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
Until a few days ago, namely until July 21, 2016, in Tanja 's article, the entire argumentation of Migros referred to non-existent life cycle assessments, which were supposed to underline the advantages of palm oil. Migros has thus misled and lied to us. It is neither a "hacking around" nor is it illegitimate to uncover lies, demand proof of Migros' claims or be outraged by demonstrably false statements. Migros, as the nation's largest retailer, could or should have been honest from the outset. After all, it advertises with a sense of responsibility and credibility, which does not fit in with false facts.
It's exactly the same with bees: do you seriously believe that plant protection products for hobby gardeners from Migros have any significant impact on the bee population?
Of course, Migros is the largest retailer in Switzerland, so its products are also the most widely used. According to a statement made by Migros to the Tagi newspaper in 2013, 2.7 million households (80%) have a Cumulus card.
The total area of private gardens (non-paved urban areas) and non-agricultural green spaces in Switzerland is a good 22% as large as the total area of conventional agriculture. Even more important than the area is the distribution of these areas, especially from the point of view of pollinating insects.
On the contrary, with efficiency (both in terms of area and energy), better processability in certain processes and price, you have given three arguments in favor of palm oil.
Oh, is space efficiency supposed to be a determining factor that fundamentally improves something? A nuclear power plant can generate more electricity on a much smaller area than some wind or solar farms. Does the lower area efficiency now make the power from wind and solar inferior to that from nuclear power plants? But why is it only slightly more expensive?
And yes, of course the price is also a relevant criterion.
WRONG!
Migros asserts in its publications that it is committed to sustainability, improving the quality of life, economy, social and ecological responsibility, even if this means a loss of profits. Is this all a lie? Is the Migros Group's strategy, which was published in "täglich besser leben" and other publications, just a nicely painted self-image without any meaning? Are consumers really nothing more than stupid cattle who are being lied to and mercilessly ripped off? 
Sustainability is not a separate program at Migros, but an integral part of the company's activities. The values of "responsibility" and "credibility" are part of the Migros Group's strategy (PDF) and serve as a guideline for the behavior of decision-makers and employees throughout the Migros Group.
Migros does not have a single independent proof that palm oil is more ecological or sustainable than oils that could be produced here or in Europe. As irreplaceable rainforest is destroyed for every palm oil plantation, there is no such thing as sustainable palm oil. Even the Federal Council is of the opinion that palm oil could easily be replaced by domestic products, as the following quote confirms.
Quote from spot4u, dated February 07, 2016, at 21:23 :
On the subject of ecological balance, I quote the NZZ from March 19, 2013 "The Federal Council must work internationally to combat the environmentally damaging effects of palm oil production. On Tuesday, the Council of States, as the second chamber, approved a motion to this effect without discussion and referred it to the Federal Council. The Council agreed that the intensive cultivation of plantations for palm oil production has a miserable ecological balance. Tropical forests were falling victim to these monocultures in droves. As a human foodstuff, the oil is not particularly healthy either, said Didier Berberat (sp. Neuchâtel) for the Commission. It could easily be replaced with domestic rapeseed oil or butter. The intensive production of palm oil requires a lot of deforestation and the use of chemicals."
If Migros is committed to sustainability, ecology, responsibility and credibility, then it must act accordingly. It can now do this by commissioning independent life cycle assessments that compare European and domestically produced vegetable oils with palm oil and only using oils that comply with these results in future. Costs must not play a role at any point, otherwise Migros would not be acting as it claims and would have lied to us again and deceived us with a large number of products containing palm oil.
Kind regards from the yellow Migi piglet
Guest
> Until a few days ago, namely until July 21, 2016, in Tanja's article, the
> entire argumentation of Migros referred to non-existent life cycle assessments, which were supposed to underline the advantages
> of palm oil.
What was meant by this (including land productivity and the assumption that palm oil is grown on previously fallow land) has been clear since Tanja and Karin's answers on page 3. Of course, you can also deliberately misunderstand this, hack away at it for months and shout 'liar'. Or, in case of doubt, simply assume that the other person has perhaps expressed themselves somewhat unhappily or does not understand exactly the same thing by 'ecological balance'. Here again ... Shift down two or three gears if you get excited. Don't panic.
>> Exactly the same with bees: do you seriously believe that plant protection products for hobby gardeners
>> from Migros have any significant influence on the bee population?
> Of course, Migros is the largest retailer in Switzerland, so its products are also the most widespread.
> products are also the most widespread.[...]
> The total area of private gardens (non-paved residential areas) and green spaces not used for
> agricultural green spaces in Switzerland is a good 22%.
