If you have been paying attention, you will be aware that the nation of #Israel is committing #Genocide in #Gaza against the people of #Palestine. You may nave seen the request today from the people of Gaza to use the term #Haulicost instead.

It has become clear in the last ten days that the Government of #Australia is continuing to provide parts for the #F35 aircraft to Israel, despite public statements to the contrary. Israel is using the F35 to fire missiles into Gaza and kill people.

You may be wondering … ‘well, what can I do?’

I have been using the ‘Boycat: Ethical Shopping’ app for a few shops now. It scans bar codes and immediately tells you if the company making the item is fine or if it supports Israel in some way. The company may sell into Israel, sell or donate to the #IDF, donate into Israel etc.

The app puts information in your hands at the time of purchase. You can then decide if you want to buy the item. You may still buy the item, but in making your decision, you have more information than before.

I recommend you download it onto your phone and give it a go. I got the hang of it by scanning a few items in my pantry before taking it to the shops.

#ConsumerBoycott
#AusPol

https://apps.apple.com/au/app/boycat-ethical-shopping/id6474510742

Greenpeace Report Slams MSC and RSPO as ‘Absolutely Untrustworthy’ for Seafood and Palm Oil

A landmark Greenpeace report reveals that more than 25% of food labels fail to meet trustworthy sustainability standards. Clear and severe failures in ecolabel effectiveness were awarded to Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (#RSPO) which certifies palm oil as “sustainable” and Marine Stewardship Council which certifies seafood as “sustainable”. Consumers are increasingly sceptical, with 62% expressing concerns that these labels are a form of #greenwashing. Greenpeace is calling for stricter regulations and transparency in the use of terms like “sustainable” or “climate-friendly” to prevent misleading environmental claims. #Greenwashing #ConsumerRights #Transparency. If you want to resist and fight against greenwashing, adopt a #vegan lifestyle and #BoycottPalmOil #Boycott4Wildlife in the supermarket.

@Greenpeace report finds #seafood certified by #MSC 🐠 and #palmoil certified by #RSPO is “absolutely untrustworthy” in 2025. Resist the #ecocide and #greed. Adopt a #Vegan lifestyle and #BoycottPalmOil 🌴⛔️ #Boycott4Wildlife when you shop @palmoildetect https://wp.me/pcFhgU-am5

Greenwashing Exposed: MSC and RSPO mislead consumers on seafood and palm oil

Environmental organisation Greenpeace Austria has analysed 42 of the most widely used food labels and found that over 25% of them are unreliable. The findings highlight growing consumer concerns over greenwashing in the food industry.

Consumers Losing Trust

A representative survey by the research institute Integral found:

• Importance of Food Labels: 64% of respondents consider food labels important when shopping.
• Greenwashing Concerns: 62% worry that food labels are misleading and serve as greenwashing tools.
• Impact on Purchasing Behaviour: 40% of those who distrust food labels now pay less attention to them when making shopping decisions.

Criticism of Specific Labels

Greenpeace has singled out certain labels, such as the MSC certification for fish and the RSPO label for palm oil, as potentially harmful to environmental goals. Meanwhile, some labels remain credible, including Demeter, “Prüf nach!” and Bio Austria.

Call for Stricter Regulations

Greenpeace is demanding that terms like “sustainable” or “climate-friendly” only be used when backed by scientific evidence and transparent certification standards. The upcoming EU Green Claims Directive aims to prevent companies from making false or exaggerated environmental claims without scientific proof.

Time for Real Change

Consumers are calling for honest and transparent labelling, while environmental advocates warn that without stricter regulations, greenwashing will continue to deceive shoppers.

Read the full English article on Kronen Zeitung and the report (in German) on the Greenpeace website.

Greenpeace’s Guide to Quality Labels for Food

The report itself is in German and can be read here. The RSPO and MSC sections have been machine translated below for your convenience. Greenpeace considers both MSC and RSPO ecolabels to be “absolutely untrustworthy” for consumers in 2025.

Which quality labels and organic brands can I trust?

Austria has a jungle of quality seals, certification labels, and brand or quality marks. Hundreds of them appear on products when shopping in supermarkets. But which ones are truly trustworthy?

Greenpeace has examined the quality labels in the food sector. The alarming result: more than a quarter of the 42 certification labels are not or only moderately trustworthy. Some are even detrimental to achieving environmental goals – such as the MSC fish label or the RSPO palm oil label.

Quality Seals, Certification Labels, and Organic Brands

The analysis of quality labels and brands, particularly those relevant to climate and the environment, focused on four key areas:

• Standards and scope of requirements
• Labelling and distinguishability
• Traceability, transparency, and control
• Trustworthiness and credibility

Based on these criteria, the labels were categorised into:

• Highly trustworthy and particularly environmentally friendly
• Trustworthy and environmentally friendly
• Conditionally trustworthy with moderate environmental benefits
• Barely trustworthy with little or no environmental benefits
• Absolutely untrustworthy and contributing to environmental destruction

Labels and Certifications for Other Areas

For certification labels that do not primarily focus on environmental standards but instead prioritise animal welfare, social standards, or other aspects, a broader classification was used. This evaluation focused on:

• Environmentally relevant standards and the scope of requirements
• Transparency and control mechanisms
• Trustworthiness and credibility

The categories for these labels were:

• Trustworthy and environmentally friendly
• Moderately trustworthy with limited environmental benefits
• Not trustworthy, contributing to environmental destruction

REPORT : https://greenpeace.at/uploads/2025/02/greenpeace-guetezeichen-guide-lebensmittel-2025.pdf

RSPO:

The label of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) is an association comprising producers, traders, banks, investors, and some NGOs.

NEGATIVE ASPECTS:

• On paper, the environmental and social standards appear relatively strict, but their implementation has serious shortcomings.
• Although there is now a ban on new plantations on peatlands and a prohibition on slash-and-burn clearing for new plantations, the standard does not require the restoration of the millions of hectares of already drained peatlands where oil palm plantations currently stand. However, in the face of the climate crisis, this restoration would be crucial.
• Toxic pesticides are allowed on RSPO-certified plantations.
• Over the years, numerous reports have surfaced detailing human rights violations, including child labour, forced labour, and breaches of RSPO’s minimum standards.

ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUSTWORTHY

RSPO’s criteria are too weak to genuinely protect rainforests and are frequently not enforced. Despite RSPO certification, forests continue to be destroyed, and human rights continue to be violated. Greenpeace classifies the RSPO label as absolutely untrustworthy.

WARNING: GREENWASHING

Many food products carry labels such as “certified palm oil” or “sustainable palm oil,” which are often RSPO-certified. However, from an environmental perspective, the term “sustainable” is misleading in this context. Greenpeace considers this to be greenwashing.

MSC:

The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) was founded in 1997 by Unilever and WWF as an initiative for responsible fishing. However, little remains of its once ambitious goals.

NEGATIVE ASPECTS:

• Even fisheries that use bottom trawling, which causes long-term destruction of the seafloor ecosystem, can receive MSC certification.

• MSC certification is still granted even when fisheries target species that are scientifically recognised as endangered. For example in Australia, the endangered orange roughie was certified as “sustainable” by MSC despite their population that is in grave peril.

NOT TRUSTWORTHY

Neither MSC nor other certification schemes apply the precautionary principle, which is essential for protecting marine life. Instead of addressing the real issues in global fisheries, MSC gives the destructive fishing industry a greenwashed image.

This is particularly alarming given that MSC’s own website acknowledges that fishing is the greatest threat to endangered marine species. Greenpeace considers this label to be untrustworthy.

