then decide whether you think avoiding toxins in your diet any way you can is a good or bad idea.
I wager you will think it just might be.
flattax
5 years ago
the breasts
I do buy organic milk, and that is the only thing, since the non organic is laced with hormones and antibiotics. Don't want the kids entering puberty when they are 6. Do I truly know it is organic, no, but it is at least produced locally and does not go through a few dozen middlemen who could play a quick switch. And I fully agree with the veggie versus meat arguement.
However, organic does not meant chemical free. Go here for a list of chemicals that can be sprayed on your organic veggies:
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/organic.html
growelhiss, that is truly hilarious about Capers! Unbelievable! Such greenwashing and it makes me think that eating organic is more about too much money than really wanting to eat healthy. Wait till the next realy big recession and we will see how long Capers or Whole Foods stay open.
And by the way, I did have a caveat about the stat of 3/4 of the earths crust. It was on some tv documentary a few years ago. It sounded so shocking it always stuck in my head. If someone can find it let me know, it is probably on the net somewhere....
snert
5 years ago
That's called a cop-out
organiccanadian
You made a statement. Back it up.
organiccanadian...
5 years ago
not so ...
I did fully back up the statement I made, but the concept must have gotten past you - let me try again. 'Eating organic' cannot take up a definitive amount of the earth's surface because whether or not that diet included beef poultry chicken or dairy alone creates a 7 or greater magnitude variable. The other elements of the diet create an additional multitude of new calculations.
---
And I was adding some more here and then decided that I think you just like to argue, and I am not interested. Feed your family pesticides, hormones, genetically modified experiments, or don't - your call entirely. My only purpose here was to offer my opinion against that, for the sake of any readers who might have found the information I attached compelling - like the brain cancer and pesticides study. Good night.
snert
5 years ago
Nice try
organiccanadian
Is that on the Richter scale?
If you can't answer the question just say so. Nobody will hold it against you.
organiccanadian...
5 years ago
i see, well if the concept
is over your head and too complicated for you, we won't hold that against you either. Thanks for the laughs. :-)
snert
5 years ago
What concept?
You have to actually say something meaningful to have a concept?
snert
5 years ago
Growing organic is quantifiable.
An interesting article in the NY Times on rBST milk.
russellmcormond
5 years ago
Green Party washing?
I was with the author until the snide comment against the Green Party.
Do I think every Green Party candidate lives up to the goals of the Global Greens movement? Not any more than any other party, but we don't talk about "Liberal" washing or "Conservative" washing or "NDP" washing when you manage to find an example candidate that doesn't quite match up to the goals of the party.
I do think that if you look at the goals of the party, and the most prominent spokespersons, you will find it isn't remotely part of the so-called "greenwash" at all. The party is pushing forward realistic policies which help to solve environmental issues through sound fiscal policy. It is the only of the top 5 Canadian federal parties that isn't IMHO part of the "greenwash", with the self-called "Conservative" party being the worst.
ctindal
5 years ago
Dimwitted Generalizations
I'm not sure why Shannon Rupp felt the need to conclude an otherwise constructive and informative column with a completely out-of-place, unfounded, and mean-spirited personal attack against all Green Party candidates. As a candidate myself I'm left to wonder why this person I've never met or spoken with is accusing me of being "dodgy," unless she's well-researched enough to know that I once played the role of the Artful Dodger in a grade-seven production of Oliver.
If Rupp has a problem with some specific candidates, she should say so and why. If she has a problem with the Green Party's widely endorsed climate plan, she's free to make those arguments as well. If, however, she merely wants to make insulting generalizations about a diverse group of passionate citizens who have decided to become more engaged in the democratic process, she should reconsider. After all, writers should strive to remove their "dimwitted" comments before the final draft.
CamTheCat
5 years ago
Dig on Green Party Tasteless
Interesting article here, and I too am concerned with 'greenwashing' of consumable products and the various political parties, but the across the board insult to Green Party candidates at the end of this article is offensive and inaccurate, and reduces this article and authors respectability.
I am neither 'dodgy' nor 'dimwitted', and I ran for the Green Party in the '06 federal election. In the past the Green Party of Canada has had many community leaders and quality candidates run, and the slate of Green Party candidates for the next election is shaping up to be very impressive.
