Ethical Shopping

Hold the Cheez Whiz

To what extent do ethics or values shape how you shop?

For example: I am lactose intolerant and I luuuurve almond milk. But almond production is both hugely water intensive (in drought-stricken California, where something like 80% of almonds are grown) and almond monoculture has been fingered, at least in part, to the collapse of bee colonies. So I increasingly feel like I should give it up, especially as I am trying to be more conscious about sustainable agriculture.

That said, sometimes I feel like EVERYTHING is bad for the earth/the air/poor workers in far-flung countries/you (and the 'good' stuff can be quite expensive!') so I guess there are tradeoffs. How, if at all, do you make those tradeoffs?

Frito

You ever tried oat milk?

Trade offs are difficult, I suppose deciding on which causes the least harm is a start but then you have to be very well informed.

pwurple

My shopping ethics are about transportation. I try to not have my stuff shipped all over the world, so what I do buy, I prefer it to be local. If it can't be local, I try for it to be european.

It's not always possible, so my next port of call is re-use. Second-hand. Despite being a nerd, very rarely buy new technology. Almost always refurbs. Same for clothes, vehicles, furniture.

For your almond milk... It's a tricky one. I would either drop milk, or try to find a local alternative. Is there any other nut milk? Hazelnuts?

If you can't get anything local, then I'd buy it anyway. I'd consider it all balances out. Plenty of people don't even consider it, so by getting 80% or 90% of the way is pretty good.

Morgase

My ethical purchasing is a bit limited in comparison.

I can't stand the thought of battery hens, so I always buy free-range chicken and eggs. The other thing I do is buy Irish beef, pork, etc. as I imagine (maybe I'm wrong) that the animals are somewhat better treated here. At least the cows are outside eating grass most of the time rather than constantly in sheds eating dried foodstuffs. I'm not from a farming background so I could be wrong there.

To try to be a little more sustainable, I do the odd vegetarian dinner so that I'm not always eating meat.

I'd get normal lactofree milk or normal milk and lactase drops

fillefatale

I love this blog OP, some great tips for ethical living: http://moralfibres.co.uk/

meeeeh

I do very little ethical shopping. I go for the local meat and free range chickens, the rest is down to practicality and taste. And out of spite (and taste) I boycott all Tesco branded pasta since they dropped decent brands like Barilla and replaced them with mostly crap. But I'm not sure that is an ethical issue.

TheBeardedLady

Hard to write this without sounding sanctimonious :P

Use stuff 'till it falls apart (my laptop is held together with glue but works perfectly, smart phone is second-hand..and that'd be all I really have of value tbh). Buy second-hand clothes a fair bit too and would always bring my used clothes to charity shops.

Food-wise, buy food produced in the country (easy in Spain though) or within Europe. No fruit or veg flown in from Chile/Israel or whatever.

Don't eat meat, just fish. Free range eggs.

Don't drive a car and only use my bike and public transport. Always bring bags to the supermarket.

Tbh, I don't clothes shop very often but I would shop in high street shops because that's all my budget will allow.

And I bought an ebook recently - are they more ethical than paper books? I don't know.

Overall, I don't buy something unless I need it or REALLY, REALLY want it (such as an ebook).

I don't think I'm too bad overall. I do try.

Daisy78

I know what you mean op. Try looking for beauty products which don't test on animals, nigh on impossible. I searched around last year and even the companies I would have considered to be ethical are actually owned by larger conglomerates who do test on animals. The few I came across weren't brands I would be interested in using so it's a bit of a problem.

Maybe you could still use the almond milk but make a contribution to an environmental charity to balance things out a bit, offset the bad with a good deed maybe?

lajoie

I'm a big follower of products not tested on animals - I REFUSE to buy cosmetics that are. In my experience, ironically, cosmetics that are not are often far superior in both quality and price.

A surprising brand that I found is Essence (sold in Dunnes, Pennys etc). Not tested on animals, either directly or indirectly through 3rd parties, and it's made in France. Added to that, the price is unbeatable and the quality is far far better than others I've tried (even higher end stuff honestly). Another brand that can be ordered online, again not tested on animals, is Elf Cosmetics (eyeslipsface). Excellent quality and dirt cheap (averages less than €5 per product).

fits

I buy very little generally. Just really try to avoid buying stuff for the sake of it. Avoid poor quality clothing as I buy stuff hoping it will last. Brands like people tree are great - nice affordable, ethical stuff.
When im in Ireland all my meat comes from local butcher. When in Finland my diet is now 80% veggie i would say. Meat has a high environmental footprint.

For the person who mentioned transport. transport by ship is actually very efficient. Flying in eg asparagus from Peru, less so.

kylith

Lush do cruelty free cosmetics too.

