The Economist on how ethical food isn't

Local food, organic food and fairtrade food. They all sound good don't they? They are part of the mantra of the Greens. The idea behind each of them is:

^

Local food is "better for the environment" because transport is "bad" for the environment, and it also appeals to the inherent positive communitarianism of the Greens, and the socialist xenophobia;

^

Organic food is "better for the environment" and "healthier" for you because it doesn't involve "artificial chemicals" (because, apparently, natural ones are benign, you know, like snake venom) and it is better for the environment because of it; and

^

Fairtrade products are "better for society" because you are paying a lot more for a commodity, ensuring the producers in developing countries get more money and be wealthier. In other words, it is about paying people on very low incomes more for what you buy off them.

^

In the childlike world of simple platitudes this all sounds very good and plausible. In fact, as the Economist reports this week with its cover article, most of this is about feeling good, rather than doing something constructive. When examined more closely, applying any one of the "local food, organic food, fairtrade" labels to something may either be a waste of money, or worse, counterproductive to what you actually want to achieve.

^

The local food argument has already been blown out of the water by the Lincoln University study and a separate report by the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which also says that there is less environmental impact importing tomatoes from Spain during winter, than growing them in heated greenhouses in Britain, and that half of the UK food vehicle miles are consumers driving to and from shops. This means it is better for food to be distributed from large supermarkets than people driving further to multiple smaller retailers. The NZ Greens have thankfully taken these finding and have written to their UK counterparts. So the local food argument is extremely dodgy, not helped by the massive protectionism for European agriculture under the Common Agricultural Policy. Removing this distortion would do far more for the environment (and lower food costs, and taxes in Europe) than any campaign for food miles, which is actually counter productive. Quite simply, the local food argument is a combination of misguided environmentalists and old fashioned trade protectionists. The UK farm lobby is in favour of it for old fashioned reasons, it helps them keep their prices up because people think they are helping the environment, when, much of the time, they are doing the opposite. You see, transport costs are only a small proportion of the energy used in food production.

^

However, while the NZ Greens appreciate this, they remain wedded to the latest money making enterprise of the food industry - organic food. The Economist quotes a number of researchers who counter claims that organic food is better for the environment. These come down to:

^

- Organic farming produces lower yields and requires much more land to be cultivated to produce the same amount of food. Dr. Norman Borlaug, an agricultural scientist, argues that environmentalists argue from the comfort of living in prosperity and is quoted saying "If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things". He points to how global cereal production tripled between 1950 and 2000, but the land used increased by only 10%;

- Anthony Trewavas of Edinburgh University argues that organic farming uses more energy, because instead of fertiliser and pesticides, weeds are kept at bay by frequent ploughing and other energy intensive techniques;

- There is no evidence that organic foods are healthier or non-organic are less healthy.

^

Organic food may, at best, be a good choice on the basis of taste and quality. Certain foods may be tastier and more enjoyable because of how they are produced. However, this is not simply an organic matter. Indeed there are big differences between non-organic food produced in Europe and that produced in Australia and New Zealand in some cases, if simply because subsidies in Europe encourage far greater use of fertilisers and pesticides than down under. Nevertheless, it is also clear that the word "organic" has become a useful tool for food sellers wanting to put a premium on their products based on perception rather than reality.

^

Fairtrade food is a bigger con. While sometimes local food may make sense, and sometimes organic food may be more enjoyable, fair trade is entirely counterproductive.

^

The concern is that low prices are "unfair". Well they are not. Low prices exist because not enough of a product is being sold compared to what is being produced. They are a signal to stop production and move to something more profitable. Fairtrade buyers guarantee price floors for producers and pay a guaranteed premium over the market price with the benevolent notion of encouraging producers to develop their families and communities. Unfortunately it also perpetuates production and may increase production of commodities that are already oversupplied. If Fairtrade coffee demand increases, more will be produced, reducing the price for the rest of the coffee market making those producers poorer. The fundamental problem is that too much coffee is being grown - paying more for it EXACERBATES that. It is basic economics. Some argue that the high price enables them to fund diversification, but the Economist points out that there is hardly much incentive to diversify away from something paying you such a premium!

^

Fairtrade certification also often is available to small co-operative producers, not family owned firms or plantations because the certifiers can't guarantee the workers get the premium. In other words, it is also about changing the corporate form of producers, which may shut out many workers who cannot afford to get into a co-operative (the most poor).

^

However, the biggest argument is that it is wasteful. Fairtrade retailers see buyers as premium purchasers prepared to pay extra, when one economist calculates that 10% of the premium paid for Fairtrade coffee gets to the producer, as everyone else in the chain gets their cut. People pay more for it so those selling take advantage of it - meaning, of course, there is less money available for people to spend on other goods and services.

^

There is room to do more research on this, but it is clear that the words "organic" and "fairtrade" are potentially a major ripoff of consumers that does little for what is claimed. They are not necessarily healthier and does not benefit the environment, or producers in poor countries - as it encourages them to produce more of what people don't want. It is economics rubbing against good intentions, and as is almost always the case, non-evidence based slogans might make you feel good, but they wont do you, your wallet, the environment or the world any good.

Pinochet's dead..

As Not PC says, don't mourn him. His free market policies and overthrowing an authoritarian socialist pinup (Allende) do not justify suppression of free speech, murdering, torturing and imprisoning opponents. Margaret Thatcher's support for him has been her biggest mistake and the biggest black mark against her name in my book. I understand why she did it (Falklands and his free market policies), but it never excused his oppression of Chilean freedom.

^

Chile is doing very well thank you as a free open democracy, WITH the free market policies Pinochet implemented, but in spite of the dark period of oppression.