WARNING: GREENWASHING

The MSC label is widely used and serves primarily as a marketing tool to boost fish product sales, claiming to be an “eco-label for wild-caught fish” and a seal of approval for sustainable fisheries. However, our oceans are already severely overfished. The only truly sustainable choice is to stop buying and consuming seafood and predatory fish altogether.

Greenpeace. (2025, February 13). Greenwashing & Co.: Ein Viertel der Gütesiegel ist nicht vertrauenswürdig. Kronen Zeitung. Retrieved February 24, 2025, from https://www.krone.at/3688558.

Greenpeace. (2025, February). Greenpeace quality label guide: Food products 2025. Greenpeace Austria. Retrieved February 24, 2025, from https://greenpeace.at/uploads/2025/02/greenpeace-guetezeichen-guide-lebensmittel-2025.pdf.

ENDS

Read more about RSPO greenwashing and learn how you can #Boycottpalmoil, #Boycott4Wildlife

Research: Climate Change Collapsing Insect Numbers by 63%

The world may be facing a devastating “hidden” collapse in insect species due to the twin threats of climate change and habitat loss. #Palmoil 🪔 #soy #meat 🥩 and #cocoa 🍫 #agriculture along…

Read more

How banks and investors are bankrolling extinction and ecocide

This article highlights the significant role that banks and investors play in fuelling a global biodiversity crisis – particularly in relation to palm oil, meat, soy and timber deforestation.

By financially supporting…

Read more

Guaranteeing Ecocide: The Green Lie of Palm Oil Certification

For decades, the palm oil industry, backed by the RSPO, has misled consumers with the false promise of “sustainable” palm oil. Behind this green façade lies a brutal reality of deforestation, human rights…

Read more

How Brands Exploit “Green” Certification

Brands and businesses may be tempted to exploit “green” certifications to garner a larger market share at the expense of integrity.

Read more

August 19th is #WorldOrangutanDay

Although #WorldOrangutanDay falls on the 19th of August, in our opinion, every day deserves to be World Orangutan Day! So here is an infographic that you can download, print and share however you…

Read more

Load more posts

Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.

Take Action in Five Ways

1. Join the #Boycott4Wildlife on social media and subscribe to stay in the loop: Share posts from this website to your own network on Twitter, Mastadon, Instagram, Facebook and Youtube using the hashtags #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife.

• Twitter
• Facebook
• Instagram
• WordPress
• YouTube
• Mail
• Mastodon

Sign Up

2. Contribute stories: Academics, conservationists, scientists, indigenous rights advocates and animal rights advocates working to expose the corruption of the palm oil industry or to save animals can contribute stories to the website.

Wildlife Artist Juanchi Pérez

Read more

Mel Lumby: Dedicated Devotee to Borneo’s Living Beings

Read more

Anthropologist and Author Dr Sophie Chao

Read more

Health Physician Dr Evan Allen

Read more

The World’s Most Loved Cup: A Social, Ethical & Environmental History of Coffee by Aviary Doert

Read more

How do we stop the world’s ecosystems from going into a death spiral? A #SteadyState Economy

Read more

3. Supermarket sleuthing: Next time you’re in the supermarket, take photos of products containing palm oil. Share these to social media along with the hashtags to call out the greenwashing and ecocide of the brands who use palm oil. You can also take photos of palm oil free products and congratulate brands when they go palm oil free.

https://twitter.com/CuriousApe4/status/1526136783557529600?s=20

https://twitter.com/PhillDixon1/status/1749010345555788144?s=20

https://twitter.com/mugabe139/status/1678027567977078784?s=20

4. Take to the streets: Get in touch with Palm Oil Detectives to find out more.

5. Donate: Make a one-off or monthly donation to Palm Oil Detectives as a way of saying thank you and to help pay for ongoing running costs of the website and social media campaigns. Donate here

#Boy #BoycottPalmOil #Boycott4wildlife #BoycottMeat #BoycottPalmOil #consumerBoycott #consumerRights #ConsumerRights #diet #ecocide #ecolabel #EU #EUDR #govegan #greed #Greenpeace #greenwashing #MarineStewardshipCouncil #MSC #PalmOil #palmOilDeforestation #palmoil #plantBasedDiet #RSPO #RSPOGreenwashing #seafood #Transparency #vegan

Research: Climate Change Collapsing Insect Numbers by 63%

The world may be facing a devastating “hidden” collapse in insect species due to the twin threats of climate change and habitat loss.

https://youtu.be/pHktdA54ons

#Palmoil 🪔 #soy #meat 🥩 and #cocoa 🍫 #agriculture along with #climatechange and #habitatloss in rainforests is driving #insects to the edge of #extinction. Take action by going #vegan and #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife 🌴💀⛔️ @palmoildetect https://wp.me/pcFhgU-4KY

The parts of the world with the greatest #insect abundance may be falling silent without us even realising. the Insect apocalypse would herald the end of all life on earth. The time for excuses is OVER. #BoycottPalmOil #Boycott4Wildlife @palmoildetect https://wp.me/pcFhgU-4KY

TL; DL version

• UCL’s Centre for Biodiversity & Environment Research has carried out one of the largest-ever assessments of insect declines around the world – assessing three-quarters of a million samples from around 6,000 sites.
• The new study, published in Nature, finds that climate-stressed farmland possesses only half the number of insects, on average, and 25% fewer insect species than areas of natural habitat.
• Insect declines are greatest in high-intensity farmland areas within tropical countries – where the combined effects of climate change and habitat loss are experienced most profoundly.
• The majority of the world’s estimated 5.5 million species are thought to live in these regions – meaning the planet’s greatest abundances of insect life may be suffering collapses without us even realising.
• Lowering the intensity of farming by using fewer chemicals, having a greater diversity of crops and preserving some natural habitat can mitigate the negative effects of habitat loss and climate change on insects.
• Considering the choices we make as consumers – such as buying shade-grown coffee or cocoa – could also help protect insects and other creatures in the world’s most climate-vulnerable regions.

Originally written by Tim Newbold, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Biodiversity and Environment, UCL and Charlie Outhwaite, Postdoctoral Researcher in Biodiversity Change, UCL. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Longer version

Insects are critical to the future of our planet. They help to keep pest species under control and break down dead material to release nutrients into the soil. Flying insects are also key pollinators of many major food crops, including fruits, spices and – importantly for chocolate lovers – cocoa.

The growing number of reports suggesting insect numbers are in steep decline is therefore of urgent concern. Loss of insect biodiversity could put these vital ecological functions at risk, threatening human livelihoods and food security in the process. Yet across large swathes of the world, there are gaps in our knowledge about the true scale and nature of insect declines.

Most of what we do know comes from data collected in the planet’s more temperate regions, especially Europe and North America. For example, widespread losses of pollinators have been identified in Great Britain, butterflies have experienced declines in numbers of between 30 and 50% across Europe, and a 76% reduction in the biomass of flying insects has been reported in Germany.

Information on insect species numbers and their abundance in the tropics (the regions either side of the Equator including the Amazon rainforest, all of Brazil, and much of Africa, India and Southeast Asia) is far more scarce. Yet the majority of the world’s estimated 5.5 million insect species are thought to live in these tropical regions – meaning the planet’s greatest abundances of insect life may be suffering calamitous collapses without us even realising.

