Palm Oil Free Cleaning Products

Clean your home without using rainforest-destroying palm oil. Major #brands making #cleaning products 🧹🧼🫧 like Colgate-Palmolive Reckitt, Unilever, PZ Cussons and others tell lies and destroy rainforests. Don’t buy the #greenwashing of soc-called “sustainable” #palmoil 🌴🤮💀☠️❌ Instead shop #palmoilfree. If you are ever in doubt look for the prefixes: LAUR, STEAR, GYLC and PALM in the ingredients list – this is most likely palm oil. Another tip is to shop for locally produced cleaning products and brands instead of mass-produced products. Use your wallet as a weapon #BoycottPalmOil #Boycott4Wildlife

https://youtu.be/wxwudIteB84

Major #brands making #cleaning products 🧹🧼🫧 #Palmolive #Reckitt #Unilever #PZCussons and others tell lies and destroy rainforests. Don’t buy the #greenwash of “sustainable” #palmoil 🌴🤮💀☠️❌ Instead shop #palmoilfree #Boycott4Wildlife @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2021/02/11/palm-oil-free-cleaning-products/

Did you know that palm oil is one of the world’s most destructive crops, as it can only be harvested in tropical rainforest and peatland landscapes where the highest concentration of endangered species live? The majority of palm oil and soy is fed to farm animals that people eat. This is why palm oil is an animal rights issue. And it is for these reasons that palm oil is NOT considered vegan by animal activists. It may be a plant-based substance, but it is NOT VEGAN. Brands making cleaning products like PZ Cussons, Colgate-Palmolive, Reckitt and Unilever claiming vegan status are simply greenwashing extinction and ecocide!

Palm Oil Free Cleaning Products

Asanabar LLC

Bosistos

Counter Culture Cleaning

Clothes Doctor

Friendly Soap

Earth Sense Organics

EcoEgg – Laundry Egg

Ecologic: Cleaning surface spray

Ecozone Laundry and Cleaning Products

Eco Living Washing Up Soap Bar

Ethique

Euclove

Greenscents

Humblestuff

Kin Kin Dishwashing liquid

L’il Bit

MiEco

Naturally Better Oxygen Bleach

Organic Choice

OceanSaver Bottle for Life

The Botanical Life Co

Urthly Organics

Find Palm Oil Free Products

Big Green Smile: Palm Oil Free Products

Biome

Ethical Consumer UK

Natural Collection UK

Replenish Refill Australia: Palm Oil Free

Get brand changes in your inbox

✓ Subscribed

#BoycottPalmOil #Boycott4wildlife #BoycottPalmOil #branding #Brands #cleaning #CleaningProducts #consumerBoycott #consumerRights #consumerism #greenwash #greenwashing #palmOilFree #palmoil #palmoilfree #Palmolive #PZCussons #Reckitt #Unilever

Greenwashing Tactic 10: Gaslighting, Harassment, Stalking and Threats

Greenwashing’s most insidious and darkest form is the attempt to discredit, humiliate, harass, abuse and stalk individuals in order to silence individuals and stop them from sharing research and reports with others about corporate corruption, greenwashing and ecocide.

#Greenwashing Tactic 10: #Gaslighting #harassment and threats are used to attempt to discredit critics of an industry, certification scheme or commodity. #Boycottpalmoil #FightGreenwashing @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2021/10/27/greenwashing-tactic-10-gaslighting-harassment/

Jump to section

Targets of Abuse

Abusive, Gaslighting and Greenwashing Pro Palm Oil Lobbyists on Twitter

Greenwashing by Gaslighting

Examples of Gaslighting

Greenwashing by Discrediting Critics

Who are the Pro Palm Oil Lobbyists?

Bart W Van Assen – Lead Auditor Trainer for the RSPO

Fraudulent Auditing of RSPO members

Stalking and harassment

Michelle Desilets

Jane Griffiths

Example: Greenwashing with lies, abuse, discrediting whistleblowers

Explore the Series

Further Reading: Greenwashing & Deceptive Marketing

Say thanks for this guide by donating to my Ko-Fi

Targets of Greenwashing by Gaslighting, Abuse, Stalking and Harassment

Targets of this kind of greenwashing could be researchers, conservationists, activists, investigative journalists, whistle-blowers, concerned consumers or brands (both big and small) who have taken a stand against palm oil and refuse to use it in their products.

Anybody who delves too deeply into the inconsistencies, misinformation and corruption in the palm oil industry is a target for this.