It may be 'trendy' to vote Green, but there are many legitimate reasons to cast your vote FOR a Green Party candidate. The Greens are promoting sustainable solutions to the problems we are facing, and Green Party policy has become very impressive over the last few years.
I work hard through my blog at http://greencameron.blogspot.com to share a positive message of hope for our country, and I don't appreciate being referred to as 'dodgy' and 'dimwitted' in an article in the Tyee, a spot I very much respect.
guydauncey
5 years ago
Organic food
If the whole world shifted to organic farming, there would be 75% more calories for everyone on the planet, since yields in the developing world increase by 93%.
That line on people starving if we shift to organic was created by an agro-business support group, to scare off the organic market. See http://www.earthfuture.com/econews/back_issues/06-05.asp for the details.
And organic food not better? See http://www.earthfuture.com/earth/cg-tenreasonsorganic.asp
And why the needless insult to the Green Party? If that comment (dodgy, dimwitted) had been aimed at women, gays, or people who were overweight, the prejudice would be immediately obvious.
organiccanadian...
5 years ago
Fold the Green Party
I have been a supporter in the past. But I would suggest that the best chance the Green Party has to do some good for the environment in the next federal election is to fold.
The Green Party did an excellent job of bringing environmental issues into the electoral conversation for a time, but that need is radically diminished.
Just as Ralph Nader as an independent candidate with no chance of winning helped put George Bush into power in 2000, the Green's only real effect in the next cycle will be to split votes away from New Democrats and Libs, and perhaps assist Harper and the Conservatives towards the majority they covet.
If so, the Green Party will enable more regulatory dismantling and environmental damage than most people could imagine.
Fold the Green Party, and green the established parties. Take your passion and knowledge and have a positive impact.
The pretend-environmentalism of Harper and the Conservatives is going to make a horrific mess of things if they hold or gain more power. And the Green Party could inadvertently be one of Harper's biggest assets in the next election.
I would respectfully ask the Greens , and Green Party voters, to think that over carefully, with an eye to joining and further 'greening' the Libs or New Dems.
It's not the label that matters.
mdutt
5 years ago
From a, like, Green Party Candidate
There are some good points made in this article regarding the co-opting of “green” terminology and the need for consumers to put greater thought into their purchasing choices. (Not to mention the need for corporations and governments to take responsibility for their contribution to environmental degradation).
Unfortunately, any strong points are negated by a conclusion that refers to the “dodgy, dimwitted candidates running for the Green Party” and the vacuous citizens who vote for them. As a physician who has researched and worked with various political parties, I have decided to run for the Green Party of Canada because I have been impressed by the realistic and effective policies they present, and the energy and knowledge that permeates the party.
If dimwittedness has gotten me through my medical training, I’m surprised we’re having a physician crisis given the large pool of would-be doctors out there.
If Ms. Rupp prefers to vote for the Conservatives and their environmental plan (or lack thereof), or the Liberals with their many statements and lack of action, then she is free to do so. The rest of us will continue forwarding the cause of environmental protection while she drinks her California cider.
southdeltawalker
5 years ago
just another "fluff" article or maybe more?
Well i wasn't going to comment on this story after reading it yesterday.
I just wrote it off as a 'piece of fluff". But on second thought, decided to comment.
I am a loyal "Tyee" reader but it is articles like this that make me wonder. Some Tyee writers i.e. Rupp and Glavin often mix reporting with editorializing.
This article is an example of this.
There has been a lot of coverage recently with people's changing buying habits and the grocery business. This is the worst article i have read on this.
It trivalizes people like me who know that what we purchase is essentially a political choice. We all can't live on farms and produce the majority of our own food or sew our own clothes or weave our rugs etc.
So we try to buy ethically as possible. For me it means buying second hand products and locally produced food.
As for the "cheap shot" at Green Party candidates-shame on Shannon Rupp and the "Tyee".
By the way Shannon it is not easy being "green". It takes a commitment to: living on less, buying ethically, sharing time and resources and treating the Earth and others with respect. You may not understand that.
