When we moved back to England two years ago, I was keen to become an ethical shopper. Using farmers' markets, and seasonal eating, were two of my goals. But I soon found out that farmers' markets are really expensive. And, the children won't tolerate eating root vegetables all winter. They want peas and beans, and they won't eat cabbage or leeks. So, it is not easy.
The questions that compete for my attention and exhaust me, when I do the weekly shop include:
is this locally produced?
if not how far away is it from?
if it is from the developing world, is it fair traded?
is it cheap/reasonable?
is it on special offer?
is it packed in too much packaging?
is the glass bottle more environmentally friendly than the plastic one, given that both can be recycled?
if it is an animal product, was the animal well-treated?
is it healthy?
does it contain natural ingredients?
is the two for one deal really money-saving? If so, can we eat two of these packs before they go off (if not, you have just wasted stuff)
is the larger size really more economical than the smaller size, and if so ditto to the above - can we use that much before it goes off?
I end up weighing these factors against each other - so for example, I will buy the New Zealand lamb over the British, if it is on special offer - and I'll buy the yoghurts with loads of plastic wrapping, if the two for one deal is on - yes, money does usually end up winning the day.
Trouble is, I want to be an ethical shopper. But, it just costs more. And I feel as though I should be spending less on our food, not more. Aren't we meant to be good stewards of our money? And isn't it wrong to spend more money than necessary on food when other people are going hungry? But then again, I want to be good to the environment, not see food-producers exploited, and eat healthy food, and not eat chickens that lived in a battery, and so on. This is why I say, it is murky!
In our home group discussion on this subject last week, we also learned some surprising facts that threw more spanners into the works. For example, New Zealand lamb actually has less of a carbon footprint than British in spite of the long journey to get here - because British lamb has had more energy spent on feeding and raising it in our cold climate. So one of my food lynch-pins - "local is best" turns out not to be true. But on the other hand, British farmers need all the support they can get, so maybe it is true. But on the other hand, if we all stopped eating NZ lamb, would that damage their livelihood? Which is more important, the carbon footprint of the food, or the livelihood of the British farmers? Or the NZ farmers? Help!
Our conclusion as a group was, there is no set of clear principals, but, it is all just - murky.
We did agree that in spite of all of us being on a tight budget, we should be prepared to spend more money on some things, and in particular, our meat - buying it from local butchers, and so maybe we will eat less of it, but, it will be healthier. And we should eat seasonally - meaning that local vegetables bought when they are in season, are bound to be the healthiest and cheapest option. And, there is nothing wrong with having some frozen peas in the freezer! And, buying tea from India is fine but it should be fair traded, because we can't grow it here. But just because something says it is fair trade does not mean that it always is - so, we should try to be up on these things.
Shopping ethically is unfortunately complicated, more expensive, and more time-consuming. But for the sake of the planet, justice, and our own health, it is worth it. So, we should try.