The largest of the 29 major insect groups are butterflies/moths, beetles, bees/wasps/ants and flies. Each of these groups is thought to contain more than one million species. Not only is it near-impossible to monitor such a vast number, but as many as 80% of insects may not have been discovered yet – of which many are tropical species.

Responding to these knowledge gaps, researchers at UCL’s Centre for Biodiversity and Environment Research have conducted one of the largest-ever assessments of insect biodiversity change. Some three-quarters of a million samples from around 6,000 sites worldwide were analysed in our study, adding up to nearly 20,000 different species in all.

Insects are facing an unprecedented threat due to the “twin horsemen” of climate change and habitat loss. We sought to understand how insect biodiversity is being affected in areas that experience both these challenges most severely. We know they do not work in isolation: habitat loss can add to the effects of climate change by limiting available shade, for example, leading to even warmer temperatures in these vulnerable areas.

For the first time, we were able to include these important interactions in our global biodiversity modelling. Our findings, published in Nature, reveal that insect declines are greatest in farmland areas within tropical countries – where the combined effects of climate change and habitat loss are experienced most profoundly.

We compared high-intensity farmland sites where high levels of warming have occurred with (related) areas of natural habitat that are little-affected by climate change. The farmland sites possess only half the number of insects, on average, and more than 25% fewer insect species. Throughout the world, our analysis also shows that farmland in climate-stressed areas where most nearby natural habitat has been removed has lost 63% of its insects, on average, compared with as little as 7% for farmland where the nearby natural habitat has been largely preserved.

Areas our study highlights as particularly at risk include Indonesia and Brazil, where many crops depend on insects for pollination and other vital ecosystem services. This has serious implications for local farmers and the wider food chain in these climatically and economically vulnerable areas.

Cocoa, midges and deforestation

Eighty-seven of the world’s major crops are thought to be fully or partially dependent on insect pollinators, of which most tend to be grown in the tropics. Cocoa, for example, is primarily pollinated by midges, a group of flies infamous for bedevilling camping trips in Scotland and other parts of the northern hemisphere. In fact, midges play a vital and under-appreciated role in pollinating the cocoa needed to make chocolate.

The majority of cocoa production takes place in Indonesia, Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana. In Indonesia alone, the export of cocoa beans is valued at around US$75 million per year. Most cocoa production is carried out by smallholders rather than big plantation owners, and many farmers are dependent on this crop for their livelihoods. While it is critical to understand whether insect losses will make things worse for cocoa and its farmers, we have very little knowledge of the state of insect biodiversity in tropical countries such as Indonesia.

Cocoa production in the region is already being stressed by adverse weather events that may be linked to climate change. Warming temperatures and changing rainfall patterns are implicated in changes in the growth, pollination and bean production of cocoa plants.

Agriculture is one of the major industries for the people of Indonesia, particularly in rural regions, with large areas being cleared for the production of key crops, also including palm oil. This has resulted in deforestation of extensive areas of rainforest, increasing the risk to many rare and endangered species such as the orangutan, as well as less well-known species including many insects.

Tropical regions are under considerable threat, primarily as a result of agricultural expansion – often to meet increasing demand from countries outside the tropics. International trade has been shown to be a major driver of deforestation in these regions, with forests in Southeast Asia, East and West Africa and the Amazon particularly vulnerable.

Brazil’s and Indonesia’s high levels of deforestation are attributed to the production of commodities for export including soybean, coffee, palm oil – and cocoa.

The threat of climate change

Habitat loss is known to be a key threat to biodiversity, yet its impact on insects is still under-studied, and assessments of tropical species tend to be very rare. One study found that forest-dependent orchid bees in Brazil have declined in abundance by around 50% (although it only sampled their numbers at two time points). Orchid bees, found only in the Americas, are important pollinators of orchid flowers, with some plants being entirely dependent on this insect for their pollination.

Adding to the challenges of deforestation and other, longer-term habitat changes, is climate change. This fast-emerging threat to insect biodiversity has already been implicated in declines of moths in Costa Rica and bumblebees in Europe and North America. Rising temperatures and increasing frequency of extreme weather events, such as droughts, are just two manifestations known to be having a harmful impact on many insect species.

It is predicted that climate change will have a particularly big impact in the planet’s tropical regions. Temperatures in the tropics are naturally quite stable, so species aren’t used to coping with the fast changes in temperature we are seeing with climate change. Again, though, our ability to understand how this is affecting tropical insects is hampered by a lack of data for these regions. Almost all of the available data comes from only a few very well-studied groups of insects – in particular, butterflies, moths and bees – while many other groups receive very little attention. Despite a big increase in studies of insect biodiversity change, there is still much we don’t know.

Insects normally missed

To help address this knowledge gap, our study has assessed three-quarters of a million samples of insects from all over the world. Of the 6,000 sites included, almost one third are from tropical locations. Our samples of nearly 20,000 different insect species include beetles, bees, wasps, ants, butterflies, moths, flies, bugs, dragonflies and other, less well-known groups.

This was made possible through the use of PREDICTS, a biodiversity database which brings together millions of samples collected by researchers all over the world. PREDICTS records biodiversity in natural habitats and also in areas used by humans for growing crops, among other purposes. It is one of very few global databases that allow us to study biodiversity changes across the whole world.

While our 20,000-strong sample represents only a fraction of the vast diversity of insect species, it is still a sample from more sites than have ever been studied before. We were particularly interested in using it to understand how habitat loss and climate change play off each other to affect insect biodiversity, and were able to include these interactions in our models for the first time.

These twin conditions are found most profoundly in farmland in tropical countries. And our results demonstrate that farmland in these regions has typically lost a lot of insect biodiversity, relative to areas of primary vegetation. This highlights that climate change may present a major threat to food security not only by directly impacting crops, but also through losses of pollinators and other important insects.

As climate change accelerates, the ability to grow cocoa and other crops in their current geographical ranges is already becoming more uncertain, threatening local livelihoods and reducing the availability of these crops for consumers all over the world. The insect losses our study highlights are only likely to add to this risk. Indeed, threats to food security due to the loss of insect biodiversity are already being seen in both temperate and tropical regions: for example, evidence of reduced yields due to a lack of pollinators has been reported for cherry, apple and blueberry production in the US.

In some parts of the world, farmers are resorting to hand-pollination techniques, where the flowers of crops are pollinated using a brush. Hand pollination is used for cocoa in a number of countries, including Ghana and Indonesia. These techniques can help to maintain or increase yield, but come at a high labour cost.

Reducing the declines

Our study also highlights changes that could help to reduce insect declines. Lowering the intensity of farming – for example, by using fewer chemicals and having a greater diversity of crops – mitigates some of the negative effects of habitat loss and climate change. In particular, we show that preserving natural habitat within farmed landscapes really helps insects. Where farmland in climate-stressed areas with its natural habitat largely removed shows insect reductions of 63%, on average, this number drops to as little as 7% where three-quarters of the nearby natural habitat has been preserved.

For insects living on farmland, natural habitat patches act as an alternative source of food, nesting sites and places to shelter from high temperatures. This offers hope that even while the planet continues to warm, there are options that will reduce some of the impacts on insect biodiversity.

Indeed, natural habitat availability has already been shown, at smaller scales, to have a positive impact within agricultural systems in particular. For Indonesian cocoa, increasing the amount of natural habitat has been found to boost numbers of key insects including pollinators. Our new study shows, however, that the benefits of this intervention are only found in less-intensive farming systems. This might mean reducing the level of inputs such as fertilisers and insecticides that are applied, or increasing crop diversity to ensure the benefits of nearby natural habitat can be felt.

