Home » Opinion » Foreign Views
Sugar leaves bitter legacy of land grabs from the poor
Print Edition
Sugar is sweet, but the ethics of its production is anything but appealing.
“Sugar Rush,” a recent report released by Oxfam International as part of its “Behind the Brands” campaign, has shown that our use of sugar implicates us in land grabs that violate the rights of some of the world’s poorest communities.
We are genetically programmed to like sweet things, and when people become more affluent, they consume more sugar. The resulting increase in sugar prices has led producers to seek more land on which to grow sugarcane.
It is no surprise that the poor lose when their interests conflict with those of the rich. The Oxfam report provides several examples of producers who have acquired land without the consent of the people who live on it.
In the northeastern Brazilian state of Pernambuco, a group of fishing families had lived since 1914 on islands in the Sirinhaem River estuary. In 1998, the Usina Trapiche sugar refinery petitioned the state to take over the land. The islanders say that the refinery then followed up its petition by destroying their homes and small farms.
As recently as last year, the fishing families say, employees of the refinery burned down homes that had been rebuilt. Trapiche moved the families to a nearby town, where they gained access to electricity, water, sanitation, and schooling, but if they want to continue to fish, they have to travel a long distance. Many of them are still seeking to return to the islands.
Both Coca-Cola and PepsiCo use Usina Trapiche sugar in their products.
Responsible for the wrongs
Does that make them responsible for the wrongs done to the people whose land Trapiche is using to produce that sugar? Oxfam is asking the 10 biggest food brands to show leadership by acknowledging their responsibility for land-rights violations involving their suppliers.
In particular, Oxfam wants these global companies to avoid buying from suppliers that have acquired land from small-scale food producers without these producers’ free, prior, and informed consent.
Where land has already been acquired without such consent, and the acquisition is in dispute, Oxfam wants the corporations to insist on fair dispute-resolution procedures.
“Behind the Brands” includes a score sheet, ranking the Big 10 on a range of issues, including their impact on workers, water, land, women and climate change. On land issues, Oxfam rates PepsiCo either “poor” or “very poor.” Nestle scores better, because its guidelines for suppliers require that they obtain the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous and local communities before acquiring land.
Nestle was the first of the Big 10 to support this principle fully. Then, on November 7, Coca-Cola responded to the Oxfam campaign by declaring that it would have “zero tolerance” for land grabbing by its suppliers and bottlers.
Coca-Cola committed to disclosing the companies that supply it with sugar cane, soy, and palm oil, so that social, environmental and human rights assessments can be conducted; it will also engage with Usina Trapiche regarding the conflict with the fishing families of the Sirinhaem River estuary.
Peter Singer is Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne. His books include “One World,” “The Ethics of What We Eat” (with Jim Mason), and “The Life You Can Save.” Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2013. www.project-syndicate.org. Shanghai Daily condensed the article.
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
