Palm Oil: Destruction Deconstructed
November 20, 2018

Palm Oil: Destruction Deconstructed

by lovemevegan

An ad from UK grocer, Iceland, has been blocked from appearing on television for its supposed political nature. The UK does not allow political advertisements to appear on public television. It would appear the issue comes from not just the advertisements content, but also its source. This advert was created by Greenpeace to highlight the destructive nature of palm oil plantations on orangutan populations. Iceland foods teamed up with Greenpeace to raise awareness of the issue and bring attention to their commitment to removing all palm oil from their products. Despite neither Iceland nor Greenpeace being political organizations, the ad was still blocked under the guise of political motivations. Is this a justified restriction on advertising or just another example of silencing environmental concerns in favour of short-term monetary gain?
Palm Oil has gained attention for its deforestation and destruction of orangutan habitat in Indonesia and Malaysia. Since 1999, over 100,000 orangutans have been killed due to encroachment on their natural habitat due to the growing demand for palm oil. Diverse forests are cleared to make room for monoculture palm tree plantations. While the natural forests offer homes to countless wild creature, it represents a waste of space to those looking to profit off of the land. The supply for palm oil exists only because there is intense demand from companies like Pepsico, Nestle, and Unilever. Those seeking to avoid palm oil for ethical and environmental reasons will find this product hidden in a large portion of packaged goods. It is estimated that palm oil is present in nearly 50% of all packaged goods from makeup to chocolate bars and even toothpaste.
Despite the consumer focus on the destructive nature of palm oil, this product is not the main driver of deforestation worldwide, but it is in the top four. The other three products driving the bulk of deforestation are paper/pulp, beef, and soy. Beef and soy are two sides of the same coin as 70% of soy grown worldwide are used to fatten livestock. Vegans are often criticized for their contribution to the deforestation crisis due to their consumption of soy, yet only 6% of total soy production is consumed by humans. It is estimated that Palm Oil is responsible for 26 million acres of Indonesian rain forest cleared to date, while livestock and their feed crops are responsible for the clearing 136 million acres of rain forest. So why is there such intense condemnation over palm oil, but so little focus on our consumption of beef? While it is important to avoid and replace products that cause destruction to orangutan habitat, why aren’t Iceland and Greenpeace encouraging people to ditch beef as well?
The crux of Iceland and Greenpeace’s advertisement was to raise awareness about the destructive nature of palm oil plantations. Although this is a case of targeting the lesser of evils, it is likely that they have gained more consumer support than a campaign about the destructive nature of beef. After all, this was an advertisement meant to draw attention to a decision to remove palm oil in a bid to be more responsible as a corporation. If people are more aware of the impacts of their food choices, they are more equipped to make better, more conscious decisions. So is knowledge political? Or is keeping consumers in the dark the true political act? It would appear that by blocking this campaign from appearing on British television has produced more publicity for this cause than allowing it to air without any push back. The advertisement has since gone viral and has brought the issue of palm oil into the mainstream consciousness.
Many retailers are now put on the defensive with a backlash of concerned consumers demanding corporate responsibility. Iceland has positioned itself ahead of the curve by removing all palm oil, but many retailers are also claiming a commitment to sustainable sources. Sustainability often means higher prices of which consumers will have to bear the cost. Perhaps more expensive packaged goods will encourage people to avoid processed food and opt for healthy alternatives like fresh produce. Disincentivizing purchases through higher consumer costs is exactly what mammoth corporations like Nestle and Unilever are looking to avoid. By avoiding responsibility in regards to sustainability, they are able to keep costs low and pass those savings on to the consumer. But at what cost does this come to the environment? Perhaps the ad by Iceland and Greenpeace is not political for its portrayal of palm oil plantations, which could be argued the severity of this issue was downplayed. Perhaps this advertisement was deemed too political for its disruption of the status quo and ability to force hidden business practices into the scrutinizing light of public opinion.

3,536 comments