Dear Migipedia,
I am disappointed... It has been well known for some time that palm oil causes huge problems. This year in particular is a great example of the problems that palm oil production in Indonesia has caused for the region.
Unfortunately, there are more and more products containing palm oil, which in our opinion makes little sense, except that it is (unfortunately) a cheap raw material. In the past, all products were available without palm oil. But are you looking for a margarine without palm oil? Breakfast cereals without palm oil? Our children love Alnatura flakes, sorry we won't be buying any more. Today I discovered that Vermicelle contains palm oil. Why the hell does it have to contain palm oil?
I'm calling for mandatory labeling of products containing palm oil and for Migros to stop selling palm oil products. We have been avoiding products that contain palm oil for some time now (unfortunately there aren't even any substitutes that are palm oil-free).
What was it like with Generation M?
All replies (178)
Guest
Hello everyone
I would like to clarify one point: In the course of the discussion, the term "life cycle assessment" has come up. We did not express ourselves clearly in the post above: we were referring to comparisons like the one in the picture, which show that the production of palm oil requires fewer resources than the same production volumes of other oils. That was the statement we wanted to make.
There are different points of view on the subject of palm oil, as we have all come to realize in the course of this thread. The issue is complex, there are no "simple" solutions and it won't happen overnight. Many different interests and developments need to be reconciled - worldwide. Migros remains committed to developing better standards.
A word about the discussion: Migipedia is all about your opinion - Migros wants to hear what concerns you. However, having an opinion also means accepting other opinions. Calling us liars and cheats because we have a different point of view is not fair. We ask you to remain fair and respectful, even in emotional discussions. Thank you!
Best regards
Tanja
Hello Tanja,
I have already made my position on palm oil clear elsewhere. I also think the discussion has gotten a bit out of hand: The tone makes the music.
From my point of view, it should be noted that more and more products contain increasing amounts of palm oil. This "problem" doesn't just affect Migros, but also some premium Swiss brands (Zweifel, Kambly, Lindt, Hug, etc...). The stuff is now contained in so many products that it makes you sick.
Nevertheless, as loyal Migros customers, we would like to see Migros make a clear statement here that it will say goodbye to palm oil in the medium term.
The graphic above actually shows exactly the problem. The stuff is too cheap!
The price is paid by the jungle dwellers in Asia, the local population and the environment.
What is gained by buying palm oil from "sustainable" sources? No more land is cleared for this palm oil, just new land for companies that don't care. The farmer or the middleman is happy because he first collects money for the newly cleared land which he can then later continue to cultivate as sustainable. So please, it doesn't really matter which palm oil is used, as it will continue to be used until a large proportion of customers turn away from it.
The really big scandal is biofuel, but that's another topic entirely. It's also always interesting to see what the term "BIO" can be misused for. Natural gas advertising always makes me sick to my stomach.
But Tanja, there is a very simple solution, and both you and your bosses know exactly what it is, but the profit suffers and therefore it is not an option for Migros. And as long as your bosses say otherwise, I call them liars.
The simple solution is to stop using palm oil completely, no ifs, ands or buts!
The following 3 statements are lies to me:
"Migros avoids palm oil whenever possible.
"There is no simple solution."
"The ecological balance of palm oil is better than that of other vegetable oils."
as well as the term "sustainable palm oil" from other sources
Guest
Hello
Oh look, Migros thinks the truth is unfair? You got yourselves into these nettles, so it's absolutely fair if you now have itchy pustules on your butt. :-)
However, having an opinion also means accepting other opinions.
Wrong! Accepting other opinions would describe the term "tolerance". Migros would do well to employ rhetorically skilled copywriters who have a real command of the German language and don't make such bumbling implications. Language is magic and requires more than a club school degree, you also need a little talent if you want to sell a fridge to an Eskimo. :-)
Calling us liars and cheats because we have a different point of view is not fair.
The fact that Migros now has no life cycle assessments on which to base its claims in no way revises its previous statements. What Migros previously communicated was therefore a lie. Every fraudster's scam is based on lies, distorted facts and concealed truths. Migros has tried its hand at this thin ice, but has collapsed today. That doesn't matter, the important thing is that it wants to do better in the future. Migros has failed to do its homework, but all is not lost.
