Rainforest Action Network Targets General Mills, Cargill Over Palm Oil
Minnesota-based General Mills' brands--including Cheerios, Betty Crocker, Pillsbury, Nature Valley and Progresso--are some of the most trusted by mainstream America. But around 100 of their products include palm oil or palm oil derivatives purchased from Cargill, the country's biggest private multinational. That makes General Mills complicit in the rainforest destruction, land theft, and human rights violations brought about by palm oil production.
On Tuesday morning, 42 Twin Cities activists and the Rainforest Action Network (RAN) paid General Mills a visit at their Golden Valley headquarters, unfurling a seventy by thirty foot banner reading "Warning! General Mills Destroys Rainforests." They held the banner over a frozen pond for about half an hour, while a helicopter circled overhead taking aerial photos. After getting the photos, they left with no trouble from security.
RAN's Cargill Campaign | The Problem With Palm Oil | RAN Twin Cities | Cheerios Maker Linked to Rainforest Destruction || Previously: Holiday Petition Delivery to Cargill | Orangutan Activists Visit Cargill (Video) | See below for more photos (Aerial photos by: Mercury Miller/RAN) | NEW: Video produced by TCIMC and RAN (2 mins.)
The Twin Cities chapter of the Rainforest Action Network has held a number of actions targeting Cargill this year, including a petition delivery to their Wayzata headquarters and street theater involving activists dressed as orangutans (whose habitat is threatened by palm oil plantations). They've also held a number of teach-ins at local co-ops and community spaces.
Nationally, last year RAN organized hundreds of people armed with stickers reading "Warning: May Contain Rainforest Destruction" to scour grocery stores for products containing palm oil. Such products aren't hard to find. Counting Vitamin A Palmitate, which is often derived from palm oil, one source says nearly one in ten products in an average U.S. grocery store contain it, including Oreos, Fiber One, Cheerios and vegan favorite Earth Balance. Much of that palm oil flows through Cargill's monoculture plantations and distribution centers. They're the largest importer of palm oil, essentially the cheapest source of fat in the world, from Southeast Asia to the United States.
General Mills is one of Cargill's biggest customers, having done business with them for over 100 years. That makes them a secondary target for RAN, which has hounded Cargill through numerous actions over the past year. RAN hopes that through consumers pressuring General Mills, Cargill too will feel the heat. Tuesday's action was the public kickoff of their campaign against General Mills, and comes after months of executives refusing to talk.
Because of that refusal, General Mills was put on notice that activists would be publically calling them out. Finally, General Mills agreed to a phone meeting Wednesday. But after the RAN action at their headquarters, they emailed to say they're pulling out of the dialogue, preferring to talk with less confrontational, more corporate-friendly NGOs instead.
Is there such a thing as "Sustainable Palm Oil," and can agribusiness giants be reformed?
General Mills devoted three paragraphs of its 2009 Corporate Social Responsibility Report to palm oil. "We share the concerns about deforestation caused by palm oil production, and the resulting effect on climate change and biodiversity," the report says. "To support the goals and efforts of the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), General Mills has pledged to restrict our purchases of palm products to suppliers that are members of the RSPO."
"General Mills uses relatively small amounts of palm oil and does not purchase any palm oil directly [because they go through Cargill instead]," the report claims. But in a 2008 Minneapolis Star Tribune puff piece, Duke Seiblod, General Mills' techonology director, said their use of palm oil "is pretty ubiquitous. It can be used in ramen noodles, croissants; it has a very wide application."
The RSPO was originally formed through a partnership between the notoriously corporate-friendly NGO the World Wildlife Fund and food giant Unilever in 2003. Cargill, Bunge, and Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) affiliate Wilmar--together the three agribusiness giants that dominate the world palm oil markets--are all members of the RSPO.
