A brief review of media misconceptions about rural Australia

What lies beneath ethical and sustainable claims

It’s refreshing to see numerous examples of city-based consumers wanting to connect with, and better understand the origins of the food they consume, and to align their purchase decisions based on that information. Examples of initiatives which assist consumers in this regard are farmers markets; fruit and vegetable shop food demonstrations; community gardens and online hubs to align consumers and food producers.

Many of these initiatives are founded on ethical and sustainable production philosophies. The aim is to encourage consumers to purchase locally produced food, or products that have low food miles, a reduced carbon footprint or involve minimal chemical use or improved animal welfare.

A recently launched website, Local Harvest (Fairfax media, 17 January 2012) aims to connect consumers and producers, and uses information from The Guide to Ethical Supermarket Shopping to guide judgements on which food products meet ethical production criteria.

The Guide to Ethical Supermarket Shopping ranks products using company-disclosed information about ethical preference and uses criteria such as ‘ownership’, ‘production systems’, ‘human and animal welfare’ and ‘company record’.

While considered broadly, such criteria may seem sensible and appropriate, but given the subjectivity of these criteria, some real questions arise about what makes one product or company more ethical and sustainable than another?

An examination of the Ethical Consumer Guide website,www.ethical.org.au, provides little guidance about what makes one product more ethical or sustainable than another. Some products are considered outstanding – usually those that claim organic status or are gluten free; praise is given to those that are signatories to covenants such as the Australian Packaging Covenant; accreditation programs such as those maintained by Free Range Egg and Poultry Australia (FREPA) are positively regarded, but subjective criticism is given to any production systems that are intensive, without an evidence-based explanation of why such systems are bad.

Similar subjective guidance for textile fibres is provided by the European based organisation Made-by, which released the Environmental Benchmark for Fibres, July 2011. The benchmark places conventional cotton production and wool, in ‘Class E’ – presumably poor for the environment – whereas recycled cotton and mechanically recycled nylon and polyester are considered ‘Class A’ fibres. The factual basis for the categorisation is not provided other than information that greenhouse gas emissions associated with production are considered; that human- and eco- toxicity parameters are weighted 20%; and that energy and water input and land use are weighted at 13.33%.

Without a sound objective basis to compare similar products – either food or textiles, there is a real risk that consumers will be directed towards what they think are ethical and sustainable choices but in reality are no more than one organisation’s subjective opinion about what is sustainable and ethical.

Keep up-to-date with discussions of current issues in Australian and international agriculture policy by visiting the Australian Farm Institute’s blog and chat room ‘Ag Forum'.