Brian Gordon
5 years ago
You're not making it any easier to be Green
I also take objection to the cheap shot at Green candidates, which seemed completely unrelated to the article. I certainly agree that 'greenwashing' is becoming more-and-more of a problem - both by corporations and political parties.
However, the implication by the author and the suggestion by one other letter writer that we fold the Green Party and somehow green the other parties - well - how was that working before the Greens came along? Clearly, it wasn't. Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, levels of pollution and environmental degradation, and rate at which we're falling behind other countries in adopting clean and green technologies and ways of doing business have all been going the wrong way under all the other parties. The only reason they're falling over themselves to look green now is because a) Canadians have made clear we want Canada to be clean and green, and b) membership in the Green Party is growing at a rate that scares them.
I am the Green Party candidate for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, and have a business background. I've worked for big and small companies and am now a partner in some high-tech ventures. I trained with Al Gore to deliver the Inconvenient Truth presentation. If these things qualify me as "dodgy and dimwitted," then what kind of candidates are the other parties offering?
TessF
5 years ago
Green Party, dodgy, folding?
I agree that abusing the term "green" means that the efforts of those with genuine, well-informed intentions to tread more lightly on this planet are debased by association.
But I fail to see the connection to the Green Party, or why we are dimwitted or dodgy. This gratuitous sideswipe reduces the credibility of what otherwise seemed a fairly pertinent article.
I joined the Greens because, on investigation, they had the most plausible and well-thought out and researched plans for running the country. All issues are approached with the underpinning principle that unless everything is done sustainably, whether it be commerce, healthcare, education or choosing our next meal, we will pay a very high price in the long run. This is already proving to be the case with global warming.
If this is a dodgy, dimwitted approach, then roll on the dodgy dimwitteds I say!
As for folding the party: Yes, the lable does not matter. As May has said, somewhat wistfully I suspect at times, given her health and the demands of her schedule, we would be delighted if another party were to adopt our platform. The thing is to get the planet healthy and the country running on a more sustainable basis, not to get certain people into power.
However I have yet to see signs of anyone other than the Green Party accepting that everything has to be done on a sustainable basis. And unless we take this approach, we will not make up for all the backlog of irresponsibility that we have been indulging in (and I include myself in that)
Stephane Dion is a clever man with a very good grasp of the issues involved. Nonetheless his party still approaches the environment as an "add-on" issue, not as a basis for all we do.
As for the NDP, the talk a good talk, but their walk has been suspect.
Are we really just growing because we alerted people to the environment as a major issue? I don't think so. We are growing because we have something more to offer than the others. Something essential. I believe it would be irresponsible to pull out and trust to others to keep up the good work.
russellmcormond
5 years ago
Splitting the vote?
organiccanadian,
You speak of problems of the greens "splitting the vote". The solution to that is to work towards electoral reform to modernize our electoral system to eradicate the antiquated concept of vote splitting, not to suggest the removal of a voice. In many cases this simply removes a voter from bothering to vote, not split the vote.
As to the voice, I don't see the NDP or the Liberals adopting the methods the Greens promote to solve fiscal, social or environmental issues. These two parties still focus on old industrial-era economic policy, retaining the same mindset as got us into the problem in the first place.
I'm a fiscal conservative (social liberal, environmental conservative) Green Party member, and my second choice might have been the Progressive Conservative party of 2000, had the Reform party not killed that very different party. It is interesting to note that in the 2000 election the PC party (the last election they ran in) ran with a platform quite similar to the Green Party.
I think the quickest way to destroy any possibility of having a future with reduced fiscal, social and environmental debts is to move closer to the USA's 2-party (with nearly the identical voice) type of politics. We need more parties to represent us to ensure that adequate solutions to problems are brought forward, not less.
http://www.flora.ca
Stephen LaFrenie
5 years ago
Unfair swipe at Green Party
The article is interesting but rants on too long instead of simply saying what needed to be said intelligently in one or two paragraphs. True there is a marketing deception out there which comes with the territory of selling all products including organic produce. Also in my opinion the point of educating ourselves as consumers needs to be made but without the doomsday scenario nonsense. Then there is the bazaar swipe at the Green Party candidates which smacks of personal ignorance and bias. The Green Party has had sustainable agricultural policies for over a decade especially concerning organic farming and the need for this sector to grow. Labeling is only a small section of the Party’s platform and policies. The Green Party has also been a supporter of and advocating consistently in its policies and platforms the need for fair trade world wide as opposed to ‘free trade’.