In late 2008, a global meeting of civil society organizations including the World Rainforest Movement (headquarted in Uruguay) convened in Italy, calling itself the Alternative Network Against Impunity and Market Globalisation. The meeting issued a declaration "against the RSPO's greenwashing of the palm oil industry" and in support of resistance to the then-upcoming RSPO conference in Colombia.
The declaration states that the RSPO "seeks to legitimize a harmful business that infringes on the rights of indigenous, Afro-Colombian and peasant communities. At the same time as it seriously impacts lands and natural heritage through a strategy that seeks to facilitate the marketing of products derived from the oil palm, the RSPO generates only higher dividends, and not solutions to the conflicts that are created. In fact, no certification process can guarantee such solutions.”
Signed by 256 environmental organizations worldwide, the declaration goes into extensive detail about the effects of monoculure palm oil plantations, including deforestation, increased global climate change, displacement of indigenous peoples, increased use of agrochemicals, the illegal appropriation of land by force, and violation of the right to food soveriegnty.
"Any model that includes the conversion of natural habitats into large-scale monoculture plantations cannot, by definition, be sustainable," the declaration says. "We are still in time to radically change our methods of producing, transforming, trading and consuming farm produce." It calls for ending the privatization of natural resources, dismantling agri-business companies, and replacing industrial agriculture with sustainable peasant and family agriculture.
The view from above - Photo by: Mercury Miller/RAN
lots of planning, google earth WIN
practice makes perfect @ powderhorn park rec center.
stay in position for the helicopter...
organizers addressed the 42 activists; there were no problems with security
GM/buzzsaw logo by designaction.org
how much does a 70x30 banner weigh, you may ask? answer: 80 pounds.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| 4.87 MB | |
| 159.03 KB | |
| 181.91 KB | |
| 455.29 KB | |
| 425.49 KB | |
| 282.46 KB | |
| 181.83 KB | |
| 222.44 KB | |
| 251.1 KB | |
| 215.81 KB | |
| 253.63 KB | |
| 190.04 KB | |
| 150.61 KB | |
| 238.62 KB | |
| 161.46 KB | |
| 233.32 KB | |
| 273.42 KB | |
| 140.33 KB |


Comments
Deforestation by General Mills & Cargill
Thank you! I should have known -- General Mills & Cargill. I was in Borneo (the Malaysian part) Dec. 26 - Jan. 10, and I saw miles of palm oil palms along river banks and from the air. They really are pretty! So lush and organized in stately rows --- and deadly. Of course, the corporations have decimated the natural jungle growth, often violating the national law re: plantation distance from the banks of rivers. So, not only are these corporations responsible for deforestation, but also for the accompanying erosion and river pollution. Guess I'll have to be part of the banner group next time. . .
Lucia Wilkes Smith
While these activists might
While these activists might have "good intentions", I would venture to say that this action just reinforces green capitalism and positions these activists as the spectacular conscience of our society. For whoever their pleas and warnings reach, it's easy to exonerate ourselves of guilt by buying another product that doesn't have a RAN sticker on it. Yes, fuck palm oil, fuck general mills, but seriously, sustainability is the watchword of tomorrow's yuppies and bureacrats, and the slogan of today's savvy CEOs. Perhaps I'd like to see more actions directly related to our conditions, our joy and desires, or lack thereof. Collective "free shopping days" at corporate health food stores, anyone?
I don't mean to add to the bile and vitriol contstantly spewed on the internet, I actually am interested in being critical of each other's actions and words. Honesty, maybe. But perhaps we just have different goals, when it comes down to it.
dismantling agribusiness
thanks for writing that critique; in fact i feel much the same way. one of the things that struck me being around the great folks who pulled off this action most of the day was just how excited and gung-ho a lot of them were about it. that's great and made for a fun time, but made me wonder quite a bit about exactly how big of an impact in the grand scheme of things most people thought this action had.