^

I'm glad Pinochet has gone, and look forward to seeing Castro drop dead next, but as you'll soon see, I don't expect the leftwing blogs to celebrate both their deaths equally. I hope they prove me and PC wrong.

Sell the damned post offices!

So the Royal Mail wants to close around half of all post offices. The Daily Telegraph has a ridiculous campaign to force taxpayers to pay to keep them open. Uneconomic post offices cost everyone else £150 million a year in subsidies, but as I have written before, they are so "core" to communities, that I apparently have to subsidise them.

^

My answer is simple. The Royal Mail should sell all of the post offices it does not believe it can run profitably. If some are franchises, then the current owners should renegotiate their terms or face closure, and perhaps run a competing service (competition has been allowed for the Royal Mail since the beginning of the year, finally!). Otherwise, they should close. Why? Well what is a post office? It is a stamp shop, an envelope shop, a delivery shop. It's a friggin' shop!

^

People don't demand the government do something about grocers, bookshops, shoe shops, so why post offices? It tugs at the strings of the elderly in particular, when the government did so much more, and when transport was poor and more expensive than it is today.

^

Post offices are unprofitable either because they are inefficiently run or not enough people use it. So either have someone else run it, or face use it or lose it. Don't expect taxpayers to pay for something that is so important to your community, that you're not prepared to use it enough to pay for its cost. Frankly, if it isn't important enough for YOU to pay for it, don't expect me to.

You're airline cabin crew what would YOU do?

Rather than be a bureaucrat living off of money taken from others by the state, imagine you work for an airline. You're chief cabin attendant on an international flight, the passengers have boarded and you notice one passenger who had boarded is no longer to be found:

^

- The passenger was wearing full Muslim religious garb;

- The passenger was noticed having gone to the bathroom before takeoff (a practice generally not permitted by most airlines for safety reasons);

- The passenger is in there for a whole 10 minutes and crew are concerned that he is not in the bathroom relieving himself, but is unresponsive;

- The passenger manifest indicates the passenger is travelling on a foreign passport;

- You are responsible for the safety of well over 100 other passengers, at best the passenger is acting unconventionally and delaying the flight departing the gate (passengers are told to be seated), at worst the passenger could be threatening the entire flight.

^

So you decide, faced with a passenger who is acting against strangely, you decide for security reasons to escort him from the aircraft.

^

Then you're accused of being "anti-Muslim". Frankly, if any passenger is found to be acting strangely, and disobeying crew commands then it is up to the crew to act against that passenger. The airline replaced his ticket, compensated him and apologised, and gave staff training on these matters. The Human Wrongs Commissariat, like school prefects, tell off the airline. How about THIS as an alternative?

^

The passenger could have requested the crew whether he could use a bathroom for religious purposes, the crew could have decided whether it was a safe practice or not, or asked him to refrain until the plane had taken off. No, it is the airline's fault. When I fly I follow the rules of the airline, after all, it is not my plane and the airline essentially has the right to exclude me if I may pose a threat to crew or passengers. No, Rosslyn Noonan, who has not actually worked in the productive sector in recent history, can judge how airlines best apply security measures.

^

Of course the Human Wrongs Commissariat is also a great defender of free speech, the same Herald report gives this example:

^

"Numerous complaints were lodged after newspapers published the Mohammed cartoons, linking Islam to terrorism. A meeting was held between the Race Relations Commissioner, Muslim groups and members of the press. The Press and Dominion Post newspapers apologised for any offence caused and promised not to publish the cartoons again. "

^

So, simply because the Human Wrongs Commissariat has NO right to bully any media to not print something because it offends people, here is a link to the cartoons. Am I anti-Muslim? No, Muslims have every right to believe what they wish, and peacefully express their opinions, and I have every right to criticise or ridicule their beliefs, any religious beliefs or any political beliefs. Religion is a choice.

France 24 is launched - more than just anti-American

Good job we didn’t have to wait till the French government got its act together for global news channels. CNN International was the first, and entirely the creation of a leftwing entrepreneur, Ted Turner. Its ubiquity was sealed in the Gulf War that repelled Saddam’s Iraq from Kuwait. This was followed by an entirely commercially funded BBC World. NBC established its global business news channel CNBC commercially, and since then Al Jazeera has also entered the global TV news market, again privately funded. The German government has quietly fully funded Deutsche Welle, which broadcasts news and cultural/current affairs programmes in German and English around the clock. I need not also mention Foxnews, Bloomberg business news, MSNBC etc.
^
However, the French government, ever looking for a way to prove how utterly unresponsive government is to what people actually are willing to pay for, has funded and launched France 24, a global TV news channel in French and English. The concern has been that the other channels reflect an Anglo-Saxon view of the world. Well, had the French government not taxed and regulated its own broadcasters into submission, this could have happened spontaneously, but France and entrepreneurial flair are words that don’t go together often. However, it is clear that France 24 can't be accused of simply being anti-American.

^

The Guardian reports:

"Guillaume Parmentier, director of the French Centre on the United States, said: "It's not an anti-American operation. It's more than that."
^
Of course another reason for France 24 is basically to assuage French speakers about the fact that French is not the most universal global language. It is undoubtedly more beautiful than English, as I experience daily hearing English butchered by native speakers. However, France 24 is in French and English, as France has clearly figured out that a French only channel is only preaching to the choir so to speak. However, I doubt France 24 will have much influence, except perhaps beyond Francophone African opinion makers. You see even the website doesn't help when you click "how to watch". The incentives around a state run channel! I assume it will be on Sky and cable networks in the UK, but it is not yet distributed via satellite to the South Pacific.