From 2006 platform -- A sustainable food economy in a healthy environment requires keeping local small-scale agriculture alive and supporting a rapid transition to organic agriculture rather than subsidizing costly agro-chemicals, industrial food production, and genetically modified crops.
Finally to the point above referring to the constant mythology and undemocratic concept that the Green Party splits votes and poses a threat to progressives let me say that this is absolute nonsense. Parties should be asking themselves WHY people have stopped voting for them and not making up conspiracy theories. For the record Ralph Nader and the Green Party did not cause the Democrats to lose the 2000 election. The Supreme Court of the United States in a split decision ruled in favour of the Republicans and Al Gore chose not to challenge the ruling which he could have. Folding the Green Party of Canada would be the worst thing to happen to Canadian politics as none of the traditional parties advocate or fight for the things Ms. Rupp speaks to in the article. The liberals aren’t any closer to being ‘green’ than they were 13 years ago so that fight is a lost cause to anyone who really looks at their record and cares about the future.
organiccanadian...
5 years ago
re Folding the Green Party
With all due respect to the poster above, Green Party candidate Brian Gordon, he is entirely correct that things were not going well before the Green party came along, which is why I and many people were very supportive for many years - but that was then, and this is now. Conditions have changed since way back then.
The Green Party's own leader has seen that too, and negotiated with the leader of the Liberals regarding which riding she would run in, as long as the Libs agreed not to field a candidate there. Poster 'Tess' above, stated that Ms. May and much of the Green Party wish that some other party would adopt the Green platform, well now is the time to get in there and make that happen to the greatest possible degree.
This is a time to work together to address the climate crisis and all other environmental issues. Now must be about being effective in the very near future, not at some far off date.
It is true that all parties are doing everything they can now to recruit environmentally concerned voters. And while we might disagree with some of the details of their programs, I wager that most green voters can sense that the leadership of the New Dems and Liberals are sincerely committed, just like the majority of Canadians.
The greatest obstacle to making progress on these issues is the pretend-environmentalism of Harper and the Wall-Street Conservatives.
While I agree with the poster who said electoral reform is a solution, we can't wait for that. It is not happening right now. And the Green Party is not going to win the next election. But it might draw enough votes from the other two sincerely environmentally-minded parties that it enables the Harper gang to hold power, or even gain a majority government. In that case, we could have many years of the worst environmentally damaging policies possible, at the most critical time in history. In my opinion, no community-minded Canadian should risk that with their vote.
And again with all due respect, in my opinion, even well-intentioned and highly accomplished Green Party candidates such as Mr. Gordon should seriously reconsider taking that risk with their actions.
The climate is not the only element of the environment that is in crisis, and we are risking virtually everything if we risk an extended era of sustained or increased Harper government power and policies.
organiccanadiandotcom
Shannon
5 years ago
After reading the feedback
After reading the feedback on my piece, It's too easy being Green, I realized that a number of readers misunderstood the point I was making. And if a lot readers misunderstand something in an article, that's the fault of the writer.
So I went back and reread the piece I wrote almost two months ago, and I rewrote that final graf to reflect the point I was making. You’ll see the change in the article.
While I write mostly columns for the Tyee, I'm a news reporter by trade, and over the years I’ve interviewed Green candidates, and environmental activists who joined the Green Party. With the exception of one candidate -- Sharon Labchuk, in Atlantic Canada, who has spent years fighting pesticide use in PEI -- I've been unimpressed by the people I've interviewed and read about. Perhaps those attracted to the party also assume that anyone who calls himself "green" is automatically above scrutiny?
I think it's a dangerous trend. And it’s another example of how the relentless propaganda that has become the norm in Western societies is training us not to challenge what politicians say of themselves. In effect, daily exposure to increasingly sophisticated PR and marketing campaigns for everything from soup to nuts (that would be the politicians) are reducing us to being passive consumers rather than active citizens who have a responsibility to question those who make a bid to represent us.
