14 ms·

Cadbury ‘pushing orangutans towards extinction by wrecking habitat for palm oil’

326 points by dsr12 8y ago

aussieguy1234 8y ago
When I buy chocolate or any cocoa products, I always look for the UTZ certified logo or some linkage to another fair trade organisation. Cadbury didn't have any of this so I buy other brands for ethical reasons. The chocolate is usually better anyway.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  Cadbury chocolate always was pretty poor quality but it seems to have gone even further downhill since they became part of Kraft / Mondelez.
  - rleigh 8y ago
    It's gone from being OK-but-nothing-special to a brown-wax-cake-topping like Hershey's. Inedible and worthless. I've gone to more premium dark chocolate from a local company (Mackies) or Lindt. Costs more but it's worth it for actually tasting like chocolate and being made with proper ingredients.
- Freak_NL 8y ago
  The UTZ certification process is an example of a consumer awareness tactic that worked: in the Netherlands the majority of products with chocolate in it carries that logo. It now makes more sense for the manufacturer to just get certified chocolate. But that worked because chocolate is very recognizable as an ingredient. Palm oil isn't, and it's in everything. Perhaps a similar certification process might help, but when you buy something that doesn't carry the logo you'll still have to check the ingredients list because often you have no idea if palm oil was used or not.
- raverbashing 8y ago
  Real chocolate should have 0% Palm oil, that's part of the problem
- toyg 8y ago
  > I buy other brands for ethical reasons. The chocolate is usually better anyway I'd find it honestly difficult to buy lower-quality chocolate than Cadbury's. No wonder you can't find it in most of Western Europe - only Brits tolerate it, mostly because they had little else "back then" (pre-EU accession).
  - anothermouse 8y ago
    You've never tried Hershey's then.
lozenge 8y ago
In case anybody is wondering, Cadbury started using palm oil before being acquired by Mon delez. https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/1801250/new-zealands-auckland-zoo-bars-cadbury-chocolate-palm-oil-protest https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/1801250/new-zealands-a...
smackay 8y ago
The reason for the moral outrage aimed at Cadbury comes from their early history, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadbury https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadbury. It's a great example of the Quaker model of doing business where social improvement was part of the mission of the company. Now that the evil Mondelez (formerly Kraft Foods) owns them, it's open season on the not so nice things that modern business gets up to. However given that palm oil is used in everything it's a little cheap of The Independent to try and manufacture outrage against what was a beloved, British institution. Just avoid products with palm oil, though that's getting rather hard to do. Don't bother wasting your time with this kind of junk-food journalism.
- Freak_NL 8y ago
  > Just avoid products with palm oil, though that's getting rather hard to do. It's infeasible without spending a lot of time studying the tiny print on the packaging of almost every item you buy apart from produce, meat, bread, and dairy. And even then some people will end up having to rigorously change their shopping pattern. This is in addition to all the other environmental and ethical issues in the supermarket: animal welfare guarantees, chocolate that doesn't screw the farmers over, sustainable fishing, local produce, and of course choosing to shop with the goal of eating healthy in that hall of temptations. This is not something consumers can fix buy voting with their wallets. It's just too abstract: palm oil is used in so many products that have no strong link to that issue (unlike meat and seafood).
  - realusername 8y ago
    Depends where you live, most products with palm oil here in Europe are part of non-essential products, you just need to avoid the big brands and buy more traditional products. For bread, you just need to buy real bread and not white bread.
    - mantas 8y ago
      Eeeeh. Even "traditional" products get "enhanced" with palm oil. I was buying certain mainstream-but-local cookies for a long time since they had no palm oil. I double-checked the label some time ago and they put in palm oil now. Now idea when the changed happened. I inspected every single make of cookies (I love cookies, thankyouverymuch) in several chains of supermarkets and pretty much every option had palm oil. So far, my only option is either super expensive "farmers' market" style cookies where significant part of price is for fancy packaging and buying experience. Oh, and I've to drive across town to one of the few lcoations. I just want a damn bag of cookie without any BS :(
aaron695 8y ago
Explain to me like a I'm a dumb cunt. Theses people are incredibly poor, their kids died from simple things a $1 pill would solve (prescribed by a million $ doctor... yes it's not simple.) But I get it, orangutans are cuter than someone else's dead kid. I'm not sure what's proposed here, boycotting palm oil perhaps? But why would they not just knock down the forest and plant something else? If palm oil is particularly productive, knock down more forest to make up for it?
cyberferret 8y ago
I have read that Ferrero (makers of Ferrero Roche chocolates among others) are harvesting palm oil in a sustainable manner - however even that gives me pause, because as far as I know, palm oil plantations are not really sustainable per se? The palm trees themselves are fast growing but tend to deplete the ground soil they are on of all available nutrients very quickly, meaning that really nothing else can be planted in their place for many, many years and can be expected to grow. It is really a 'scorched earth' type plantation in more ways than one. I really don't believe there can be a sound 'sustainable' model of farming palm oil like most other plant resources.