It’s also important to note that not all species are enduring a hard time as a result of recent pressures. For example, recent work looking at UK insects has shown that while some groups have declined, others, including freshwater insects, have increased in recent years. Another study looking at worldwide insect trends also found increases in the numbers of freshwater insects. However, many of these positive trends have been reported in non-tropical regions such as the UK and Europe, where a lot has been done, for example, to improve the water quality of rivers in recent years, following past degradation.

Covid-19 helped many people to reconnect with animals and plants around us

The COVID-19 lockdowns prompted many of us to reconnect with the flora and fauna around us. In the UK, the warm spring weather of 2020 saw an apparent increase in the abundance of insects in the UK countryside. However, this spike was probably temporary, and something of an anomaly set against the bigger picture worldwide.

To support more insect biodiversity in our local environments, we can plant diverse gardens to attract insects, reduce the amount of pesticides used in gardens and allotments, and reduce how often we mow our lawns. (In the UK, you could consider joining the No Mow May challenge.) However, it is not just locally that we can make a difference. Considering the choices we make as consumers could help protect insects and other creatures in the tropics. For example, buying shade-grown coffee or cocoa will ensure a lesser impact on biodiversity than crops grown in the open.

Meanwhile, governments and other public and private organisations should consider more carefully the impact their actions and policies are having on insects. This could range from the proper consideration of biodiversity within trade policies and agreements, to ensuring that products are not sourced from areas associated with high deforestation rates.

And then there’s the data issue. We are increasingly recognising the importance of insects for human health and wellbeing, and their key role in global food production systems. Safeguarding the environment to protect insects into the future will have big benefits for human societies around the world. However, none of this is possible without good data.

One important step towards a better understanding of insect biodiversity change is to bring together and assess the data that is already available. A new project of which we are part, GLiTRS (GLobal Insect Threat-Response Synthesis), is doing this by combining the work of leading experts from a range of institutions and ecological disciplines, including data analysts. The project will then assess how different insect groups are responding to certain threats.

Understanding what is causing insect declines is key for preventing even greater losses in the future, and for safeguarding the valuable functions that insects perform. Climate change and biodiversity loss are major global crises that are two sides of the same coin. Their combined effects on food production mean the health, wellbeing and livelihoods of many people in the tropics and beyond are hanging in the balance. Insect biodiversity losses are a crucial, but as yet understudied, part of this story.

ENDS

Take Action in Five Ways

1. Join the #Boycott4Wildlife on social media and subscribe to stay in the loop: Share posts from this website to your own network on Twitter, Mastadon, Instagram, Facebook and Youtube using the hashtags #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife.

• Twitter
• Facebook
• Instagram
• WordPress
• YouTube
• Mail
• Mastodon

✓ Subscribed

2. Contribute stories: Academics, conservationists, scientists, indigenous rights advocates and animal rights advocates working to expose the corruption of the palm oil industry or to save animals can contribute stories to the website.

Wildlife Artist Juanchi Pérez

Read more

Mel Lumby: Dedicated Devotee to Borneo’s Living Beings

Read more

Anthropologist and Author Dr Sophie Chao

Read more

Health Physician Dr Evan Allen

Read more

The World’s Most Loved Cup: A Social, Ethical & Environmental History of Coffee by Aviary Doert

Read more

How do we stop the world’s ecosystems from going into a death spiral? A #SteadyState Economy

Read more

3. Supermarket sleuthing: Next time you’re in the supermarket, take photos of products containing palm oil. Share these to social media along with the hashtags to call out the greenwashing and ecocide of the brands who use palm oil. You can also take photos of palm oil free products and congratulate brands when they go palm oil free.

https://twitter.com/CuriousApe4/status/1526136783557529600?s=20

https://twitter.com/PhillDixon1/status/1749010345555788144?s=20

https://twitter.com/mugabe139/status/1678027567977078784?s=20

4. Take to the streets: Get in touch with Palm Oil Detectives to find out more.

5. Donate: Make a one-off or monthly donation to Palm Oil Detectives as a way of saying thank you and to help pay for ongoing running costs of the website and social media campaigns. Donate here

Here are some other ways you can help by using your wallet as a weapon and joining the #Boycott4Wildlife

What is greenwashing?

Read more

Why join the #Boycott4Wildlife?

Read more

Greenwashing Tactic #4: Fake Labels

Read more

The Counterpunch: Consumer Solutions To Fight Extinction

Read more

Contribute to my Ko-Fi

Did you enjoy visiting this website?

Palm Oil Detectives is 100% self-funded

Palm Oil Detectives is completely self-funded by its creator. All hosting and website fees and investigations into brands are self-funded by the creator of this online movement. If you like what I am doing, you and would like me to help meet costs, please send Palm Oil Detectives a thanks on Ko-Fi.

#Agriculture #AnimalBiodiversityNews #animalExtinction #biodiversity #Boycott4wildlife #BoycottPalmOil #climatechange #cocoa #consumerBoycott #deforestation #extinction #habitatloss #industrialAgriculture #insect #insects #meat #PalmOil #palmOilDeforestation #palmoil #pollination #pollinator #SouthEastAsia #soy #Spiders #vegan

Ultra-processed Foods: Trashing Health and The Planet

Our world is facing a huge challenge: we need to create enough high-quality, diverse and nutritious food to feed a growing population – and do so within the boundaries of our planet. This means significantly reducing the environmental impact of the global food system. Below is information about how you can identify ultra processed foods containing palm oil and other harmful ingredients in order to avoid them – for your own health and the health of the planet. Help the planet, animals and indigenous peoples – #BoycottPalmOil #Boycott4Wildlife

#Palmoil 🌴🪔 and #meat 🥩🍖💀 are ultra-processed unhealthy foods 🍔🍟 that are harmful to health and harmful to the planet 🌏🔥 Here’s how to avoid them. Be #vegan for the animals, and the planet! #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2023/05/10/ultra-processed-foods-are-trashing-our-health-and-the-planet/

Ultra processed #foods #UPF: #palmoil #meat and #dairy are harmful to health and linked to chronic disease and mortality 🫁🫀💀 Here’s how to avoid them for environmental and #health reasons #Boycottpalmoil 🌴🚫 #Boycott4Wildlife @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2023/05/10/ultra-processed-foods-are-trashing-our-health-and-the-planet/

There are more than 7,000 edible plant species which could be consumed for food. But today, 90% of global energy intake comes from 15 crop species, with more than half of the world’s population relying on just three cereal crops: rice, wheat and maize.

The rise of ultra-processed foods is likely playing a major role in this ongoing change, as our latest research notes. Thus, reducing our consumption and production of these foods offers a unique opportunity to improve both our health and the environmental sustainability of the food system.

Food agriculture is a major driver of environmental damage and ecocide

Agriculture is a major driver of environmental change. It is responsible for one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions and about 70% of freshwater use. It also uses 38% of global land and is the largest driver of biodiversity loss.

While research has highlighted how western diets containing excessive calories and livestock products tend to have large environmental impacts, there are also environmental concerns linked to ultra-processed foods.

The impacts of these foods on human health are well described, but the effects on the environment have been given less consideration. This is surprising, considering ultra-processed foods are a dominant component of the food supply in high-income countries (and sales are rapidly rising through low and middle-income countries too).

Our latest research, led by colleagues in Brazil, proposes that increasingly globalised diets high in ultra-processed foods come at the expense of the cultivation, manufacture and consumption of “traditional” foods.