So thanks for the response. It gave me an opportunity to go back and rewrite something after it was published -- something all writers long to do.
I'm actually trying to persuade the editor, David Beers, to let me do it all the time.
Best,
Shannon Rupp
southdeltawalker
5 years ago
last two paragraphs changed.....
Well "they" changed the last two paragraphs of the article. Now not a word or insult about Green candidates but Green voters are "duped".
My goodness...
G West
5 years ago
About 2 1/2 months ago
About 2 1/2 months ago I sent queries to three federal political parties concerning their platform and policies. Since that time I've had a personal letter - 2 pages -from Stephane Dion (and no it wasn't signed by a machine); a long personal email from Jack Layton and, from Elizabeth May and the Green Party...bupkiss.
You explain it. I didn't necessarily agree with everything in the two responses I did get - but - at least they took the trouble to reply. As to why I didn't write pee wee and the conservatives - well, you figure that out...
G West
5 years ago
Correction
I see now - in the tiny print at the end of the article - that there is an acknowledgment of 'a' change. Still not quite what one would appreciate relative to the readers who have commented but probably didn't go back to the original story - but, nonetheless, important, in fairness - to point out.
Stephen LaFrenie
5 years ago
So are you going to keep rewriting the end of the article?
first - organiccanadian - We'll agree to disagree on this. I respectfully think you are wrong.
Most importantly-- The article has been edited to rephrase the original uncalled for insult. Not change the insult just alter it a bit which gives the impression that our objections are to what is written now. Your swipe at the Green Party and its candidates is still out of line. If your going to edit the article I respecfully request that you remove the references to the Green Party completely and apologize or replace the original paragraphs that you have edited and accept the criticism.
G West
5 years ago
The Green Party
Until the green party has a more comprehensive policy platform it simply isn't going to become a significant voice in the parliament. Green activists would, it seems to me, be far better to chose a more established party and use their influence and moral suasion to bring about changes in policy in a party that does have a chance of being elected.
Saanich and the Islands is a good example of what mischief the current Green approach is causing. Run a candidate - siphon off some voters to the green column and re-elect Gary Lunn. Great idea!
I trust that's not what the Greens want but it certainly is what's likely to happen in that riding and several others here in BC.
In short, I hope the Greens like Harper because it's his 'greenwash' we'll be getting if they continue their present course. The agreement between May and Dion gave one hope when it was signed - subsequently that hope has disappeared.
Shannon
5 years ago
Stephen, you actually
Stephen, you actually support my view of the Green Party.
Have you read your own comments on the Green Party website? Perhaps you've forgotten the March entry where you're wondering what the Green Party stands for?
Let me quote you:
"Do we support emission reductions credits? Alliance with the Liberals?
Can someone translate from political speak what I'm reading in these articles?
The first is from the National Post in regard to emission reduction credits proposed by the Alberta government. What good would this do if they don't actually reduce the amount of emissions? Elizabeth May seems impressed but I don't see what there is to be impressed about."
http://www.greenparty.ca/en/node/910
Stephen, I can only wonder why you're willing to represent a party when you have no idea what it stands for?
And why-oh-why would you expect people to vote for you as their representative, when they don't know what you stand for?
But let me get this straight: you are telling us that the Green Party is so inept that its candidates get their policy information from newspaper reports of the leader's off-the-top-of-her-head comments, but voters should all just trust you cuz you're "green?"
Well, Stephen, you just keep on dreaming.
Stephen LaFrenie
5 years ago
Shannon, respectfully in response
Shannon -- Actually that blog entry was a challenge and question to provoke a public debate on the leader's comments within the party. So no, candidates don't get their policy information from newspapers, especially the National Post. Taking exception with the leadership (not party policy) and how they respond in the media is my right as a Green party member. It should be the right of all party members in all the political parties however liberals and conservatives consistently try to suppress open debate preferring back stabbing instead. Anyone who reads the rest of my blog entries knows what I stand for and where I come from on the issues. (there are 25 or so entries, not just the one you cited, but to be fair you chose one that questioned the leadership. You appear though to have either misunderstood it or simply chose to exaggerate and make it representative of the whole party. So yes I do know what the party stands for and am proud to be a member and people will know what I stand for and what I would speak to and vote for as an MP should that ever happen.