as long as general mills exists, yes they should stop using palm oil and yes we should make them do so (and make them stop doing a zillion other things). but as the declaration i wrote about above says, the solution is not in simply getting these companies to reform but dismantling agribusiness altogether. it was notable to me that of the 256 groups that signed on to that declaration, a total of 6 were id'd as from the USA. One of those was the Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign, which makes me think that agribusiness is just as much if not much an issue of people's livelihoods, in addition to an environmental issue, and when tackling the particular topic of palm oil, each of those ways of framing one's analysis is going to lead to a different route for strategy and tactics.
are you serious?
what a fucking waste of money.
renting a helicopter, fueling a helicopter, printing a huge banner, transporting all of those people in all of those cars to take a picture with a banner.
wow. great job.
waste of resources
Not to mention a waste of resources involved in all of those things you listed. I don't think this action will do any good and hence that it caused more harm to the environment from the way it was executed. If this action would actually save the rainforest it would be worth it.
Depends
It remains to be see whether or not this action was a waste. If it is a step in a larger campaign that continues building over time, it could prove to be successful. It all depends on organizing.
If this action turns out to be like so many of those brick through the window actions with a quick communique and no follow up, then yes, it would be a waste.
except a brick through a
except a brick through a window probably doesnt require renting a helicopter and transporting 50 people for a 10 minute photo-op
Yet neither necessarily do
Yet neither necessarily do anything to stop the literal destruction of the planet, unless they are part of a larger strategy.
How much more harm was caused by industrial infrastructure all over the U.S. than by this action?
We need to focus on strategy and winning, moreso than individual consumption.
true... i wasnt advocating
true... i wasnt advocating one over the other. i was just saying that in fact throwing a brick, wastes far less resources than this photo op
Reflecting on this action
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 Hey Everyone.
As one of several organizers of this action, I want to extend a heartfelt thanks not only to everyone who took the time to come out and make that action happen, but also to those who are watching and thinking and critiquing. I believe it is essential to be constantly reevaluating our methods and being open to constructive feedback... after all, we are all in this together! So thank you, truly.
I'd like to address some of the important questions raised by commenters... Over the years, my path of activism has led me to a priority of indigenous support as part of a larger strategy to stop the most destructive practices occurring on the planet (immediately and effectively) and supporting the creation of alternative modes of exchange and meeting needs so that we can transfer to a truly sustainable way of life (read: not greenwashing).
The reason that this action is significant to me is 1) because it is part of a larger campaign that has the potential to quickly and effectively stop rainforest destruction in Indonesia. 2) because we are in the belly of the beast, and this is an incredible opportunity to think globally and act locally to oppose some of the most destructive agricultural practices around the world. We have a unique privilege of living in a part of the world that is largely sheltered from the worst effects of palm oil plantations. I believe that privilege warrants a responsibility of actively listening to those most impacted by the practices of corporations housed in our own towns and cities. What do they have to say? What are they advocating? I believe this is where we should be seeking leadership and direction, and then utilizing our own abilities to support as is actually helpful and requested. Thus we are not asserting our own opinions upon these communities, but more fundamentally checking our own privilege.
Then instead of talking, we can listen to those who are most impacted by this issue, take heart, and move into action. Matilda Pilacapio, a human rights advocate from Papua New Guinea, visited the Twin Cities in September. She spoke at length about the effects of palm oil plantation expansion in Southeast Asia and on her own family's land. When an attendee said, "What can we do?" she replied, "I would like to work out a strategy with RAN. The most important thing is No New Palm. No expansion of plantations onto people's land." To see an interview with Matilda, please visit www.theproblemwithpalmoil.org
I know that there are soooo many sides to these issues and I want to acknowledge that although the nonprofit industrial complex has its own set of gifts and flaws, it also has a unique potential to meet the scale and scope of those corporations who are clawing apart our earth at record rate as we speak. It is for this reason that I return to the idea of solidarity. We all hold tools. While different, right now I feel that the really important thing is that we use the tools that we have. While reforming industrialized agriculutre is not the be-all end-all solution by any means, it does have potential as a step in the right direction for protecting people and planet while we continue to build alternatives to transfer to quickly.