How to spot ultra-processed foods

Ultra-processed foods are a group of foods defined as “formulations of ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, that result from a series of industrial processes”.

They typically contain cosmetic additives and little or no whole foods. You can think of them as foods you would struggle to create in your own kitchen. Examples include confectionery, soft drinks, chips, pre-prepared meals and restaurant fast-food products.

In contrast with this are “traditional” foods – such as fruits, vegetables, wholegrains, preserved legumes, dairy and meat products – which are minimally processed, or made using traditional processing methods.

While traditional processing, methods such as fermentation, canning and bottling are key to ensuring food safety and global food security. Ultra-processed foods, however, are processed beyond what is necessary for food safety.

Australians have particularly high rates of ultra-processed food consumption. These foods account for 39% of total energy intake among Australian adults. This is more than Belgium, Brazil, Columbia, Indonesia, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico and Spain – but less than the United States, where they account for 57.9% of adults’ dietary energy.

According to an analysis of the 2011-12 Australian Health Survey (the most recent national data available on this), the ultra-processed foods that contributed the most dietary energy for Australians aged two and above included ready-made meals, fast food, pastries, buns and cakes, breakfast cereals, fruit drinks, iced tea and confectionery.

What are the environmental impacts?

Ultra-processed foods also rely on a small number of crop species, which places burden on the environments in which these ingredients are grown.

Maize, wheat, soy and oil seed crops (such as palm oil) are good examples. These crops are chosen by food manufacturers because they are cheap to produce and high yielding, meaning they can be produced in large volumes.

Also, animal-derived ingredients in ultra-processed foods are sourced from animals which rely on these same crops as feed.

The rise of convenient and cheap ultra-processed foods has replaced a wide variety of minimally-processed wholefoods including fruits, vegetables, grains, legumes, meat and dairy. This has reduced both the quality of our diet and food supply diversity.

In Australia, the most frequently used ingredients in the 2019 packaged food and drink supply were sugar (40.7%), wheat flour (15.6%), vegetable oil (12.8%) and milk (11.0%).

Some ingredients used in ultra-processed foods such as cocoa, sugar and some vegetable oils are also strongly associated with biodiversity loss.

What can be done?

The environmental impact of ultra-processed foods is avoidable. Not only are these foods harmful, they are also unnecessary for human nutrition. Diets high in ultra-processed foods are linked with poor health outcomes, including heart disease, type-2 diabetes, irritable bowel syndrome, cancer and depression, among others.

To counter this, food production resources across the world could be re-routed into producing healthier, less processed foods. For example, globally, significant quantities of cereals such as wheat, maize and rice are milled into refined flours to produce refined breads, cakes, donuts and other bakery products.

These could be rerouted into producing more nutritious foods such as wholemeal bread or pasta. This would contribute to improving global food security and also provide more buffer against natural disasters and conflicts in major breadbasket areas.

Other environmental resources could be saved by avoiding the use of certain ingredients altogether.

Demand for palm oil (a common ingredient in ultra-processed foods, and associated with deforestation in Southeast Asia) could be significantly reduced through consumers shifting their preferences towards healthier foods.

Reducing your consumption of ultra-processed foods is one way by which you can reduce your environmental footprint, while also improving your health.

Kim Anastasiou, Research Dietitian (CSIRO), PhD Candidate (Deakin University), Deakin University; Mark Lawrence, Professor of Public Health Nutrition, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University; Michalis Hadjikakou, Lecturer in Environmental Sustainability, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, Engineering & Built Environment, Deakin University, and Phillip Baker, Research Fellow, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, Deakin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

ENDS

Take Action in Five Ways

1. Join the #Boycott4Wildlife on social media and subscribe to stay in the loop: Share posts from this website to your own network on Twitter, Mastadon, Instagram, Facebook and Youtube using the hashtags #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife.

• Twitter
• Facebook
• Instagram
• WordPress
• YouTube
• Mail
• Mastodon

✓ Subscribed

2. Contribute stories: Academics, conservationists, scientists, indigenous rights advocates and animal rights advocates working to expose the corruption of the palm oil industry or to save animals can contribute stories to the website.

Wildlife Artist Juanchi Pérez

Read more

Mel Lumby: Dedicated Devotee to Borneo’s Living Beings

Read more

Anthropologist and Author Dr Sophie Chao

Read more

Health Physician Dr Evan Allen

Read more

The World’s Most Loved Cup: A Social, Ethical & Environmental History of Coffee by Aviary Doert

Read more

How do we stop the world’s ecosystems from going into a death spiral? A #SteadyState Economy

Read more

3. Supermarket sleuthing: Next time you’re in the supermarket, take photos of products containing palm oil. Share these to social media along with the hashtags to call out the greenwashing and ecocide of the brands who use palm oil. You can also take photos of palm oil free products and congratulate brands when they go palm oil free.

https://twitter.com/CuriousApe4/status/1526136783557529600?s=20

https://twitter.com/PhillDixon1/status/1749010345555788144?s=20

https://twitter.com/mugabe139/status/1678027567977078784?s=20

4. Take to the streets: Get in touch with Palm Oil Detectives to find out more.

5. Donate: Make a one-off or monthly donation to Palm Oil Detectives as a way of saying thank you and to help pay for ongoing running costs of the website and social media campaigns. Donate here

#BoycottMeat #BoycottPalmOil #Boycott4wildlife #BoycottDairy #BoycottPalmOil #brandBoycotts #consumerBoycott #consumerRights #dairy #dairyFoods #deforestation #diet #foods #health #meat #meatAgriculture #News #PalmOil #palmOilDeforestation #palmOilFree #palmoil #plantBasedDiet #ultraprocessed #UPF #vegan #veganism

Certification Schemes Fail to Stop Palm Oil Deforestation

In 2022, 71 environmental and #humanrights groups from around the world wrote to the EU Commission to warn that certification schemes and ecolabels were not sufficient to prevent human rights abuses and deforestation from entering the European Union. Although fast forward to 2025 and lobbyists have again watered down the #EUDR and #CSDDD, what the future holds is anybody’s guess!

In the UK, industry lobbyists including Ferrero and serial greenwashing outfit Orangutan Land Trust watered down the UK’s commitment to not importing deforestation into the UK. The new trade deal with #Malaysia paves the way for mass importation of palm oil ecocide.

#RSPO and #FSC have been shown for decades to be ineffective and corrupt. They have failed in preventing #corruption, human rights abuses, illegal #landgrabbing, #violence, #deforestation, #ecocide and species #extinction.