Shannon with respect you have written an article that you yourself admit, no one understood because you didn't write it clearly.
"And if a lot readers misunderstand something in an article, that's the fault of the writer."
Fine, rewrite the article and submit it again. You appear to have missed the fact that many of the readers agreed with you and that many of us simply took issue with the swipe at the Green Party which you again take in your response to me. This leads me to believe that the real point of the article was intended as a one sided attack on the Green Party itself, intentionally excluding the other parties that have clearly in practice over the last decades wrapped themselves in the rhetoric of sustainable, environmental and international fair trade speak. This seems to defeat the legitimate concerns you brought up about the deceptive marketing of environmental issues and sustainability.
Shannon
5 years ago
Testing
Testing
TessF
5 years ago
If you can't insult the candidates
Instead of saying that the candidates are dodgy and dimwitted, you are now insulting a larger sector of the population by implying that their supporters are dodgy and dimwitted. Well done, Shannon! That is some retraction!
Because the word "green" has been co-opted to dubious causes does not mean that everything labeled "green" is dubious. Perhaps, after ranting so long and loud about the first part of that statement you are now unable to recognise the verity of the second?
The bottom line, which you seem to be saying in your article, is that EVERYBODY should learn to judge their information on its own merits, rather than taking information form interested parties. But I don't follow your reasoning that because there are commercial interests trying to play to public fears of global warming to increase their profit that now the Green Party is suspect. Your non sequitur is showing - not a good thing for a journalist I would think.
Shannon
5 years ago
Yes, Stephen, it’s all
Yes, Stephen, it’s all about you, you, you.
You Greens certainly are self-involved. I’ve seen a dozen letters of complaint about my referring you to, collectively, as dodgy and dimwitted, but not one complaint came from someone NOT representing the Green Party.
I’m not sure what it means. You might want to meditate on this, too.
I changed that line because it sounded like a personal attack when it was a comment on the Green Party’s general incompetence being overlooked because of the name. Any reader who wasn’t self-obsessed would have realized that I was pointing to another example of how greenwashing is obscuring reality.
But I’ve been delighted to hear from so many Green candidates. Some were defending their intelligence (in letters littered with spelling and grammar errors). Others were whinging about how hard they work – they can’t afford to give up their day jobs! – and how much they are sacrificing.
Yes, it’s all about them, them, them.
Not one letter mentioned what you plan to do for voters. Or offered evidence of anything you have done for the community.
Just a lot of self-aggrandizing talk about what wonderful individuals you all are.
Oh, right. You’re busy “challenging your leader.” So it’s not that you’re all rudderless, no, it’s that you just haven’t decided in which direction to sail.
Or could it be that you’re all dropping in an oar and trying to row in some self-serving direction?
Either way, it looks like to me like the Green Party is exploiting the green label too.
But thanks for providing a heads-up on the party in-fighting.
southdeltawalker
5 years ago
Shannon..this is too much...
I was one of the people who commented on your name calling of Green Party candidates.
I did this because i thought it was unfair and poor journalism.
Although,I enjoyed your comment "After reading the feedback" and agreed with much in it.
You have now gone too far with your latest comment:
"You Greens certainly are self-involved. I’ve seen a dozen letters of complaint about my referring you to, collectively, as dodgy and dimwitted, but not one complaint came from someone NOT representing the Green Party."
Well this "self invoved person" would like to inform you that i am not a member of the Green Party nor do i vote for them.
Also, you do not have to worry about any of my spelling mistakes or grammer errors in postings regarding your columns as i will not be reading them from now on.
Your insults bring us all down.
Attention David Beers-this whole column and Shannon's latest response has left a "bad taste" in my mouth.
Comments as:
"Just a lot of self-aggrandizing talk about what wonderful individuals you all are"
are unnecessary and hurtful to myself and others who are social justice activists and read "The Tyee" for news and commentaries.