Now subtract public green spaces from this (city garden centers will certainly buy their pesticides wholesale, if only because of the quantities) and then the lawns, which are dominant in terms of area in private gardens. With a lot of good will, perhaps 2% of the 22% will remain. And the one 'spray against pests', which is potentially harmful to bees, is applied to perhaps 10% of these areas, although this is again a conservative estimate. Which brings us to 0.2%.
I also have to ask myself where you got the 22% from. According toARE, the total settlement area is just 7.5%. Of this, 6.4% is recreational and green space (i.e. 0.5% of the total area). The considerations from above could now also be applied to these figures, in which case we would be a few orders of magnitude lower.
> Oh, is space efficiency supposed to be a determining factor that fundamentally > improves something?
> improved? A nuclear power plant can generate more electricity on a much smaller area than > some wind or solar farms.
> many a wind or solar farm.
Space efficiency - along with other factors - is also an important factor, yes, and space is also a limited commodity. Or to put it another way: if rapeseed or soy were grown in the tropics (and assuming it would grow optimally there), significantly more rainforest would have to be cleared for the same yield than for oil palms, because a larger area would be needed. About 4.5 (rapeseed) or 12 (soy) times as much.
Of course, the same applies to the production of renewable energy using photovoltaics or wind power. It seems rather doubtful to me whether we will be able to cover the increasing demand for electricity in this way; hydropower has the better cards, especially in Switzerland. But even that will reach its limits - but hopefully we will have achieved stable nuclear fusion with a positive energy balance by then.
>> And yes, of course the price is also a relevant criterion.
> WRONG!
> Migros asserts in its publications that it is committed to sustainability, the improvement of
> quality of life, economy, social and ecological responsibility
'Commitment' does not mean fanatically jumping on one of these topics and ignoring everything else. Remember, economy is also on the list - and thus the price that Migros, and with a margin the customer, pays.
As I have often said, and not just by me, you don't have to buy products with palm oil and can switch to more expensive alternatives with rapeseed or soybean oil instead. You're sure to find them somewhere, either in an organic line at Migro or in another store. But that's not enough for you, you would probably like no one to be able to buy products with palm oil in Migros because you don't like palm oil.
If this is so important to you, you could bear the additional costs in full. I'm sure you can't and don't want to. But if others have to pay for it, that's OK (especially if 'others' refers to companies) ...
Guest
Hello
... that palm oil is grown on previously fallow land) has been clear since Tanja and Karin's answers on page 3.
The fallow land refers to the virgin forest, because the oil palm needs this soil. It could not grow in the gravel pit or on the Matterhorn.
...... or doesn't understand exactly the same thing by 'ecological balance'.
Lazy excuse. Not worthy of a discussion!
Now you subtract public green spaces (the city nurseries will certainly buy their pesticides wholesale, if only because of the quantities) and then the lawns, which are dominant in terms of area in private gardens.With a lot of good will, perhaps 2% of the 22% will remain.
Dieter Nuhr would say the following: If you have no idea, just shut up. :-)
But I also have to ask myself where you got the 22% from.
Better ask someone who can think for themselves. :-)
And the one 'spray against pests' that is potentially harmful to bees is applied to perhaps 10% of these areas, although this is again a conservative estimate. Which brings us to 0.2%.
Migros' promise leaves no room for maneuver, they should have thought beforehand, now it's too late. :-)
If rapeseed or soy were grown in the tropics (and assuming it would grow optimally there), significantly more rainforest would have to be cleared for the same yield than for oil palms, because a larger area would be needed.
Such nonsense is absolutely unworthy of discussion!
Of course, the same applies to the generation of renewable energy using photovoltaics or wind power. It seems rather doubtful to me whether we will be able to cover the increasing demand for electricity with these methods; hydropower has the better cards, especially in Switzerland.But even that will reach its limits - but hopefully we will have achieved stable nuclear fusion with a positive energy balance by then.
You obviously don't have the faintest idea about this either if you're spouting such nonsense.
Even you should realize what nonsense that is. I didn't want to believe it when I was advised against having a serious discussion with you. But it's obviously true that you make outrageous to idiotic comparisons just to troll and disrupt the real discussion. That's why I'm breaking off communication with you at this point until further notice. Nevertheless, I hope to read something intelligent from you again at some point.
Guest
> The fallow land refers to the virgin forest, because the oil palm needs this soil. In the
> gravel pit or on the Matterhorn.
No, this refers to previously cleared areas in the tropics. Of course, you could now say that this is (partly) greenwashing, because in some cases forest fires probably occur quite by chance where a plantation is supposed to go in a few months' time. But it clearly describes the assumption on which the statement is based.
Incidentally, the oil palm could of course also grow elsewhere, including in Switzerland, but with considerably greater technical effort. We basically have the technology to create practically any environmental and soil conditions anywhere in the world in greenhouses. But as long as energy is a limited resource, not much can be gained.
