On the one hand I read "eco-boom" at Migros, on the other hand in today's newspaper offer "fresh asparagus from Peru" with a 15% discount... and that on March 3rd! Which Migros shopper can reconcile that with their eco-conscience? Or do they have to hand it in at the checkroom in the morning? Mr. Bolliger claims "We are the most sustainable retailer in the world." I assume Mr. Bolliger knows about the Peruvian asparagus.
Loading...
All replies (7)
Guest
9 years ago
The asparagus harvest will not begin in the region's fields for at least two weeks. Migros and Coop say that the vegetables are already in stock at the major distributors because customers want them that way. In this country, the asparagus season starts at the end of March at the earliest. Last year, he only harvested on April 14, says Gisler. "This year we'll probably be a little earlier."
Corina Gyssler, spokesperson for the environmental organization WWF, also criticizes the blurring of harvest times: "Strawberries are apparently always in season at the wholesalers." In addition, there is no precise declaration: In the case of asparagus from overseas, it is often unclear whether they have been imported by ship or plane.
Sugar from Paraguay is less harmful to the climate than local sugar - despite overseas transportation. New findings shake our green conscience. Source: Observer
Guest
9 years ago
That's certainly not wrong in principle. But when it comes to asparagus from Peru, grapes from Brazil and South Africa in December and similar luxury compromises, the argument doesn't hold water. If only because sugar comes by ship, but asparagus & co. by air! And the stereotypical explanation: "because customers want it that way" is very convenient; it would be more honest to say that no wholesaler wants to miss out on sales!
Guest
9 years ago
Edited
Hello
But it's wrong! Paraguay cane sugar is supposed to be more environmentally friendly than our beet sugar, what nonsense. How stupid do you have to be to believe such nonsense? The Observer is no longer what it used to be. The CO2 advantage is mainly due to the manual labor involved in harvesting the sugar cane fields. The huge monocultures that damage nature, the exploitation of the people living there and the miserable working conditions are not taken into account, nor is the unfiltered exhaust air from the South American sugar factories.
If the inconvenient facts are ignored or suppressed, many a product can be described as "better" than ours, but that doesn't make it true. We don't need unethically produced cane sugar with CO2 lies, we have had much better beet sugar from our own fields for decades.
Limiting emissions, as with cars or trucks, is a foreign concept in ocean shipping because it does not exist. Average values for swell and low-sulphur marine diesel are used in the calculations because this would reduce emissions by up to 90% compared to the heavy fuel oil actually used. However, heavy fuel oil is much cheaper, the sea is rarely as smooth as glass, the deadline pressure is constantly high and nobody notices what is being burned (or dumped) on the high seas anyway. Ten of the world's largest container ships or Panamax super tankers produce as many emissions as all the cars in the world. There are a few hundred of these super ships, whereas there are many millions of smaller ships, not to mention all the military ships on the oceans. Private cars have better fuel, catalytic converters, particulate filters and are getting cleaner every year with new emission standards. Nevertheless, they are always held solely responsible for the ruined environment. A truck that runs on AdBlue is no longer a rarity and is about as dirty as a Euro 5 diesel car. Because urea is such a good solution and because it can even save fuel, it is now being used more and more for cars.
I don't need or want sugar from Paraguay, asparagus from Peru, acerola from Central America, apples from New Zealand and so on. I can also very well do without all soy products. Rainforest has been cut down and burned for the entire South American soy belt, and everyone who buys soy products is partly responsible for this. The area is more than 13 times the size of the whole of Switzerland and nothing but soy grows there. It is a crime against nature, the fauna, the flora and also against the people who live or lived there. Anyone who claims that overseas products are more environmentally friendly, fairer or more organic than European products is lying. You can also buy Italian rice or Spanish bananas that come to us by train or truck. This is always more environmentally friendly and supports the economy of our continent.
Greetings from the yellow Migi piglet
Guest
9 years ago
Migi-Ferkel - you're right - and you actually speak from my soul! I always have an incredibly bad feeling about these whitewashings of conventional (often also organic!) production, transportation, distribution and consumption methods. I've only just read the Beobachter article - my hair is standing on end...
The roses travel 6000 kilometers by plane from Kenya's huge plantations to Switzerland: "A product that comes from far away by plane should be produced under the best possible ecological and social conditions," says Markus Staub from Max Havelaar Switzerland. Fairtrade roses are his idea.
Their introduction was controversial because they are not only a luxury good, but also air freight. However, a study by ETH Zurich in 1998 showed that roses from greenhouses in the Netherlands have significantly higher greenhouse gas emissions despite the short distance: Because of heating and artificial light. The latest studies also show that the carbon footprint of flowers from the Netherlands is up to five times worse. Even in summer. Roses from Europe are therefore dirtier than those from Africa.
The owners of the plantations do not receive a guaranteed minimum price for roses as they do for Fairtrade bananas or coffee. Nevertheless, they do have an advantage: their workers are more committed and less likely to resign, which is particularly important in the labor-intensive flower business.