- RugnirViking 8y ago
  Surely there must be a kind of crop rotation that can make it work? even if its one year on 3 years off, the opposite of really old crop rotations.
- adimitrov 8y ago
  Perhaps there could be, but not with the ruthless efficiency and disregard to environmental damage that farming in export-based agrarian economies tends to happen. We mop it up, because we don't care, and the damage done is far, far away.
- gpderetta 8y ago
  And Nutella. Apparently palm oil is an irreplaceable component of its recipe.
  - cyberferret 8y ago
    I believe Nutella is manufactured by Ferrero as well. I stopped eating it, though I love it, because of the initial backlash about palm oil many years ago. Then, when they said they were going forward with 'sustainable' palm oil production, I started buying it again, but having second thoughts again because of the points raised in my original post above.
kokey 8y ago
To put this into perspective: palm oil for biofuel and heating currently makes up around 60% of the palm oil imports into Europe. Greenpeace has been targeting European food companies over palm oil where the majority of the increased palm oil demand from Europe that has directly caused the clearing of rainforest to meet this demand, has been for biofuels because the EU had a mandatory biofuels component in fuel. This biofuels policy was driven by anti-nuclear organisations like Greenpeace, and yet they blame food producers whose demand has actually been sustainable without the need for massive clearing out of forests before biofuels came into the picture. The EU has now moved to ban the use of palm oil for biofuel, but it's only being phased out slowly until 2030. This is being replaced by rapeseed oil in Europe. Unfortunately protecting the seeds of this crop was one of the biggest uses of neonicotinoid pesticides which is blamed for the decline in bee populations. The EU now also put a moratorium on using these pesticides so now older and more harmful pesticides are being used instead and with the increased demand I am worried about the impacts we'll see in the future. Yet Greenpeace targets food companies. It's because Greenpeace is a political organisation, their purpose is to be anti-corporation and they just use the environment just as a tool to that end. They target retail brands while staying silent when governments destroy the environment intentionally or through badly conceived regulation.
- dools 8y ago
  Sources or it didn't happen
  - abainbridge 8y ago
    https://www.copenhageneconomics.com/dyn/resources/Publication/publicationPDF/8/448/1528720336/eu-imports-of-palm-oil-16may2018.pdf https://www.copenhageneconomics.com/dyn/resources/Publicatio...
  - fyfy18 8y ago
    https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-eu-climatechange-palmoil/eu-to-phase-out-palm-oil-from-transport-fuel-by-2030-idUKKBN1JA21F https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-eu-climatechange-palmoil/e...
  - 8y ago
benjamoon 8y ago
This story is super relevant in the uk at the moment because one of our super markets (Iceland) made a Christmas advert about Palm oil and it was banned for being too political. Worth watching: https://youtu.be/oA10-oZi4Xc https://youtu.be/oA10-oZi4Xc
- wastedhours 8y ago
  Worth a caveat: it wasn't banned because it was political per se, but because it wasn't original content, re-purposed from a Greenpeace animation, an organisation who could be deemed a political advertiser. Had the same film been 100% produced by Iceland, it wouldn't have been banned.
  - dools 8y ago
    It was banned exactly because it was political: “The advert wasn’t approved by Clearcast as it was seen to be in support of a political issue,” a spokesperson for Iceland says. -- source: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/iceland-advert-banned-christmas https://www.wired.co.uk/article/iceland-advert-banned-christ...
    - wastedhours 8y ago
      The organisation who banned it has explicitly said: 'it was deemed to be "an advertisement inserted by or on behalf of a body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature".' 'for Iceland to overcome the ruling, "Greenpeace needs to demonstrate it is not a political advertiser."' --source: https://www.thedrum.com/news/2018/11/12/clearcast-clarifies-iceland-palm-oil-christmas-tv-ad-ban-misunderstanding https://www.thedrum.com/news/2018/11/12/clearcast-clarifies-... Sorry if my point was too specific but I think it's a worthwhile one to press: The ad wasn't banned because it itself was political, had exactly the same creative been made by Iceland it wouldn't have been banned. It was banned because it was a re-purposed piece of content originally created by and used in partnership with a group deemed to be a politically-focused organisation. (and actually, it's worth pointing out that Clearcast can't "ban" ads by themselves, that's the ASA in most cases - they just really advise as to whether they abide by the rules) Given Greenpeace's status as an activist organisation, I can't bring myself to believe Iceland didn't expect this decision. Whether or not it was intentional, it's certainly achieved its purpose as an advert...
evincarofautumn 8y ago
I don’t mean to evangelise too hard, but this is yet another reason to keep kratom legal in the US. Last I knew, over 30% of the world’s kratom is consumed by the US, and most of that is from Indonesia, specifically Borneo. Kratom is an understory crop that can be cultivated without clear-cutting as is done for palm oil; and if kratom growers can’t afford to stay in business because the US demand dries up, you can bet they’ll turn to palm oil and rubber, leading to more deforestation and more habitat loss for orangutans. This is in addition to what I believe is clear potential for kratom to be instrumental in fighting the epidemic of opioid painkiller and heroin abuse.