So here are 10 reasons why the world should not rely on weak and ineffective certification schemes like MSC, RSPO and FSC to enforce their own zero deforestation mandate. Originally published by GRAIN

https://vimeo.com/724165395

#Ecolabels eg. #RSPO #FSC do not prevent #deforestation. They have failed for decades and instead are only weak #greenwashing tools! Help rainforests, rainforest animals and rainforest peoples. #Boycottpalmoil 🌴🩸🚜🤮🚫 #Boycott4Wildlife @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2022/06/18/10-reasons-why-ecolabels-commodity-certification-are-not-a-solution-to-stop-the-eu-importing-tropical-deforestation/

@EU_Commission should not trust #ecolabels: e.g. @RSPOtweets @FSC_IC to prevent #deforestation. Decades of failure to stop #humanrights abuses #deforestation shows their deep systemic weaknesses #Boycottpalmoil 🌴☠️🧐🚫 #Boycott4Wildlife @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2022/06/18/10-reasons-why-ecolabels-commodity-certification-are-not-a-solution-to-stop-the-eu-importing-tropical-deforestation/

Jump to section

• 1. Certification is not designed to achieve the main objective of the regulation – preventing deforestation and other harms
• 2. Certification does not provide the information needed to comply with the EU regulation
• 3. Certification does not provide guarantees for the legality of the product
• 4. Certification does not identify or prevent harms. Audit teams lack time and expertise
• 5. Certification bodies and their auditors are not independent from the company they certify
• 6. Prevention of environmental and social harm cannot be outsourced.
• 7. Certification cannot guarantee Free, Prior and Informed Consent or prevent land grabbing of indigenous land
• 8. Certification provides opportunities for greenwashing and increases vested interests in and corporate power over natural resources.
• 9. Certification promotes the expansion of industrial agriculture and thereby prevents the transition needed to halt deforestation
• 10. Certification directs resources towards a million-dollar certification industry
• Signatories: 71 environmental and human rights NGOs

Considering the shortcomings of certification schemes that the European Commission itself has documented, we are deeply troubled by the current arguments coming from industry players advocating for a stronger role for certification in the regulation, including a way for companies to use these systems as proof of compliance with binding EU rules. Below are ten reasons why this should not happen.

1. Certification is not designed to achieve the main objective of the regulation – preventing deforestation and other harms

Back to top ↑

The EC’s own Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment (hereafter EC Impact Assessment) concludes that “the consensus is that [voluntary certification] schemes on their own have not been able to provide the changes needed to prevent deforestation”. This is the position defended by the European Parliament and by most NGOs. Certification schemes do not have a deforestation standard, or the standard does not meet the deforestation definition as proposed in the anti-deforestation regulation. For example, because companies are allowed to clear forests to establish plantations and remediate or compensate with conservation elsewhere.

Numerous studies conducted by WWF, FSCWatch, and Greenpeace and academic studies on Indonesia, have additionally concluded that certification on its own has not helped companies meet their commitments to exclude deforestation from their supply chains.

This led some actors such as WWF to lose faith in certification scheme Roundtable of Responsible Soy (RTRS), not only due to limited uptake, but more specifically, because in biomes where soy is produced, zero-deforestation commitments have so far failed to reduce deforestation. In support of this finding, the Dutch supermarket industry representative (CBL) stated that RTRS “has not appeared to be sufficient to halt [deforestation and conversion] developments and accelerate the transition to a sustainable soy chain”.

“Certification (or verification) schemes may, in some cases, contribute to achieving compliance with the due diligence requirement, however the use of certification does not automatically imply compliance with due diligence obligations. There is abundant literature on certification schemes shortcomings in terms of governance, transparency, clarity of standards, and reliability of monitoring systems”.

2. Certification does not provide the information needed to comply with the EU regulation

Back to top ↑

It does not create transparency of the supply chain or provide information on the geographical origin

As indicated in Article 8 of the Proposal, “because deforestation is linked to land-use change, monitoring requires a precise link between the commodity or product placed on or exported from the EU market and the plot of land where it was grown or raised.” Most certification schemes, however, require only a minimal level of traceability and transparency.

As indicated in the EC’s Study On Certification And Verification Schemes In The Forest Sector, schemes make use of Chain of Custody (CoC) models, but very few apply a traceability system, making it difficult to track the claims of certification, from the forest to the end buyer. One of the most common CoC models used is Mass Balance. This model allows uncertified and untraceable supplies to be physically mixed with certified supplies and end up in EU supply chains. For the most part, certification schemes do not include the systematic ability to verify transactions of volumes, species, and qualities between entities, thus leaving the systems vulnerable to manipulation and fraud.

3. Certification does not provide guarantees for the legality of the product

Back to top ↑

Certification schemes do not have the authority to confirm or enforce compliance with national laws precisely because they are voluntary.

Article 3 in the proposed anti-deforestation regulation states that products
are prohibited on the European market if they are not “produced in accordance with the relevant legislation of the country of production”.

However, the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), for example, has explicitly stated its standards are voluntary and “do not extend to enforcing or confirming the legal standing of a company’s use of land (which is a mandate only held by the national authority)”.

4. Certification does not identify or prevent harms. Audit teams lack time and expertise

Back to top ↑

According to the EC “labour, environmental and human rights laws will need to be taken into account when assessing compliance” and identifying harms. However, multiple reports by Friends of the Earth Netherlands, the Environmental Investigation Agency, and ECCHR, reveal that auditing firms responsible for checking compliance are fundamentally failing to identify and mitigate unsustainable practices within certification schemes due to lack of time and lack of expertise. Proper audits on social and human rights issues require extensive consultation to gain full community perspectives on land use, conflicts, or environmental harm. Certification Body (CB) procedures do not allow for this (due to financial resources).

RSPO’s own analysis reads that “the credibility of the RSPO certification scheme has been consistently undermined by documentation of poor practice, and concerns of the extent to which the Assurance System is being implemented”.

Oppressed and stretched NGO groups and communities in the global South spend time and resources on these consultation processes. They face backlash for speaking out during consultations without any guarantee that their input is included in the certification assessment. The EU should not become complicit in exploitation of rightsholders and stakeholders in their monitoring role.

5. Certification bodies and their auditors are not independent from the company they certify

Back to top ↑

The lack of independent audits, considered to be key in ensuring the robustness of certification, was highlighted in the EC Impact Assessment as a key weakness of private certification schemes.

If clients (businesses) hire, supervise, and pay audit firms, they are exposed to a structural risk of conflict of interest, which may lead to a lower level of control.

Previous studies by Friends of the Earth, IUCN, RAN, and Environmental Investigation Agency have shown that, for example in the palm oil industry, when auditors and certification companies are directly hired by an audited company, independence is inhibited and the risk of violations increases.

Also, auditor dependence on company services such as transport and accommodation is problematic. The EC adds to this that these systems are sensitive to fraud given that certified companies may easily mislead their auditors even if the audit is conducted with the greatest care and according to all procedures.

“For example, a company may be selling products containing a volume of “certified” timber material that exceeds the volume of certified raw material that they are buying.”

6. Prevention of environmental and social harm cannot be outsourced, particularly because certification bodies are not liable for harms in the plantations they certify

Back to top ↑

The EU anti-deforestation regulation requires that operators shall exercise due diligence prior to placing relevant commodities on the Union market. Private certification may, in some cases, facilitate compliance with this requirement.

However, as reiterated by German human rights law firm ECCHR the control of compliance is outsourced to private certification bodies, in an unregulated audit and certification market, where CBs are not liable for potential harm.

This leads to inability to distinguish unreliable audits from reliable ones and to competition without rules, setting in motion a ‘race to the bottom’. Certification initiatives have increasingly received complaints for lack of proper due diligence.

For instance, the UK OECD National Contact Point has recently found that Bonsucro breached the Guidelines in relation to due diligence and leverage when reaccepting MPG-T as a member, and the Netherlands NCP handled a complaint about ING’s due diligence policies and practices regarding palm oil.

The OECD guidelines confirm that certification is not a proxy for due diligence, as well as various governments. As echoed by the EC Impact Assessment, “maintaining operators’ responsibility for correctly implementing due diligence obligations when they use certification, aims at ensuring that authorities remain empowered to monitor and sanction incompliant behaviour, as the reliability of those [certification] systems has repeatedly been challenged by evidence on the ground.”

7. Certification cannot guarantee Free, Prior and Informed Consent or prevent land grabbing of indigenous land

Back to top ↑

Indigenous Peoples and local communities have a recognised role in preserving the lands they own and manage, but insecure land tenure is a major driver of deforestation and forest degradation.

