The smell in the air of supermarkets

An important question that Raj Patel raises in the full speech is that to what extent conscious buying can really help solve the problems of global economy, social justice, and the environment.

Related to the clip, see also this story from the LA Times: How businesses coax shoppers into buying
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-shopping-psychology-20101122,0,1283284,full.story

The article provides a good summary of the tactics that businesses use to coax shoppers into spending. The article also illuminates how the ideology of 'choice' can be illusionary. I may think that I am buying this particular item out of my personal, independent choice, but in reality that choice or preference is conditioned by a number of stimuli, both within the store and from outside (ads, culture, media).

On how consumers are now lured by slogans of "Green" and "Fair Trade", see

The Great Green Swindle
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/23/ethicalbusiness-consumeraffairs

But the question for me is more than just social-justice-environment-conscious consumerism. It's consumerism itself: to not be dependent on consumption to find fulfillment in life. That perhaps is the key to freedom.

The truth about how your sportswear is made

Here is a visual depiction along with excerpts from The Independent report:



Alternative link

Blood, sweat and tears: the truth about how your sportswear is made
By Martin Hickman
Factories used by biggest brands abuse staff, employ children and pay pitiful wages - while stars earn a fortune

"Inspections by Nike, Puma and Adidas, identified 281 rogue factories, whose failings ranged from the unsatisfactory to the abysmal."

"A decade after some shoppers boycotted Nike over the issue, the leading players in the £134bn-a-year global sportswear industry seek to protect their reputations against allegations they profit from sweated labour by inspecting factories and blacklisting the worst. However their own reports show they have had only partial success in cleaning up the industry, and that they continue to outsource production to countries where trade unions are banned or restricted."

"Of 479 factories checked last year, on average 168 failed to meet Nike's standards, meaning they had "serious system failures" or a "general disregard" for codes of conduct. One in five failed to provide contracts, honour collective bargaining, occasionally used children or worked staff seven days a week without a break."

"Of 362 factories that supply Puma, one in five – 75 – failed audits two years ago. About half of those flouted rules on hours and pay, and most endangered workers' health. Three-quarters failed to follow rules on the handling of chemicals. Puma says it is committed to trade union-rights, but it outsources to China and Vietnam, which restrict those rights. In its Team Talk report, Puma admitted: "Considering these limitations, the social standard on freedom of association and collective bargaining is admittedly difficult to enforce at many of our supplier factories."

"Adidas, which was praised by the campaign group Playfair in 2008 for introducing complaints processes and for ending short-term contracts, gives little information about life inside its factories. Last year it ranked 60 per cent of 1,200 suppliers in the bottom three "compliance" ratings, but since it declines to explain the criteria, it is unclear how many failed audits. Last year the German firm warned 38 suppliers that they were so bad they could lose contracts."

"Conditions may be worse than publicly stated because factories falsify wage and time records to pass audits. Puma acknowledged "many factories" covered up excessive working hours with two sets of time records – one genuine and one for inspections. The firm said: "It is common knowledge in our industry that software programs have been developed specifically for this purpose, with workers being coached on how to answer questions." "

How to Reduce Your Carbon Footprint - English

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7zwrzEyzkA

These steps only 'reduce' carbon footprint; they don't relieve us of our responsibility - that is, if we are complacent in other aspects or if we are apathetic to the exploitation of environment and people by big corporations and by people in our very neighborhoods. The steps in this video can only be a starting point.

On a different note, on the use of tap water, obviously the suggestion in the clip applies only to some countries - mostly in the west. But over in those countries too, it is recommended to use effective filters: Pharmaceuticals - like antibiotics, mood stabilizers, and sex hormones - have been found in drinking water supplies in America. See here http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/pharmawater_site/day1_01.html

The last point about factory farming of cattle and greenhouse effect in the clip relates to the issue of excessive meat consumption. The more the demand for meat, the more grain would be fed to cattle, instead of humans. It takes about 7 gm of grain to produce 1 gm of meat protein. About 40% of world grain is fed to animals, whereas you have more than 1 billion people in the world who, as per UN estimates, sleep undernourished or hungry each day.

On top of that, there is environmental degradation (with excessive emission of 'methane') that the clip refers to.

According to one analysis food 'production' process is more environmentally costly than food 'transportation', and if average Americans replace only 1/7 of their meat consumption with vegetables, it can minimize environmental cost equivalent to that which can be obtained through maximum localization (eating local). See more about that study at: http://www.ethicurean.com/2008/06/23/food-miles-vs-food-choices/

Some people want to make it an argument about "food miles vs. food choices". I think we can incorporate all of these good ideas into our lifestyle - as we encourage eating local and organic (wherever it's realistically possible), we should also encourage cutting down on meat consumption.