etaioinshrdlu 8y ago
I have also seen palm oil sold as a health food. It is actually very tasty...
goodmachine 8y ago
Kraft are a notably shitty company, as is Mondelez, the subsidiary owner here. 2010: One week after they acquire Cadbury the new owners sack 400 workers, despite pledging otherwise in order to get the deal waved through. 2016: They further renege on promises to use Fairtrade cocoa beans... but keep the logo on products to fool consumers. 2017: Mondelez pay £0 tax on profits of £185m in the UK. I wouldn't give my dog their chocolate, but the larger point is that this is not the kind of company we or the orangutans need around. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249728/Cadbury-sacks-400-workers-Kraft-breaks-promise-shut-factory.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249728/Cadbury-sac... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/cadbury-chocolate-fairtrade-logo-scheme-at-risk-mondelez-international-a7443226.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/cadbury-cho... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/cadbury-chocolate-mondelez-no-corporation-tax-paid-uk-profit-a8578951.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/cadbury-cho...
- kevinconaway 8y ago
  > I wouldn't give my dog their chocolate You really shouldn’t give your dog any chocolate. It is considered poisonous to most dogs
  - newaccoutnas 8y ago
    Indeed, an old dog I had managed to eat a stash of easter eggs and she was very ill, on a drip. There is dog-safe chocolate available from pet shops
    - black-tea 8y ago
      Why bother, though? A dog will be just as happy eating its own vomit.
      - unfunco 8y ago
        No, it wouldn't.
vbuwivbiu 8y ago
like most too-big-to-fail corporations, their products are shit and they're fucking the planet as they make them if you want chocolate, there are many superb fair-trade brands which use only (> 70%) chocolate and sugar
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
AndrewSChapman 8y ago
In Australia Cadbury decided to remove palm oil from their plain dairy milk blocks in reaction to outrage caused by talk-back radio. Sadly the outrage wasn't about environmental devestation, but palm oil related health concerns.
martiuk 8y ago
Palm oil is a cheap substitute for trans fats in most processed food, so should we return to animal fats? I think so, and not just for the orangutans.
elhudy 8y ago
I was in Tawau a few years back and bused to Semporna. Generally when traveling within a new country I'm fascinated by the surrounding sights, and keep my eyes locked out the window. I got bored on this drive because it was oil palms as far as the eye could see. It was like corn fields in Nebraska.
- grecy 8y ago
  Same story in massive swaths of West Africa.
jrvarela56 8y ago
Is there an easy way of knowing which products I should boycott? I know this is way to open ended to be actionable (based on what ethical standards, what kinds of products, etc) but could you share how you go about boycotting companies you consider not in compliance with your morals?
- NickM 8y ago
  Individual action is unlikely to be effective in this case. For every person that cares enough and is aware enough to boycott these products, there are a thousand other people who either don't know, don't care, or can't afford to take the time and effort to change their behavior over something like this. If you want to make an impact, look toward political solutions; raise awareness among your friends and family, write to your representatives, send a letter to your local newspaper, etc. etc. The only reason companies are overexploiting these resources is because it's profitable; a small tax or tariff could tip the scales in a much bigger way than your own individual consumer habits ever will.
  - jrvarela56 8y ago
    But if it's easier for 1 person to boycott, doesn't that make it easier for many people to do it too? I agree with what you're saying: spreading the word and trying to have an impact on the system as a whole will help solve the problem. What if I make it easier for myself to boycott and then communicate to others it would be easy for them too? Feel like this goes along the lines of solutions where you first brute-force-first/bottom-up/do-things-that-don't-scale and then spread the working solution.
Balgair 8y ago
Orangs are just amazing creatures. I remember 'playing' with a juvenile and a large male once, during a slow day at the zoo. They were behind a big glass wall, there was a flat-screen built into the center of the glass along the floor, kinda like an 'n' in shape. The male was mostly uninterested, but the juvenile was just so curious about everything. The little guy was trying to make a bed/nest on some of the gym equipment. Eventually, he saw me looking up at him and came over to the glass, where I was standing. I decided to play a bit of a game of hide and seek. I'd duck behind the flat-screen, and wiggle my fingers up above it, and then myself. The little dude seemed to really like it, swinging about and having a good time with hide-n-peek. The huge, jowly male took an interest too, maybe due to the activity of the juvenile. The giant male and I would 'hide' a bit, he behind the various objects in the cage, I in the viewing room with it's benches and educational boards. The juvenile would point us out/tag us and then swing off on some ropes and such. If the juvenile was a human toddler, I swear he'd be squealing in delight. It was just an amazing 20/25 minutes until other people walked in. Those beasts are just stunningly intelligent for animals.