With mad love and respect,
Hillary
Direct Action Calls Attention to Corporattions, Not Inaction!!!!
Just discovered these comments. Wanted to throw in my two cents to shed some light on the reality of the situation!
1. Global Climate Change is happening, and it's happening NOW. The world's most renowned and trusted scientists estimate we have between 4 and 7 years until the effects of climate change are too catastrophic to ever turn back, i.e. it will be too late to save ourselves from destruction. Are we going to sit around and talk about our fears, the problems of the world, and how Corporate America is destroying natural resources and intact habitat for unique species all over the world or are we going to get up and do something about it?
2. Deforestation accounts for 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions, one of the largest contributers to climate change. If you add GHG emissions from agriculture, depending on your source or scientist, you're looking at 30-50%.
3. One of the biggest drivers of rainforest destruction is U.S. Agribusiness giants like Cargill. They are clearing and burning our planet's last remaining carbon sinks - tropical rainforests - to grow massive palm oil plantations so that companies like General Mills can put it in their processed, packaged foods. Does this make sense?
4. Millions of indigenous, forest-dependend peoples are getting displaced due to encroaching palm oil plantations, especially in places like Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. Amazing species like the Sumatran orangutan are critically endangered for the same reasons. Waterways are getting polluted, food sovereignty is no longer possible, and forest peoples are not being consented before their lands are cleared for industrial plantations. For breakfast cereal. Does that make sense?
5. Deploying a 70x30 ft. banner with dozens of inspired, beautiful people in the freezing cold at General Mills' world headquarters got their attention. They are awake now and on a path to cleaning up their supply chain, starting with their biggest supplier, Cargill. This can and will make an impact on the global supply chain of palm oil. We have to start small and work our way up. If this isn't grassroots power at it's finest, I don't know what is.
Impressive this video. blog
Impressive this video.
blog
General Mills Commits to
General Mills Commits to Responsible Sourcing of Palm Oil
01/20/2010
General Mills said again today that it is committed to sourcing palm oil in a socially and environmentally responsible manner.
This is not the first time General Mills has stated this commitment.
General Mills has publicly expressed concern about the role of palm oil expansion in deforestation of tropical rainforests. The company has also voiced concern about the impact of deforestation on biodiversity and endangered species.
But General Mills is a relatively minor user of palm oil.
“We have analyzed our use of palm oil,” said Gene Kahn, General Mills’ global sustainability officer. “General Mills does not purchase any palm oil directly. However, we do purchase ingredients produced from palm oil from suppliers. Overall, we calculate that General Mills’ use of palm oil and palm derivatives is modest – approximately .0004 percent of world exports.
“Nevertheless, we acknowledge that responsible users of even small amounts of ingredients can impact such issues via principled purchasing practices,” Kahn added. "As principled purchasers, we must continue to engage, monitor and collaborate with suppliers on this issue and many others – and we will continue to do so.”
General Mills has engaged suppliers directly in discussions about palm oil production. The company’s suppliers are already members and supporters of the Round Table for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), and General Mills further reinforces the principles of the RSPO by limiting purchases only to RSPO members.
Activists have acknowledged General Mills’ positive position on the issue, said Kahn, including the company’s support for a moratorium on palm oil expansion in tropical rainforests and its direct engagement of suppliers – but continue to call on General Mills “to publicly commit to sourcing only palm oil produced in a socially and environmentally responsible manner.”
With its response today, General Mills is again saying, “We have – and we do.”
principle has cut down 1 tree plant 2
Corporations always so speak - but they never will miss the profit and if for this purpose it is required to cut down all palm woods that it is necessary to be assured that they will make it without batting an eyelid
So it is necessary to strengthen pressure upon business on purpose to force them to restore woods, the simple principle has cut down 1 tree plant 2
In Japan since ancient times at building of a building from a tree nearby builders small wood which landed compensated cutting down and served in further as a building material for building repair
Iliya from Sochi-Russia