Migros has no life cycle assessments that prove that palm oil performs better than other oils in comparison, it has only opted for palm oil to date because it is cheaper than other oils. This means that the posts by Karin_Migros, dated February 3, 2016 at 11:13 am, as well as the post by Tanja_Migros, dated February 9, 2016 at 5:50 pm, and all subsequent posts by the Migros mouthpieces, are irrelevant.
So, contrary to its previous statements, Migros has no evidence that palm oil is more ecological and sustainable than other oils.
The only thing Migros knows is that the oil palm is a very productive oil plant and that its oil is very cheap. It is therefore quite possible that domestic or at least European vegetable oils would be ecologically more sensible alternatives to palm oil, as they would have much shorter transportation routes and would not have to be transported to us by ship using the most toxic fuel called heavy oil. This is exactly what needs to be investigated and confirmed or refuted by independent bodies using life cycle assessments. The prices of sunflower, rapeseed, olive, hemp, tree nut, linseed or peanut oil or any other vegetable oil that can be produced on the continent are irrelevant. After all, Migros doesn't like being considered a liar or a fraud for its previous claims. Migros is therefore likely to find the label "miserable, inhumane and environmentally unfriendly profiteer" similarly unpleasant. Of course, this can be averted if Migros finally accepts its responsibility and, in the interests of nature and the environment, investigates which domestic oil alternatives are the more ecological solutions for which products.
Other vegetable oils may yield less oil per hectare, but they do not require the soils of irreplaceable rainforests and are not responsible for the extinction of hundreds of tropical animal species. For these two reasons alone, they are more sustainable than palm oil, because EVERYONE who uses palm oil and / or makes money from it is responsible for the damage.
Just because the oil palm is such a rich source of oil does not mean that we only have to consume this vegetable oil and that domestic oil plants will become superfluous. Domestic oils can even be more expensive than palm oil, because it is right that farmers and producers are paid a decent wage and can live in dignity.
Migros now has the task of commissioning independent life cycle assessments and informing us with real facts. If these assessments prove that palm oil is the best ecological (not financial) choice for Migros' multiple needs, then I will accept this verdict.
Greetings from the yellow Migi piglet
Guest
> Or do you only know what does NOT solve the problems? Do you have any alternative solutions?
First of all, take the excitement down a gear (or two or three) and don't take yourself so seriously. Let's be realistic - your own purchasing behavior is negligible on the world market. Even Migros as a whole is a rather small player compared to supermarket chains from Europe or the USA. It is doubtful that a change in Migros' palm oil consumption would be statistically significant.
Then consider what the problems really are. Simply shouting 'palm oil is bad' doesn't help. Why is palm oil bad? The yield per primary energy, area and fertilizer used is (according to Tanja's figures) very good compared to other oils, but the fact that rainforest is cleared for plantations is OK, although this only happens once per plantation and the plantation then provides yields for years. I certainly don't want to claim that there is nothing wrong, but to demand that people in tropical areas must preserve every hectare of rainforest and not be allowed to use their land for other purposes is also pretty selfish.
If there are problems - and I'm sure there are - they need to be solved locally, not by some global 'environmental protection organizations' that collect a lot of money for labels and achieve little.
> Or are you not that interested in the topic, which is why you don't want a solution at all?
> but just want the discussion to end?
As I said, the question is 'a solution for what'. And it's a bit of a stretch to call the eternal banging on as a discussion. Let me give you a few examples (not all from you, but all from the last two pages):
As long as that's not possible, Migros will remain a gang of liars and cheats.
And as long as your bosses claim otherwise, I'll call them liars.
Migros would do well to employ rhetorically skilled copywriters who really know the German language and don't make such bumbling implications.
So what Migros communicated before was a lie. The scams of every fraudster are based on lies, distorted facts and suppressed truths.
This is simply picking on Migros and the community managers, not a 'discussion'. You are welcome to disagree and I assume that I am quite alone with my opinion in this thread - I have no problem with that at all, nor with the fact that someone (for whatever reason) doesn't want to buy certain products. Let everyone be happy with that. I don't buy everything Migros offers either.