"The Tyee" has been a bright spot in my day but now i will be taking a break from it and suggesting others do to.
Finally columns such this one with insults and name calling are no way to build readership. If the Tyee wanted to have a column and discussion on the Green Party-there was probably a much more responsible way to do it.
southdeltawalker
5 years ago
one more thing Shannon....
I figured out why you thought i was in the Green Party. My comment yesterday:
"By the way Shannon it is not easy being "green"."
you mistook.
Oh mighty grammer queen..i guess you didn't notice that the "green" was not capitalized, i was referring to being an environmentalist and social activist not a member of the Green Party. But i guess with all your insults and name calling of Green Party members a little fact like that would be of no consequence.
Shannon
5 years ago
Southdeltawalker -- I
Southdeltawalker -- I didn't read your comment(s). I don't look at posts written by unidentified writers.
I only noted Stephen's comment because he identified himself as a politician representing the Greens.
I was referring to letters I received from about a dozen Green candidates that were, on average, self-congratulatory to a startling degree.
TessF
5 years ago
Shannon, an observation
You say:
"I changed that line because it sounded like a personal attack when it was a comment on the Green Party’s general incompetence being overlooked because of the name. Any reader who wasn’t self-obsessed would have realized that I was pointing to another example of how greenwashing is obscuring reality."
I am afraid that is not how it comes across in either version of your article ending.
You might have said something like: "The Green Party, because of lack of action to arrest this abuse of the term “green” , appears to be capitalizing on it to get voters who are easily lead.” This would have been far less ambiguous.
Saying that green voters in general are “duped” into voting for the Green Party is as insulting as saying that the candidates are dodgy and dimwitted. I think you must be a bit too involved in your own writing to be unable to see that it does not take self-involvement to read those as insults – as Southdeltawalker has pointed out.
As a journalist, if you are insulting to any person or group (which both endings to the article are) you must either be able to back up your claims or expect your credibility rating to fall.
To further point this out, your original article is about unscrupulous business capitalizing on public fears, in this case the global climate issue, through spurious claims. However the discussion has become about a comment made at the end of your article. The inclusion of this apparently ill-conceived and unnecessary comment has hijacked your article, and the article will be remembered for that, not for what was actually a good observation pretty neatly packaged until you lost it at the end.
Yes, you got a lot of replies from Green Party members. We are pretty committed to the renewal of the planet, and having unsubstantiated swipes made at us requires us to comment, or we are even more guilty of what you seem to imply in you lasts posts – being uninvolved bystanders to the misuse of one of our key phrases. So, thanks for the heads-up on that, and better luck in your future journalistic career.
dave49
5 years ago
Definitions and marketing
I recall reading in the early 1980s about defining 'organic' when that industry was first starting in the US. The food processing industry mounted a big lobbying effort to not clearly define 'natural'. 'Organic' is standardized and may require third party verification.
That said, I have read that there are big players in the US who use definitions like 'free run' to the minimum requirements for maximum market advantage.
We've been spoiled in the last 40 years by the boom in imported produce. A movement like the '100 mile diet" has the potential to foster a lot of local, small production and make faring worthwhile.
dave49
5 years ago
The Wealth System
About six or seven years ago, Vancouver Magazine ran an article called “The Wealth System”. As the author pointed out, you don’t get wealthy working for someone else for a salary. You inherit wealth or you make it by building up a business or product and getting bought out by a bigger fish. That’s what happened with Capers. Wild Oats wanted to expand into Canada and it’s easier to buy a recognized local name than to start from scratch. So, the founders of Capers get a nice payoff for all their hard work. This is why Ford bought Jaguar and Volvo, for the value of the brands.
It is also why Quebec-based Saputo bought Armstrong Cheese and shut down a 100 year old business. All they wanted was the brand. I keep telling my wife I don’t like her buying the Saputo ‘Armstrong’ cheese. This corporate agglomeration diminishes our food industry.
By the way, Shannon, global trade is what organizations like Atlantic Opportunities Agency, Western Diversification, Canada Export Development are pushing for. Make products, which could be food, which have global marketing potential, but where a local market cannot support them. Transportation is always required, with all the energy and environmental implications.