Certification bodies commit to investigating whether lands are subject to customary rights of indigenous peoples and whether land transfers have been developed with Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).

However, assessing whether land user rights and consultation rights were respected needs to consider the historical context, a multi-actor perspective and deep understanding of local conflicts. Considering the apparent low level of knowledge of auditors on human rights and legal issues, assessing prior land use and conflicts is an impossible task for a team of international auditors with limited time.

In Malaysia communities are often not consulted before the issuance of the logging licences. MTCS certified concessions encroach on indigenous territories while the judiciary recognised indigenous customary land rights are a form of property rights protected by the Federal Constitution.

Additionally, certification schemes failed on numerous occasions to address complaints by communities whose land was taken by palm oil companies, including the case of oil palm giant Sime Darby in Indonesia and Socfin in Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone. Certification will not lead to redress or resolution of problems linked to EU operators.

Greenwashing Tactic #4: Fake Labels

Claiming a brand or commodity is green based on unreliable, ineffective endorsements or eco-labels such as the RSPO, Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or FairTrade coffee and cocoa. Examples of this form of greenwashing Original tweet…

Keep reading

8. Certification provides opportunities for greenwashing and increases vested interests in and corporate power over natural resources.

Back to top ↑

Critics have argued that improving the image of forest and ecosystem risk commodities stimulates demand. Certification risks enabling destructive businesses to continue operating as usual and expand their practices, thereby increasing the harm.

“If certification on its own is unable to guarantee that commodity production
is entirely free of deforestation or human rights abuses, there is little to suggest that using certification as a tool for proving compliance with legal requirements could solve the issues in supply chains and fulfil the legislation’s objectives.

In this context, recognising a particular certification scheme as a proof of compliance removes any incentive to improve the scheme or to replace it with a more reliable alternative, effectively contributing to the institutionalisation of greenwashing.”

For example, a number of recent logging industry scandals suggest that the Forest Stewardship Council label has at times served merely to “greenwash” or “launder” trafficking in illegal timber, compelling NGOs to demand systemic change. The difference between certified and non-certified plantations in South East Asia was not significant.

9. Certification promotes the expansion of industrial agriculture and thereby prevents the transition needed to halt deforestation

Back to top ↑

This prevents the transition towards community-based forest management and agro-ecology, with food sovereignty as a leading principle

There are multiple drivers of deforestation, but the evidence is clear in pointing to industrial agricultural expansion as one of the most important. Ultimately, certification initiatives fail to challenge the ideology underpinning the continuation of industrial commodity crop production, and can instead serve to greenwash
further agro-commodity expansion.

Corporations, along with their certifications, continue to seek legitimacy through a ‘feed the world’ narrative.

The “expansion is the only way”argument has long since been discredited by international institutions such as FAO; we produce enough to feed the projected world populations, much of this coming from small-scale peasant producers using a fraction of the resources. Moreover, as smallholders are directly impacted by deforestation and often depend on large operators and are hereby
forced to expand agricultural land and degrading their direct environment, they are therefore an essential part of the solution.

10. Certification directs resources towards a million-dollar certification industry

Back to top ↑

While community and smallholder forest and agriculture management are extremely underfunded.

As explained by the EC Impact Assessment, private certification can be a costly process and resources spent to certify operations and to support the various schemes’ managerial structures could be used for other ends. Considering that smallholders represent a large share of producers in the relevant sectors, they also represent a crucial part of the solution to deforestation.

The EU should stop financing and promoting improvements in a certification system, benefiting industrial forest and plantation companies, that has been proven to fail.

It would be a more effective use of public and private resources to pay smallholders adequately for their products and adhere to their calls if they seek technical or financial support.

To conclude, building on these arguments, we foresee that if decision makers give in to the lobby from industry and certification’s role is reconsidered or promoted in the current proposal, the EU anti-deforestation regulation will not deliver, as it will not only lose its potential to provide information needed to comply with the regulation but lose its ability to curb deforestation and forest degradation all together.

Back to top ↑

Signatories: 71 environmental and human rights NGOs

International

Global Witness
ClientEarth
Environmental Paper Network
International
GRAIN
Global Forest Coalition
Forest Peoples Programme

Indonesia

Friends of the Earth Indonesia; WALHI
Yayasan Pusaka Bentala Rakyat
Yayasan Lembaga Bantuan
Hukum Indonesia
Pantau Gambut
WALHI Papua
Teraju Foundation
Lingkar Hijau
KRuHA
Lepemawil, Mimika, Papua
PADI Indonesia

Cameroon

Synaparcam
Centre pour l’Environnement
et le Développment Chile
Colectivo Vientosur

Democratic Republic of the Congo

RIAO-RDC
Confédération Paysanne du
Congo-Principal Regroupement Paysan
Gabon
Muyissi Environnement

China

Snow Alliance
Blue Dalian
Green Longjiang
Scholar Tree Alliance
Wuhu Ecology Centre

Malaysia

SAVE Rivers
KERUAN
Sahabat Alam Malaysia

Liberia

Sustainable Development Institute

Nigeria

ERA; Friends of the Earth Nigeria

Mexico

Reentramados para la vida, defendiendo territorio
Otros Mundos Chiapas

Philippines

Unyon ng mga Manggagawa sa Agrikultura- UMA

Sierra Leone

Green Scenery

United States

Friends of the Earth United States
The Oakland Institute
The Borneo Project

Europe

Bruno Manser Fonds
Canopée
Denkhausbremen
Dublin Friends of the Earth
Earthsight
Ecologistas en Acción
Environmental Investigation
Agency (EIA)
Fern
FIAN Belgium
Finnish Association for Nature Conservation
Forum Ökologie & Papier
Friends of Fertő lake Association
Friends of the Earth England,
Wales and Northern Ireland
Friends of the Earth Europe
Friends of the Earth Finland
Greenpeace EU

GYBN Europe
HEKS – Swiss Church Aid
Milieudefensie
NOAH – Friends of the Earth Denmark
Pro REGENWALD
Rainforest Foundation Norway

ReAct Transnational
Rettet den Regenwald
ROBIN WOOD
Salva la Selva
Save Estonias Forests (Päästame Eesti Metsad)
Ukrainian Nature Conservation Group
Water Justice and Gender
Working group Food Justice
ZERO – Associação Sistema
Terrestre Sustentável

Back to top ↑

Here are some other ways you can help by using your wallet as a weapon and joining the #Boycott4Wildlife

What is greenwashing?

Read more

Why join the #Boycott4Wildlife?

Read more

Greenwashing Tactic #4: Fake Labels

Read more

The Counterpunch: Consumer Solutions To Fight Extinction

Read more

Contribute to my Ko-Fi

Did you enjoy visiting this website?

Palm Oil Detectives is 100% self-funded

Palm Oil Detectives is completely self-funded by its creator. All hosting and website fees and investigations into brands are self-funded by the creator of this online movement. If you like what I am doing, you and would like me to help meet costs, please send Palm Oil Detectives a thanks on Ko-Fi.

Palm Oil Detectives is 100% self-funded

Palm Oil Detectives is completely self-funded by its creator. All hosting and website fees and investigations into brands are self-funded by the creator of this online movement. If you like what I am doing, you and would like me to help meet costs, please send Palm Oil Detectives a thanks on Ko-Fi.