What I do have a problem with is people who want to sell their opinion as the only right, morally superior, indisputable truth. It's a bit like religion. Eco-fundamentalism is also just fundamentalism, and fundamentalism regularly makes people do bad things.
Much less excitement, much more harm, everything will turn out all right in the end. We haven't managed to destroy the earth in thousands of years, and we won't manage it in the next few years either (as long as we don't start a global nuclear war). Don't panic.
Guest
Hello
Why is palm oil bad? The yield per primary energy, area and fertilizer used is (according to Tanja's figures) very good compared to other oils.
Obviously you have understood NOTHING, which is probably hindering your motivation. It's a shame if your education prevents you from understanding complex relationships.
The fact that rainforest is cleared for plantations is OK. However, this only happens once per plantation, and the plantation then provides yields for years.
What a load of garbage!
It only happens once that bees are wiped out, and you can read about what that will mean for humanity elsewhere. It will only happen once that the plankton can no longer reproduce. You can also read about the consequences of this elsewhere. Logically, it only happens once that the entire global rainforest and thus the lungs of the world are destroyed. Does anyone really need to explain to you now what this means for all life on earth?
What I do have a problem with, however, is people who want to sell their opinion as the only correct, morally superior, indisputable truth.
Then you have the same problem with Migros as we do. It claims that the cheapest oil is the only right one and therefore uses it in more and more products. So far, it has always used false statements to argue against more expensive, domestically produced products in order to defend its own unassailable, morally superior and only right idea of inexhaustible profit.
Much less excitement, much more la tschädere, everything will be fine in the end.
Why do we have regulated working hours, vacations, sick pay, pensions and social insurance? Why do we have environmental regulations such as exhaust gas regulations? Why are CFCs avoided today? Why do children no longer have to work in the barn or in the fields and are allowed to go to school? Because in past generations there were people who got upset. People who didn't just want to accept everything and stood up for themselves.
Much less excitement, much more la tschädere, everything will be fine in the end.
That's exactly how people from the "zero buck generation" behave, the money for the booze somehow automatically comes from the authorities, it doesn't matter where or why.
Money-grabbing corporations want more and more people like you, who firstly can't read the signs of the times, secondly don't have the mental capacity to recognize what's happening and thirdly can't get off their arses anyway. Lenin called them "useful idiots".
Greetings from the Migi piglet
The fact that rainforest is cleared for plantations is OK, but this only happens once per plantation, and the plantation then provides yields for years. I certainly don't want to claim that there is nothing wrong, but to demand that people in tropical areas must preserve every hectare of rainforest and not be allowed to use their land for other purposes is also pretty selfish.
Let me put it very simply and understandably... At the moment, every 10 years, areas the size of 55 times the whole of Switzerland are cleared worldwide. Do you find that just a little bit problematic or already very problematic or completely ok? And what about the monocultures? Soil erosion? Smoke from slash-and-burn clearances from Indonesia reached as far as Thailand (Kuala Lumpur was so engulfed in smoke that you were no longer allowed on the road) - that's at least 320 km across the Strait of Malaka at best. Everything ok and no problem? Thousands of dead - because burnt - apes and if not (sufficiently) burnt then beaten to death by the workers? It's all ok, it only happens once and it's far away!
Yes, a real cheer for cheap and highly efficient palm oil! Why don't we want to produce our fuel only from it? After all, it's a bio-fuel!
I feel sick again?
Quote: "We have not managed to destroy the earth in thousands of years..."
I wonder why?
Source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bev%C3%B6lkerungsentwicklung
Parallels to microbiology: "When the nutrients in the medium are practically exhausted and the tolerance value of the population density of the respective bacterial species is reached, the death phase begins. The bacterial cells starve to death or die from excretion products of their own metabolism, which are present in high concentrations during this phase. Furthermore, bacteria excrete toxins, which reduces the competition for nutrients from representatives of their own or other species. The concentration of these toxins also increases with increasing population density."