This form of greenwashing is not isolated to the palm oil lobby, many other industries apply these dark tactics to cool down criticism online about the environmental damage and ecocide caused by fossil fuels, meat, dairy, timber and extractive open-cut mining.

Targets for this form of greenwashing:

• Dr Roberto Gatti
• Aurora Sustainability Group
• Dr Setia Budhi
• Craig Jones
• Isabella Guerrini de Clare
• Neue Zurcher Zeitung
• Iceland Foods
• Dr Klaus Riede
• Dr Birute Galdikas – the most respected orangutan researcher in the world, who has 50 years of her life in the field helping orangutans.
• Russell Moxham
• Paul Fraser of Meridian Foods
• and me.

Harassment and abuse has the ability to intimidate and scare some individuals into silence and stop them participating in online conversations or from asking too many questions.

Back to top ↑

Abusive, gaslighting and greenwashing Pro Palm Oil Lobbyists on Twitter:

It is recommend to block all of these people to make your Twitter experience more enjoyable with less palm oil greenwashing, abuse, harassment and hate in your life

Bart Van Assen is the most vile and abusive troll of all. He has harassed me and stalked me in two successive workplaces and has been banned several times from Mastadon and Twitter for harassment and abuse. You can also find him doing the same to other people on Instagram

https://twitter.com/PalmOilDetect/status/1627875314792792064?s=20

Main lobbyists/trolls

Bart W Van Assen: (who juggles multiple accounts to disguise himself: @Apes4Forests and @eachtreematters and @vliegerholland.

Michelle Desilets: @Orangutans and @Orangulandtrust

Jane Griffiths: @griffjane and @newquaySSPO

Lone Droscher Nielson: orangutanland (appears to be a dummy account being run by Michelle Desilets).

Other trolls and fake sock puppet accounts

Anak Sawit: @AnakSawitOrg

Anti genocide: @wakyIIsr

BuleMewak: @Bulemewak

Dupito Simamora: @SimamoraDupito

Earthkeeper22: @Earthkeeper22 parrots the exact same messages as Orangutan Land Trust despite being shown loads of evidence that it is a lie.

Francisca: @sisca_gd

FMN Global: @FMNglobal

Kevin Butler: @kiwibutts

Hypocrite Buster: @hypocrisykiller

Joern Haese: @JoernHaese (pro-Russia troll, apologist for the palm oil industry)

Li May Fun: @LiMayFun

Like I Care: @lik3icar3

Maruli Gultom: @Maruligultom

Najis Keji: @najiskeji

No_Gaslighting: @Ngaslighting

Pax Deorum: @PaxDeorum2 (abusive troll pushing a pro-Russia agenda)

Penny McGregor: @penmcgregor (Disgusting abusive troll who is an apologist for the immensely destructive HS2 project in the UK)

Petani Sawit: @PalmSawit

Peter Ashford: @kaffiene_nz (abusive troll pushing a pro New Zealand dairy/pro palm oil agenda)

ProEqual: @PR03QUAL

Rainforest: @Rainfor60967488

Ray Whitley: @RayWhitley13 (Fake vegan/lobbyist who does not advocate for animals on Twitter but instead simply foments divisiveness and hate on Twitter)

Robert Hii: @HiiRobert

Shite Buster: @Justice4Abo

Via Vallen: @ViaVallenia

Viki: @ImaWereViki

Greenwashing by Gaslighting

Gaslighting is a powerful tool for greenwashing and psychological manipulation. The gaslighter sows seeds of doubt in online conversations from questioning and doubtful researchers and consumers.

Back to top ↑

A gaslighter will tell individuals that they are wrong and misinformed about the corruption, deforestation, human rights abuses of brands and certification schemes.

That they know far less about an issue than so-called ‘experts’. However, on closer examination, these ‘experts’ are a series of researchers, Zoos or conservation NGOs that are paid by the industry. They produce positive research or ambiguous and inconclusive research that supports their spurious claims of green sustainability.