>Migros' promise leaves no room for maneuver; we should have thought ahead,
>Now it's too late. :-)
Of course, you can get artificially excited. Actually a good sign, because only those who have no other problems can get upset about effects << 1%. First World Problems, you want to 'do your bit' to soothe your conscience, but forget that this part is negligible and far beyond any statistical significance.you could also insinuate that you take yourself too seriously.
>A lame excuse. Not worthy of a discussion!
> Dieter Nuhr would say the following: If you have no idea, just shut up. :-)
> Better ask someone who can think for themselves. :-)
>Such nonsense is absolutely unworthy of discussion!
>You obviously don't have the faintest idea if you're spouting such nonsense.
>from you.
THAT is exactly what I mean by 'banging on'. Others provide figures, provide sources, provide arguments. You obviously have nothing better to do than respond with personal attacks. Very bad style.
Guest
"Rainforest protection starts in the supermarket
I often hear the argument: "As an individual, I can't change anything about the abuses of this world anyway. How am I supposed to save the rainforest?" Anyone who believes this should not be surprised if nothing actually changes. Martin Luther aptly formulated the principle of hope: "Even if I knew that the world would perish tomorrow, I would still plant an apple tree today." So resignation is not a solution! Each individual only has a very limited sphere of influence. But the sum of all spheres of influence leads to the formation of public opinion, through which the individual exerts all the more influence, even in major political decisions, the more intensively he acts in his own sphere of influence. Everyone has an influence greater than zero."
A quote from the following page
http://www.faszination-regenwald.de/index.htm
@n_vogel why don't you go surfing there a bit, maybe then you will understand our motivation.
There are people who care and know that EVERY SINGLE ONE can make a difference. It often starts with a call and everyone who joins in makes the power grow. Want a small example? Democratic Switzerland!
Hope dies last
Guest
>Everyone has an influence greater than zero.
That is undoubtedly correct and I have not doubted it. The question is rather, is the influence significant?
You couldn't even calculate something as trivial as the acceleration of a dropped ball if you took all effects greater than zero into account. To a first approximation, g is slightly less if you add air resistance, but even this does not take into account effects with << 1% (e.g. that g actually depends on y). It doesn't help to consider these effects as long as you make bigger mistakes elsewhere.
> There are people who care and know that EVERY SINGLE ONE can make a difference.
> can make a difference. It often starts with a call and everyone who joins in makes the power > grow.
> a small example? Democratic Switzerland!
You would first have to model how many people join you and whether this is really your merit. As long as you only change your behavior, the influence is negligible. Even the influence of the whole of Switzerland will be very small (probably less than a few %).
Tip: the popular 'if everyone did it' is pretty much the worst model of all. In particular, the number of supporters will be significantly higher if people hope to gain a personal advantage from participating or at least have no direct disadvantages. Which is not the case with more expensive products without palm oil, unlike a democratic vote. Modeling collective effects is anything but trivial. A good approximation is to regard people as selfish, i.e. most of them will not voluntarily do without something.
As I said, I'm not criticizing anyone who doesn't want to buy products containing palm oil for whatever reason. Just the fuss that a few people make about it. And probably don't even know what the alternative to palm oil would be - i.e. a product that can compete with palm oil in terms of price, efficiency and land requirements? Using five times as much land to grow rapeseed elsewhere in the world is probably not a solution either.
Guest
Migros is not interested in the amount of oil from palm trees or how much land they save in Asia, it only buys palm oil because it's cheap. It also buys garlic from China and asparagus from Chile because it's cheap. Migros s.c.h.e.i.s.s. doesn't care about environmental pollution, the main thing is to sell cheap goods to the stupid Swiss. There are always new products with palm oil where previously other oil was used, but the products have not become cheaper. The talk of sustainability, responsibility, ecology, animal welfare, it's all rubbish, all just hot air. The countries where the palm oil comes from are among the biggest CO2 emitters because of the burning rainforests. Migros is only interested in profit, nothing else, and promotes the poisoning of the earth.
Guest
>Many products could be made without palm oil.
And what should be used as an alternative? Other oil (e.g. rapeseed or soya) is not only more expensive, but also less efficient to grow.> Migros is not interested in the amount of oil from palm trees or how much land they save in> Asia, it only buys palm oil because it's cheap. It also buys garlic from China and asparagus> from Chile because it's cheap. And that's why the asparagus costs less than Swiss organic asparagus and is available all year round. if you would like to limit yourself to buying products without palm oil and seasonal vegetables from the region, please do. But please don't force this on anyone.
Guest
Oh God, Stecki wrote in German. If you can do without something without substitution, the alternative is to use nothing at all. How should this be expressed in German so that someone who uses the energy of a falling ball to hang a y can understand it? Although nothing in itself is very efficient, even more so than palm oil. Perhaps Migros should import such nothing and replace palm oil with it.