326 points by dsr12 8y ago

When I buy chocolate or any cocoa products, I always look for the UTZ certified logo or some linkage to another fair trade organisation. Cadbury didn't have any of this so I buy other brands for ethical reasons. The chocolate is usually better anyway.

SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
Cadbury chocolate always was pretty poor quality but it seems to have gone even further downhill since they became part of Kraft / Mondelez.
- rleigh 8y ago
  It's gone from being OK-but-nothing-special to a brown-wax-cake-topping like Hershey's. Inedible and worthless. I've gone to more premium dark chocolate from a local company (Mackies) or Lindt. Costs more but it's worth it for actually tasting like chocolate and being made with proper ingredients.
Freak_NL 8y ago
The UTZ certification process is an example of a consumer awareness tactic that worked: in the Netherlands the majority of products with chocolate in it carries that logo. It now makes more sense for the manufacturer to just get certified chocolate. But that worked because chocolate is very recognizable as an ingredient. Palm oil isn't, and it's in everything. Perhaps a similar certification process might help, but when you buy something that doesn't carry the logo you'll still have to check the ingredients list because often you have no idea if palm oil was used or not.
raverbashing 8y ago
Real chocolate should have 0% Palm oil, that's part of the problem
toyg 8y ago
> I buy other brands for ethical reasons. The chocolate is usually better anyway I'd find it honestly difficult to buy lower-quality chocolate than Cadbury's. No wonder you can't find it in most of Western Europe - only Brits tolerate it, mostly because they had little else "back then" (pre-EU accession).
- anothermouse 8y ago
  You've never tried Hershey's then.