Morgase

I believe that cosmetics bought in the EU are no longer tested on animals. It shouldn't matter whether or not the label says cruelty-free, the product shouldn't have been tested on animals in any case.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-21740745

Hold the Cheez Whiz

fits wrote: »

I buy very little generally. Just really try to avoid buying stuff for the sake of it. Avoid poor quality clothing as I buy stuff hoping it will last. Brands like people tree are great - nice affordable, ethical stuff.
When im in Ireland all my meat comes from local butcher. When in Finland my diet is now 80% veggie i would say. Meat has a high environmental footprint.

For the person who mentioned transport. transport by ship is actually very efficient. Flying in eg asparagus from Peru, less so.

Community farm shares are great for this. When I used to live in Boston, we were able to get locally produced fruit, veg, eggs and meat from June - November, so that accounted for about 90% of our groceries that were local.

In general, I've tried to make this the 'year of non-consumption': I have so many clothes and books I still haven't read (I'm really bad at resisting book sales!), and other junk that I'm determined not to buy anything unless it absolutely needs to be replaced (and even then, I need to think long and hard about replacing it). I'm also determined to pay off some personal debt that built up while I was unemployed for a bit, so there's that as well.

Precious flower

Didn't know that about almond milk. Don't think I do a lot of ethical shopping tbh I know though that if something stated that it contained palm oil I wouldn't touch it as it's decimated wildlife habits but I read once that palm oil can just be stated as vegetable oil in a oil of ingredients as they don't actually have to state that it's palm oil which really annoyed me. I think buying fair trade and buying from farmer's markets and stuff is important too (tbh I feel like you should only eat veg and fruit when it's in season and try to eat food that's as local as possible) and I wish the production of clothes was regulated better so workers would have better conditions. I not sure that just because the price is higher on the clothing that the conditions for workers are actually any better.

Hold the Cheez Whiz

Precious flower wrote: »

I wish the production of clothes was regulated better so workers would have better conditions. I not sure that just because the price is higher on the clothing that the conditions for workers are actually any better.

Yeah, oftentimes they aren't. That said, if you buy something that is higher quality (not necessarily determined by price), you won't have to buy clothes as often. I bought a Dolce & Gabbana navy peacoat in New York at one of those crazy designer clearance stores (Century 21) for what seemed like a fortune then ($350 in 1998), but other than occasionally getting the buttons re-sewn, that coat is still in near-perfect condition today.

Daisy78

Morgase wrote: »

I believe that cosmetics bought in the EU are no longer tested on animals. It shouldn't matter whether or not the label says cruelty-free, the product shouldn't have been tested on animals in any case.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-21740745

Yeah but those same brands do test on animals in China because the government wont permit them to sell their products in that market unless they do so. So whilst they may not test on animals in the eu they are not a "cruelty free brand".

lajoie

But the likes of L'Oreal, Maybelline, Johnson&Johnson etc do test on animals and are still sold here. Even if that exact product wasn't, you might still be supporting a company that involves animal cruelty. The PETA website has a full list, worth checking out if you're interested.

Semele

lajoie wrote: »

But the likes of L'Oreal, Maybelline, Johnson&Johnson etc do test on animals and are still sold here. Even if that exact product wasn't, you might still be supporting a company that involves animal cruelty.

Yep. I've recently looked into this quite a bit and have been horrified to discover a) that companies I checked out a few years ago and have been buying from in good faith since have since returned to animal testing and b) just how vague and muddy the whole picture is.

The products that I had previously looked into made such a big deal of not being tested on animals at the time, but unsurprisingly have not been so keen to advertise their return to it. It's disgusting really- at best they're being deliberately vague and at worst they're actually lying.

Take L'Oreal for example. Their website states:

"in 1989, L’Oréal was able to end all testing of its products on animals, without making our products any less safe. Since March 2013, the Group has taken another decisive step: The Group no longer tests on animal, anywhere in the world, and does not delegate this task to others. An exception could be made if regulatory authorities required it for safety or regulatory purposes."

Sounds good, doesn't it? Until you read around a bit more and learn that the last line of that is their get-out clause: the Chinese market legally requires that all cosmetic products sold have been safety tested in animal studies. Therefore any product that they directly market in China has to be tested, and that is unsurprisingly a growing market for the same products we have here.

Whether there is a separate EU production line or not I don't know, but either way I'm uncomfortable with the idea that I'm buying a product from a company who is willing to backtrack on something so important to many consumers and yet isn't upfront about it. I feel like my right to make an informed choice is compromised. We shouldnt have to go all Erin Brockovitch to buy a blooming mascara- it should be enough to be able to read and trust the company website, which I no longer feel I can do!

The PETA list is a good source of information on which companies have returned to animal testing. It's also quite scary to see how many companies that market themselves as "ethical" (The Body Shop, I'm looking at you!) have been bought out by very unethical companies, so even when you think you're making a good decision you are inadvertently supporting a business practice that you are actively opposed to. There really needs to be more publicity about this. I would happily pay a bit more for a good range of products that I feel confident are cruelty free, as I find that most of the truly natural companies currently have a limited range of products, especially when it comes to very pale foundation!

pwurple

Semele wrote: »

Whether there is a separate EU production line or not I don't know

Any animal testing being done is not taking place on the actual production line, either way.

