Moral Question(s) - Ethical Food Shopping

useless_git_requires_wife

A._Badger wrote: »

Well Googled!

It is the proponents of the 'Organic' (a misnomer if ever there was one) movement who are the ones trying to pressurise scientific farming out of existence, not vice versa: witness the hysterical campaign against GM.

Ahhh.......'shoot the messenger', is it?


All farming uses science, it's not either or.

A._Badger

useless_git_requires_wife wrote: »

Ahhh.......'shoot the messenger', is it?


All farming uses science, it's not either or.

There's no point trying to side-step the issue. The moralising, crusading campaign in farming is from the 'organic' lobby - trying to guilt-trip consumers into buying its inefficiently produced, more expensive, products.

If people like them, fine. We live in a free market system - but it is vital that consumers know the truth about what they are buying and not be made to feel guilty for choosing conventionally produced items because of misinformation about 'carbon footprints' 'pesticide residues', 'sustainability' and all the rest.

Derivative

Buying British rather than imported goods is far from ethical.
It's self-preserving, yes, but ethical?

How can it be considered ethical to choose to support those already living in palatial conditions (British citizens) as opposed to giving to those who need most?

Warped morals, if you ask me.

Personally, I buy the best value food possible.

Same with animal welfare.

Using eggs as an example:

1. Buy free range eggs and give chickens a better standard of living
2. Buy value eggs, donate the difference to charity, and give humans a better standard of living.

If there's something I've missed, I'd like to hear it. Not sure how anyone could consider option 1 'ethical'.

Money has the incredible property of being almost universally accepted as payment. If you buy the cheapest possible food of acceptable quality, you can donate the proceeds to charity, give it to a homeless person in the street, or use it to improve your own future.

I find the 'ethical' craze incredibly strange. The most ethical thing you or I could do, is to shoot for the top, screw over as many Britons as possible in the process, earn millions of pounds, and donate the lot to workers in China or the Third World.

That's why it's not worth worrying too much. Go about your life, donate to charity (I would recommend a meaningful one, not something that will require a £10k donation to save one person), job done.

bornintoit

Derivative wrote: »

Buying British rather than imported goods is far from ethical.
It's self-preserving, yes, but ethical?

How can it be considered ethical to choose to support those already living in palatial conditions (British citizens) as opposed to giving to those who need most?

Warped morals, if you ask me.

Personally, I buy the best value food possible.

Same with animal welfare.

Using eggs as an example:

1. Buy free range eggs and give chickens a better standard of living
2. Buy value eggs, donate the difference to charity, and give humans a better standard of living.

If there's something I've missed, I'd like to hear it. Not sure how anyone could consider option 1 'ethical'.

Money has the incredible property of being almost universally accepted as payment. If you buy the cheapest possible food of acceptable quality, you can donate the proceeds to charity, give it to a homeless person in the street, or use it to improve your own future.

I find the 'ethical' craze incredibly strange. The most ethical thing you or I could do, is to shoot for the top, screw over as many Britons as possible in the process, earn millions of pounds, and donate the lot to workers in China or the Third World.

That's why it's not worth worrying too much. Go about your life, donate to charity (I would recommend a meaningful one, not something that will require a £10k donation to save one person), job done.

It all depends on a persons own personal viewpoint. China has the money, they could help their workers if they wanted to but choose not to. Does that mean I want to give my money to a country that is in a better state economically than mine because they choose not to help their citizens. Well no actually I perfer to give money (when I can) to my pensioner neighbours who struggle to keep their house warm throughout winter. Job done. For me charity begins at home.

Some people here will disagree but then people disagree over many things that doesn't mean that either party have a warped sense of morals just because they differ on opinion.

scotrae

I found a book called 'the Savvy Shopper' by Rose Prince for only 99p in The Works (Worcester) this week, which has opened my eyes to many different ethical issues with food. A few years out of date but worth finding a copy in your library or at that price.

Derivative

bornintoit wrote: »

Well no actually I perfer to give money (when I can) to my pensioner neighbours who struggle to keep their house warm throughout winter.

My last paragraph was intended mainly in jest - to make the point that what is 'ethical' is a highly individual position, and so the strange branding that seems to have cropped up lately around "ethical" investing, "ethical" trade, etc, is mainly marketing, as all of our morals differ.

My main point is that I feel it's better to direct your money to causes that you agree with as an individual, rather than generic 'ethical' branding (which more often than not has higher margins and is essentially giving your money to big business).