Examples of gaslighting

Back to top ↑

https://twitter.com/forests4apes/status/1516721955537563648?s=20&t=I9KRnKNOX8wAjpK4d_7n4w

https://twitter.com/palmoiltruther/status/1452516475562909696?s=20

https://twitter.com/Orangutanland/status/1427001793842712578?s=20

https://twitter.com/orangulandtrust/status/1447298891267940353?s=20

https://twitter.com/orangutans/status/1437728818429669380?s=20

https://twitter.com/helloamygarner/status/1455267346298327043?s=20

https://twitter.com/orangulandtrust/status/1451148455435513861?s=20

https://twitter.com/griffjane/status/1256461066512535552?s=20

https://twitter.com/orangutans/status/1445340326290501633?s=20

https://twitter.com/orangutans/status/1201893538109251585?s=20

https://twitter.com/orangutans/status/1452591696789843975?s=20

https://twitter.com/orangutans/status/1429740350739034112?s=20

https://twitter.com/orangulandtrust/status/1355867421429682178?s=20

https://twitter.com/orangutans/status/1351487010758926338?s=20

https://twitter.com/orangutans/status/1265598470368395266?s=20

https://twitter.com/orangulandtrust/status/1259899273304510471?s=20

https://twitter.com/orangulandtrust/status/1464597794279276547?s=20

Back to top ↑

Greenwashing by Discrediting Critics

Discrediting people (especially researchers) who produce evidence of corruption, deforestation, and human rights abuses associated with so-called ‘sustainable’ palm oil.

Back to top ↑

Targets of this form of harassment: researchers, whistleblowers, journalists, activists. Any person (particularly a public figure) who takes a clear and strong stance palm oil, who calls out the corruption of the RSPO and advocates for a palm oil boycott will receive online abuse.

Below: Serial online abuser and greenwasher Michelle Desilets of Orangutan Land Trust cuts and pastes the same response underneath of all tweets calling for a palm oil boycott to attempt to discredit the #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife movement.

Other targets of greenwashing by discrediting on social media:

• Dr Roberto Gatti: Lead author of peer-reviewed research showing that “sustainable” palm oil is not sustainable.
• Aurora Sustainability Group: A group of researchers who produced peer-reviewed research showing that “sustainable” palm oil is not sustainable.
• Dr Setia Budhi: Dayak ethnographer who refuses to be cowed or silenced about the immense corruption and indigenous landgrabbing associated with “sustainable” RSPO plantations in Borneo. Read interview and update.
• Craig Jones: Independent photographer who visited an RSPO “sustainable” palm oil plantation in Sumatra (PT Sisirau) and witnessed a mother and baby being rescued from a location of total ecocide – an area illegally destroyed for palm oil – yet “sustainable”. Read this story and the report about the biodiversity of PT Sisirau.
• Isabella Guerrini de Clare: Author of peer-reviewed research showing that “sustainable” palm oil is not sustainable.
• Neue Zurcher Zeitung: Media outlet in Germany that published OSINT satellite data showing incontrovertible and clear evidence of destruction of protected rainforests and within RSPO palm oil plantations.
• Dr Klaus Riede
• Dr Birute Galdikas – the most respected orangutan researcher in the world, who has spent 50 years of her life in the field helping orangutans. She has for decades been a vocal critic against the palm oil industry. One of the few researchers who is brave enough to stand up to large corporations and the RSPO.
• Paul Fraser of Meridian Foods
• and me.

Evidence produced from dozens of different sources over two decades shows the RSPO to be a greenwashing lie that has been a complete failure across all of its own sustainability standards.

Back to top ↑

Examples of this form of harassment

https://twitter.com/palmoiltruther/status/1420376020163596295?s=20

https://twitter.com/orangutans/status/1326100964739330048?s=20

https://twitter.com/AuroraGroupScot/status/1229084035294679040?s=20

https://twitter.com/orangutans/status/1451942650190389251?s=20

https://twitter.com/palmoiltruther/status/1429675933112229889?s=20

https://twitter.com/robertocgatti/status/1408534574167212040

https://twitter.com/orangutans/status/1435918896171823106?s=20

https://twitter.com/orangulandtrust/status/1171018728844038144?s=20

https://twitter.com/orangutans/status/1411683864636964867?s=20

https://twitter.com/orangulandtrust/status/1455645702827225095?s=20

https://twitter.com/RussellMoxham/status/1506851368635703299?s=20&t=96QT7nNMogNmg6VPgOQzUA