#animalExtinction #BoycottPalmOil #Boycott4wildlife #BoycottPalmOil #consumerBoycott #corruption #CSDDD #deforestation #ecocide #ecolabels #ethicalConsumerism #EUDR #extinction #FSC #greenwashing #humanRights #HumanRights #landgrabbing #Malaysia #MSC #PalmOil #palmOilDeforestation #RSPO #RSPOGreenwashing #violence

Why join the #Boycott4Wildlife?

According to a 2021 survey by Nestle of 1001 people, 17% of millennial shoppers (25-45 years old) completely avoid palm oil in the supermarket. 25% said that they actively check to see if products contain palmoil.

As a generation, we now have the opportunity to push our local communities and our children away from harmful palm oil towards buying products from local, small-scale businesses with small local supply chains.

We have the opportunity to rethink the out-of-control global food industry and using our wallet as a weapon to fight deforestation, greenwashing and illegal land-grabbing of rainforests from Indigenous peoples. On a personal basis, we have the ability to foster a healthier relationship to the things we buy – because the things we buy are destroying our planet!

The solution to the problem of palm oil is to get global brands to drop it completely because despite promises of WWF and The RSPO, after 18 years, the certification has failed to stop deforestation, many organisations have called the RSPO out for corruption and greenwashing. Palm oil, certified or not – is still destroying rainforests and sending thousands of rare and beautiful animals extinct, displacing Indigenous people and spewing massive plumes of Co2 into the atmosphere.

Industrial agriculture for other ingredients is doing exactly the same thing as palm oil – certification for these ingredients is also a greenwashing lie. So the #Boycott4Wildlife includes global supermarket brands that are causing tropical deforestation and Indigenous land-grabbing for soy, meat, palm oil, cocoa and any other ingredients.

Pledge your support now to the #Boycott4Wildlife

• Deforestation in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Photo: Wikipedia.
• Orangutan defends her home deforestation
• Deforestation – Craig Jones Wildlife Photography
• Research: Palm Oil Deforestation and its connection to retail brands
• After a forest fire in Sumatra – Craig Jones Wildlife Photography
• meat agriculture and deforestation

A #Boycott4Wildlife is a #boycott on out-of-control industrial agriculture causing #deforestation for #soy #palmoil #meat #cocoa #coffee. Learn how to use your wallet as a weapon and hold corporate #greed to account.

Tweet

What’s the alternative?

New economic models such as Donut Economics and the Centre of the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE) offer hope and show a new way for industrial agriculture, the energy sector and other major polluting industries that is closely aligned to living in harmony and balance with ecosystems, animals, Indigenous peoples and with the finite, limited resources that we have on our planet. Learn more about this model here.

Economic growth” (GDP growth) encourages wasteful overconsumption. This adds to economic throughput and is considered good for the economy- boosting GDP. In a steady state economy, people consume enough to meet their needs and lead meaningful, joyful lives without undermining the life-support systems of the planet.

martin tye, director, Australian Regional Communities Division- CASSE

#Boycott4wildlife #brandBoycotts #consumerBoycott #consumerRights #consumerism #environment #indigenousRights #pollution #wildlife #wildlifeActivism

Can we feed the world and stop deforestation? Depends what’s for dinner

It’s a tricky thing to grow enough #food for a ballooning population without destroying the natural world. And when I say a tricky thing, I mean it’s one of the greatest challenges humanity has ever faced. Luckily for us, it is theoretically possible, and the easiest way to get there is by drastically cutting down on meat. We deforest an area the size of Panama every single year. Across the world, food is the number one cause of #deforestation, especially our taste for meat. If we all woke up #vegan in 2050, we would need less land than in 2000. We could reforest an area the size of the Amazon. 80% of deforestation is from #meat” Take action every time you shop and go plant-based #Boycott4Wildlife

Can we feed the world, stop deforestation? YES According to Humboldt Uni. “If we all woke up #vegan in 2050, we would need less land than in 2000. We could reforest an area the size of the Amazon. 80% of deforestation is from #meat” #Boycott4Wildlife https://palmoildetectives.com/2021/03/31/can-we-feed-the-world-and-stop-deforestation-depends-whats-for-dinner/

But it doesn’t have to be this way. Researchers recently modelled how the world could feed itself in 2050 without converting any current forests into agriculture. They tested the outcome under 500 different scenarios that varied according to realistic assumptions on future yields, the area needed for farming, livestock feed and human diets. They found that “deforestation is not a biophysical necessity”.

“While a wide range of feasible options to feed a no-deforestation world were found, many only worked under certain circumstances,” said Karl-Heinz Erb, lead author of the study, published in Nature Communications.

For example, meat-heavy diets were not compatible with lower yields similar to those under organic farming, or under the potential negative effects of climate change. Of all the variables involved, the feasibility of feeding the world with no deforestation is more dependent on what we are eating, than on how well we farm.

“The only diet found to work with all future possible scenarios of yield and cropland area, including 100% organic agriculture, was a plant-based one,” Erb said.

Even better: if we all woke up vegan in 2050, we would require less cropland than we did in the year 2000. This could allow us to “reforest” an area around the size of the entire Amazon rainforest – somehow fitting considering 70-80% of deforestation in the Amazon is due to the livestock industry.

In second place, the vegetarian diet was compatible with 94% of future no-deforestation scenarios. Going veggie would also save on cropland, allowing for an area around the size of India to return to nature.

This land-saving makes sense when considering the conversion rate between the grain that we could have directly consumed but instead feed to livestock. For example, in the US, it takes an astounding 25kg of grain to produce 1kg of beef, pigs require a grain to meat ratio of 9:1 and chickens, relatively less wasteful, are 3:1. As renowned ecologist Hugh Possingham put it: “Just stop feeding grain to animals – don’t eat something that ate something that you could have eaten.”

Plant-based diets are particularly impressive when compared to those that are rich in meat, which would require a 50% increase in global cropland area by 2050. In order to achieve this with a chance of no-deforestation, we’d have to convert lots of pasture to cropland and substantially increase yields, likely through using chemicals. But both conversion and intensification generally degrade ecosystems and lead to less biodiversity.

Overall the new study found that a meat-eater requires at least double the resources of a vegan or vegetarian.

The study also links to the basic availability of food, one of the main pillars of food security. As people, especially in the Western world, eat less meat, the global demand for grain is reduced – for example, the US could feed 800m people with the grain currently fed to livestock. Less meat consumption would mean more food is available in poorer countries which could enjoy becoming more self-sufficient.

With other recent research showing that reducing our meat intake could result in two thirds less food-related CO2 emissions, and save millions of lives there are few excuses left to justify having meat at every meal.

Most of all, this study brings some much needed good news. In a world where environmental issues are often overwhelmingly depressing, where it seems monopolies that are out of our grasp run the show, here we have a pathway to a healthier, greener and more equitable world. And it’s quite literally handed to us on a plate. As the researchers of the study noted: “We are cutting back on meat, mainly as a result of this study.” And that’s the beauty of this approach, it doesn’t have to be all or nothing, vegan or carnivore. Eating sparse amounts of meat, the path of the “carnesparsian”, can have a huge impact – on your own health and that of the planet.

This article was updated on April 26, 2016, to include more recent data on livestock deforestation in the Amazon.

Laura Kehoe, 400trees.org founder & PhD researcher in wildlife conservation and land use , Humboldt University of Berlin

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

#BoycottMeat #Boycott4wildlife #consumerBoycott #consumerism #deforestation #diet #food #meat #meatAgriculture #meatDeforestation_ #nutrition #planetaryHealth #plantBasedDiet #plantbased #rainforest #vegan