They will have had to test the 'recipe' for the chinese market. It's probably the same or very similar recipe for various markets. They more than likely took the global recipe and had to go and test it to the chinese standards. Why would they then go and change the global recipe?

Emme

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

And I bought an ebook recently - are they more ethical than paper books? I don't know.

Not if your tablet or whatever you read your ebook on was made in Foxcom Seriously you are doing very well with everything else.

I was very annoyed to read that Ali Hewson's ethical clothing brand Edun is now made in China. It used to be made in Africa where they would get directly involved in helping women there.

I think you would have to be prepared to live outside "normal" society to live ethically these days. If you turn on the radio or pick up a newspaper you are supporting exploitation as the media is owned by people who don't have the most honourable intentions.

It's hard to know when to stop consumption because consumption provides people with jobs. Globalisation has made ethical consumption and shopping even more difficult.

Lyaiera

I wonder about the sacrifices needed to live ethically. I'm on social welfare, and to me it just doesn't seem possible to live very ethically. Even getting an organic, free range chicken is a big deal compared to whatever is available in Lidl.

And part of that is making excuses. I could sacrifice a beer to get that chicken, but having a beer to relax, whether it's between study periods, after a hard day or when I feel **** is important to me.

It's also very hard to know what is ethical. It's a daunting task, especially when I know that literally everything I consume is in some way unethical. It makes it very easy to give up knowing that what I do is a drop in the ocean, not only of what everyone consumes but even with what I consume myself.

pwurple

Lyaiera wrote: »

I wonder about the sacrifices needed to live ethically. I'm on social welfare, and to me it just doesn't seem possible to live very ethically. Even getting an organic, free range chicken is a big deal compared to whatever is available in Lidl.

And part of that is making excuses. I could sacrifice a beer to get that chicken, but having a beer to relax, whether it's between study periods, after a hard day or when I feel **** is important to me.

Instead of dropping the beer, you could swap the chicken once a week to get a chicken once a fortnight. And when you do get the chicken, use every bit of it instead of just buying a chicken breast. Make stock etc. I buy the expensive chicken, but not very often, and it feeds our family of 4 for at least three days straight away (roast chicken, lunch sandwiches, chicken curry, chicken in salad, soup). There is usually enough stock for a risotto or something stuck in the fridge afterwards as well. We eat plenty of lentils, pulses, cheese, eggs and other cheaper proteins instead of meat every day. I'd be very slow to use a factory chicken in this way anyway, as god knows what has seeped into its bones.

That being said, I don't even insist on organic, just local and raised well. I've been to an organic chicken farm and I thought the conditions in that particular one were atrocious. It met regulations I'd say, had organic feed etc, but the birds were clearly not happy. The non-organic local farm was better conditions for us.

Waste is giant bugbear of mine though. I really hate something dying and just being thrown away. At least if it's being killed for us, do it the service of every scrap being used.

loveisdivine

I wouldn't worry too much the almond milk. The meat/dairy industry is by far the biggest contributor to the destruction of the climate etc so by simply avoiding it you're already doing a lot.

I think a lot of people don't really want to make sacrifices. People will go for the cheap option if they can't afford the ethical version, instead of just going without.

pwurple

loveisdivine wrote: »

The meat/dairy industry is by far the biggest contributor to the destruction of the climate etc so by simply avoiding it you're already doing a lot.

I think on a global scale you're right, as the vast majority of the worlds beef / dairy stock is grain fed, stored in expensive freezers, and shipped huge distances.

However, it's incorrect to extrapolate that to this country. Ireland's beef and dairy stock is grass fed. Far more environmentally sound than grain. There are also far fewer transportation costs. Where I live, the meat I eat comes from a farm about 12 miles from my house. The cattle live outside. The slaughter and butchering is done locally and nothing is frozen/stored long-term or shipped around.

The global environmental issues with beef and dairy production stem mainly from grain use and transport. Those two issues are void here.

fits

pwurple wrote: »

The global environmental issues with beef and dairy production stem mainly from grain use and transport. Those two issues are void here.

Not necessarily true. Enteric fermentation is the biggie where through their digestion system cattle emit large amounts of methane to the atmosphere, which is 23 more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2. Transport is a surprisingly small contributor as most of it is done by ship. (frozen carcasses). Ship transport is very efficient.

Then you have parts of Brazil where forest is knocked down, cattle moved in, soil is degraded in a matter of years and then it can't sustain pasture anymore. That's a major source of emissions. (soya plantations are part of that mix too)

The UNFAO did a report some years ago, probably well out of date by now called livestock's long shadow. Worth reading. I will never give up meat but I eat a hell of a lot less than I used to for these reasons.