https://twitter.com/robertocgatti/status/1293327656642060288?s=20

https://twitter.com/HypocrisyKiller/status/1322862981399547906?s=20

https://twitter.com/IsabellaGuerrin/status/1322692968667598850?s=20

https://twitter.com/palmoiltruther/status/1448164848869675014?s=20

https://twitter.com/palmoiltruther/status/1429707730223259649?s=20

https://twitter.com/orangulandtrust/status/1257282606120546304?s=20

https://twitter.com/orangulandtrust/status/1445673880069099527?s=20

https://twitter.com/palmoiltruther/status/1429159618668687362?s=20

https://twitter.com/IsabellaGuerrin/status/1323405820638482434?s=20

https://twitter.com/palmoiltruther/status/1455070854186995715?s=20

https://twitter.com/orangulandtrust/status/1455651945306263553?s=20

https://twitter.com/robertocgatti/status/1293553785340649478?s=20

https://twitter.com/orangulandtrust/status/1176787367841161216?s=20

https://twitter.com/palmoiltruther/status/1428809813983522819?s=20

https://twitter.com/DrBirute/status/1053460847085801472?s=20

https://twitter.com/AuroraGroupScot/status/1229021993510539265?s=20

https://twitter.com/CraigJones17/status/1437725673754345476?s=20

https://twitter.com/palmoiltruther/status/1421179284140425218?s=20

https://twitter.com/palmoiltruther/status/1455413095011008512?s=20

https://twitter.com/palmoiltruther/status/1457955109363671042?s=20

Back to top ↑

Who are the Pro Palm Oil Lobbyists?

harassing, abusing, stalking, discrediting and gaslighting whistleblowers of corruption, greenwashing and ecocide in the RSPO?

Back to top ↑

Orangutan Land Trust is known by critics of the industry and whistle-blowers of ‘sustainable’ palm oil corruption as the Palm Oil Lies Trust

This charity’s three ‘volunteers’ Bart W Van Assen, Michelle Desilets and Jane Griffiths are responsible for most of the misinformation and greenwashing about the sustainable palm oil on social media.

They confuse unaware consumers and harass critics calling them trolls, sustainability deniers, psychopaths, morons and conspiracy theorists – they behave very professionally. For nearly 20 years they have greenwashed the RSPO’s atrocious record on deforestation, human rights violations and illegal land-grabbing.

Bart Van Assen

Former auditor trainer for the RSPO and FSC, Bart Van Assen juggles various account names on Twitter before getting them banned for abusing people.

Bart has had 3 accounts banned from Twitter: @thewicorman @wildingrocks @bartwvanassen for harassment, abuse and stalking people. As a result of this behaviour, he has also had several police cases opened against him. He even talks in detail about how he stalked palm oil corruption whistleblower @ExposeLies2 on his website: Wilding Rocks. He has abused and harassed countless other people.

He currently uses: @palmoiltruther, @Apes4Forests @Forests4Apes @BartWVanAssen @eachtreematters @vliegerholland on Twitter. In the past, Bart has trained people to undertake audits in order to verify that palm oil plantations adhere to RSPO certified sustainable standards. The RSPO’s audits have been independently verified by different organisations to be fraudulent.

https://twitter.com/PalmOilDetect/status/1627875314792792064?s=20

Bart now harasses on Mastadon using this handle: https://mastodon.green/@wildlingrocks

Bart’s now permanently suspended account on Twitter with the same name

A tweet from Bart Van Assen, former lead auditor for the RSPO and HCV admitting that the main goal of the RSPO, FSC and other certification initiatives is not to prevent deforestation. (Bart has formerly used @palmoiltruther on Twitter but now changes between @Forest4Apes or @Apes4Forests depending on times when he attempts to conceal his identity).

He now has a start-up: Kayon. He is asking people to pay him money to keep trees standing in rainforests scheduled for destruction for palm oil. He calls this ‘pirating a tree’

Bart Van Assen: Former RSPO and FSC Auditor and vile troll on Twitter and Mastadon

Bart Van Assen: Lead Auditor Trainer for the RSPO

and full time greenwasher and online abuser of any person who declares that they want to boycott palm oil

EIA, Global Witness, Human Rights Watch, Sum of Us, Associated Press, Neue Zurcher Zeitung, Channel 4, The Guardian, Yale Environment 360 and ITV, World Health Organisation (WHO) and International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) have consistently produced reports showing that RSPO members continue with human rights abuses, deforestation and illegal land-grabbing and furthermore – that fraudulent auditing is the key reason for this failure of these palm oil companies adhere to the RSPO’s standards.

https://twitter.com/orangulandtrust/status/812266949392601088?s=20

https://twitter.com/EIA_News/status/666229260215033856?s=20

https://twitter.com/SustPalmOil_BE/status/1071051202400538626?s=20

Fraudulent auditing in the RSPO

Many of these reports cite extremely poor auditing is a major reason for the failure of the RSPO. In other words, the auditing process is not, nor has ever been robust enough to prevent human rights abuses, deforestation and illegal indigenous land-grabbing from taking place.

Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA)

“Non-adherence to the RSPO’s standards is systemic and widespread, and has led to ongoing land conflicts, labour abuses and destruction of forests.

“As the world approaches 2020 targets to halt deforestation, the RSPO needs to rapidly implement radical solutions to restore its credibility. We question whether the RSPO is willing and able to rectify its systemic failures – ultimately, voluntary certification is too limited by its voluntary nature.”

— Who Watches the Watchmen Part 2: The continuing incompetence of the RSPO’s assurance systems (2019)

Changing Markets Foundation

“While RSPO is often referred to as the best scheme in the sector, it has several shortcomings; most notably it has not prevented human rights violations and it does not require GHG emissions reductions.”

— The False Promise of Certification (2018)

Greenpeace

“Implementation of [the RSPO’s] standards is often weak, with serious audit failures being reported, many members failing to meet the full range of membership requirements and grievances slow to be addressed.”

— Destruction Certified by Greenpeace (2021)

Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA)

“Without assurance mechanisms that properly function, the RSPO has little credibility and its claims are hollow.

“RSPO companies have continued to be beset
by assurance issues in 2020. Associated Press notably reported on labour violations in Malaysia, including by RSPO members. These allegations included forced labour, the abuse of women and child labour, among others.”

— Burning Questions – Credibility of sustainable palm oil still illusive – Environmental Investigation Agency (2021)

A 2019 World Health Organisation (WHO) report into the palm oil industry and RSPO finds extensive greenwashing of palm oil deforestation and the murder of endangered animals (i.e. biodiversity loss)

RSPO’s annual conference 2019: a focus on faulty audits

It was also acknowledged that the taskforce did not have the capacity to handle the responsibilities that it had set itself, and that besides training, a new model where the work was outsourced might be needed.

In ending the session, the panelists identified the most important things that would kickstart better assurance, namely: obtaining feedback to improve the assurance system, formulating better social policy, improved communications, rigour in meeting deadlines, and maintaining credible audits.

RT Report 2019

Back to top ↑

Read more

Kirby, David (2015) Sustainable Palm Oil? Who Knows, Thanks to Derelict Auditors, Take Part

Lang, Chris & REDD Monitor (2015) Sustainable palm oil? RSPO’s greenwashing and fraudulent audits exposed. Ecologist: Informed by Nature.

Vit, Jonathan (2015) Greenwashing? RSPO audits rife with ‘mistakes and fraud,’ report finds. Mongabay.

https://twitter.com/VanessaFiji/status/1343842368915726337?s=20

https://twitter.com/palmoiltruther/status/1448162583958151169?s=20

https://twitter.com/palmoiltruther/status/1463139065289601027?s=20

https://twitter.com/palmoiltruther/status/1423973381292974085?s=20

https://twitter.com/palmoiltruther/status/1420996831857762305?s=20

https://twitter.com/palmoiltruther/status/1445783304213434383?s=20

https://twitter.com/orangutans/status/1430184928898080776?s=20

https://twitter.com/orangutans/status/1452580747320102912?s=20

https://twitter.com/palmoiltruther/status/1452529559883051008?s=20

Back to top ↑

Michelle Desilets

Executive Director of Orangutan Land Trust Michelle Desilets manages both the @orangutans and @orangulandtrust accounts on Twitter.

• Michelle Desilets threatening and harassing people
• Michelle Desilets threatening and harassing people
• Michelle Desilets threatening and harassing people
• Michelle Desilets threatening and harassing people
• Bart Van Assen AKA Wilding Rocks AKA The Wicorman AKA PalmOilTruther harassing people and getting banned from Twitter
• Michelle Desilets at the RSPO conference

https://twitter.com/orangutans/status/1423218195847172098?s=20

https://twitter.com/orangutans/status/1434147701671829509?s=20

https://twitter.com/orangutans/status/1452980378394824711?s=20

https://twitter.com/orangutans/status/1360920014619095040?s=20

https://twitter.com/orangutans/status/1333720262655815681?s=20

https://twitter.com/orangulandtrust/status/1451148455435513861?s=20

https://twitter.com/orangulandtrust/status/1436350934108495873?s=20

Back to top ↑

Jane Griffiths

@griffjane and @NewQuaySSPO

Jane is a ‘volunteer’ for Orangutan Land Trust, rarely does she openly harass or abuse people, however she does jump to most conversations about palm oil and gaslights and generates doubt. She casts doubt by citing the partnership of the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) and the RSPO and an approval of the RSPO from David Attenborough in the form of a handwritten letter.