Source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakterielles_Wachstum
The globe is our petri dish. In view of this fact, it is understandable if the individual fatalistically looks only at himself according to the motto: After us, the deluge! However, we are not bacteria but so-called rational beings (even if this obviously does not apply to every individual) who should at least try to do everything possible to counteract the impending doom. Some shift the responsibility to "those up there", others wipe the slate clean and are ridiculed as do-gooders. Of course, it is up to everyone to decide which group they want to belong to.
Guest
> Obviously you have understood NOTHING, which probably hinders your motivation.
I think I understood Tanja's data very well (of course I can't verify it, but that's at least a few more figures than 'palm oil is bad').
At the same time, this quote is another (un)nice example of your discussion style. Someone disagrees with you, so you imply that they don't understand instead of explaining. That's what I meant by 'hacking around'.
> Logically, it only happens once that the entire global rainforest and thus the lungs of the world are destroyed.
> the lungs of the world are destroyed.
Sure. But we're not talking about the entire rainforest here, but (if the figures from spot4u are correct, see below) about relatively small parts of it. As is so often the case, don't jump on every 'rainforest is being cut down for this', but first look at when, where and how much.
Exactly the same with bees: do you seriously believe that pesticides for hobby gardeners from Migros have any significant impact on the bee population?
>>What I do have a problem with, however, is people who claim that their opinion is the
>>only correct, morally superior, incontestable truth.
>Then you have the same problem with Migros as we do.
> cheapest oil is the only right one and therefore uses it in more and more products.
I can see that from the posts by the Migros people. On the contrary, they have given three arguments in favor of palm oil: efficiency (both in terms of space and energy), better processability in certain processes and price. And yes, price is of course also a relevant criterion. No one is forcing you to buy products with palm oil, but perhaps you can find similar organic products without palm oil. If in doubt, just go to the organic market or health food store a few streets away.
>This is exactly how people from the "zero buck generation" behave, the money for the booze comes
>somehow automatically from the government, it doesn't matter where or why.
I will probably never receive money from the state in my lifetime as long as the benefits are subsidiary. And I don't drink alcohol either.
> Money-grabbing corporations want more and more people like you, who firstly
> can't read the signs of the times, secondly don't have the mental capacity
> to recognize what is happening and, thirdly, can't get off their butts anyway.
'Greedy corporations' are responsible for a large part of our current prosperity. And also for the fact that children no longer work in fields or stables. Apart from the regulations, it is simply no longer necessary, thanks to scientific and technical progress, which is not only, but also driven by the same corporations. Of course with the aim of making even more money, but that's not a problem, on the contrary - look at it this way: in order to make money, corporations have to offer products for which someone is prepared to pay money. In other words, the products (and services) are created that most customers want and whose production is worthwhile for the corporation.
> Lenin called them "useful idiots".
Nice example - of how something that was meant to be nice in theory (socialism) was forced on others, didn't work and ended in a fiasco (Soviet Union).
>Let me put it very simply and understandably... At present, every 10 years worldwide
>areas the size of 55 times the whole of Switzerland are being cleared every 10 years. Do you find that just a little
> problematic or already very problematic or completely ok?
Your units are rather strange, quite suggestive and don't really contribute to understanding. Let's convert them into slightly more common units: So an area of55*41285/10 km^2 = 2.27e5 km^2 is cleared per year. The area of the global rainforest is ~13.5e6 km^2 (according to a source from the web). So ~1.7% of the rainforest is cleared every year.
This is certainly not something that should simply be neglected, but it's not so acute that you have to keep harping on about it. In addition, palm oil is certainly not the only reason for the deforestation, and if the plantations are already there, it would make no economic or ecological (but at most ideological) sense not to use them.
@Federwolke: The declining population growth is probably less a consequence of dwindling resources than of increasing prosperity. Today it is simply no longer common to have more than 1-2 children, and some couples deliberately remain childless. Reproduction alone is not as important for 'rational beings' as it is for bacteria.
Guest
The producers don't care about all this.... past
"Sustainability" paaaaaaaa also at A.... ?
and what are Tanja and co. supposed to say?
they HAVE to crawl into the A.... of those on the "carpet floor" otherwise the job should be in the same one