https://twitter.com/griffjane/status/1451532542436335621?s=20

https://twitter.com/griffjane/status/1452310144671436807?s=20

https://twitter.com/orangutans/status/1451535516344672258?s=20

https://twitter.com/griffjane/status/1256461066512535552?s=20

Back to top ↑

Example: Greenwashing with lies, abuse, discrediting whistleblowers

Craig Jones, one of the most respected photojournalists in Britain recorded a mother and baby close to death on an RSPO palm oil plantation – PT Sisirau in 2012

He was later told that he needed to hold off on releasing the photos of this hellish scene until after the RSPO conference.

He recalls it here

• Eyewitness Story: The Last Village by Dr Setia Budhi

Back to top ↑

Bart and Michelle claim that Craig was lying about this, that PT Sisirau was not an RSPO member palm oil plantation. The problem with that accusation is that there is public evidence from the RSPO’s own website which shows that this is a blatant lie.

A complaint was made to the RSPO by Helen Buckland, personal friend of Michelle Desilets and Director of OrangutanSOS. She attempted to prevent Craig from publishing the deeply horrific images until after the RSPO conference that year. The RSPO took a full year to send investigators to the plantation to examine the situation. The complaint, meeting minutes and report is below.

• View thread on Twitter
• View thread on Twitter
• View thread on Twitter
• View thread on Twitter
• View thread on Twitter
• View thread on Twitter
• View thread on Twitter
• View thread on Twitter

Michelle Desilets who conducts greenwashing for the RSPO in her ‘volunteer’ role for Orangutan Land Trust is also on the Complaints Panel for the RSPO. She investigates complaints of human rights and labour abuses, illegal land-grabbing, ecocide and illegal deforestation on RSPO palm oil plantations. She was part of the decision-making on PT Sisirau, so her tweets are a blatant lie that has been caught out.

Back to top ↑

Despite the presence of some threatened species, the area has an impoverished animal community. It is useful to look at the families that are missing. There were no tracks of: scavenging viverrids, arboreal squirrels and tupaiids and tragulids. All these would be expected in scrub and agricultural areas.

There were no overflying ardeids and other water birds from the nearby coastal wetland areas. No overflying hornbills from the adjacent from the nearby protected forests. In the scrub and secondary areas there were no drongos, flowerpeckers, starlings, flycatchers and babblers living off the local insects and fruit. There was a single cuckoo calling and no calls from barbets. And despite being a palm growing area, there were no parrots and no aerial feeding swifts.

The area within the project site and beyond in the Gunung Leuser Ecosystem area was extensively disturbed and clearance removed most of the low mobility, forest dependent species in the project site and beyond.

PT Sisirau’s compliance to the RSPO’s Sustainable Palm Oil Principles

Back to top ↑

Explore the series

Join the #Boycott4Wildlife #Boycottpalmoil and fight deforestation and greenwashing by using your wallet as a weapon!

Back to top ↑

Further reading on palm oil ecocide, greenwashing and deceptive marketing

Back to top ↑

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.

Back to top ↑

#10 #advertising #Boycott4wildlife #BoycottPalmOil #branding #consumerBoycott #consumerRights #consumerism #corporateCapture #Fightgreenwashing #Gaslighting #greenwash #greenwashing #harassment #lobbying #OrangutanLandTrust #ResistGreenwashing #RSPO #RSPOGreenwashing #stalking

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

MSC and RSPO Absolutely Untrustworthy, Greenpeace Report

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

Family Ties Expose Deforestation and Rights Violations in Indonesian Palm Oil

An explosive report by the Environment Investigation Agency (EIA) details how Indonesia’s Fangiono family, through a wide corporate web, is linked to ongoing #deforestation, #corruption, and #indigenousrights abuses for #palmoil. Calls mount for…

Read more

Corporate Control of Food Harms Us All

Around 800 million people in our world go hungry each day. Yet around the globe we have enough food to go around. So why the discrepancy? Market concentration and corporate monopoly of our…

Read more

MSC and RSPO Absolutely Untrustworthy, Greenpeace Report

Greenpeace report reveals severe failures of ecolabel RSPO certifying palm oil and FSC certifying seafood. Consumers are being greenwashed. Boycott palm oil!

Read more

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

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

✓ 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

#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