lozenge 8y ago

In case anybody is wondering, Cadbury started using palm oil before being acquired by Mon delez. https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/1801250/new-zealands-auckland-zoo-bars-cadbury-chocolate-palm-oil-protest https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/1801250/new-zealands-a...

smackay 8y ago

The reason for the moral outrage aimed at Cadbury comes from their early history, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadbury https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadbury. It's a great example of the Quaker model of doing business where social improvement was part of the mission of the company. Now that the evil Mondelez (formerly Kraft Foods) owns them, it's open season on the not so nice things that modern business gets up to. However given that palm oil is used in everything it's a little cheap of The Independent to try and manufacture outrage against what was a beloved, British institution. Just avoid products with palm oil, though that's getting rather hard to do. Don't bother wasting your time with this kind of junk-food journalism.

Freak_NL 8y ago
> Just avoid products with palm oil, though that's getting rather hard to do. It's infeasible without spending a lot of time studying the tiny print on the packaging of almost every item you buy apart from produce, meat, bread, and dairy. And even then some people will end up having to rigorously change their shopping pattern. This is in addition to all the other environmental and ethical issues in the supermarket: animal welfare guarantees, chocolate that doesn't screw the farmers over, sustainable fishing, local produce, and of course choosing to shop with the goal of eating healthy in that hall of temptations. This is not something consumers can fix buy voting with their wallets. It's just too abstract: palm oil is used in so many products that have no strong link to that issue (unlike meat and seafood).
- realusername 8y ago
  Depends where you live, most products with palm oil here in Europe are part of non-essential products, you just need to avoid the big brands and buy more traditional products. For bread, you just need to buy real bread and not white bread.
  - mantas 8y ago
    Eeeeh. Even "traditional" products get "enhanced" with palm oil. I was buying certain mainstream-but-local cookies for a long time since they had no palm oil. I double-checked the label some time ago and they put in palm oil now. Now idea when the changed happened. I inspected every single make of cookies (I love cookies, thankyouverymuch) in several chains of supermarkets and pretty much every option had palm oil. So far, my only option is either super expensive "farmers' market" style cookies where significant part of price is for fancy packaging and buying experience. Oh, and I've to drive across town to one of the few lcoations. I just want a damn bag of cookie without any BS :(

aaron695 8y ago

Explain to me like a I'm a dumb cunt. Theses people are incredibly poor, their kids died from simple things a $1 pill would solve (prescribed by a million $ doctor... yes it's not simple.) But I get it, orangutans are cuter than someone else's dead kid. I'm not sure what's proposed here, boycotting palm oil perhaps? But why would they not just knock down the forest and plant something else? If palm oil is particularly productive, knock down more forest to make up for it?

cyberferret 8y ago

I have read that Ferrero (makers of Ferrero Roche chocolates among others) are harvesting palm oil in a sustainable manner - however even that gives me pause, because as far as I know, palm oil plantations are not really sustainable per se? The palm trees themselves are fast growing but tend to deplete the ground soil they are on of all available nutrients very quickly, meaning that really nothing else can be planted in their place for many, many years and can be expected to grow. It is really a 'scorched earth' type plantation in more ways than one. I really don't believe there can be a sound 'sustainable' model of farming palm oil like most other plant resources.

RugnirViking 8y ago
Surely there must be a kind of crop rotation that can make it work? even if its one year on 3 years off, the opposite of really old crop rotations.
adimitrov 8y ago
Perhaps there could be, but not with the ruthless efficiency and disregard to environmental damage that farming in export-based agrarian economies tends to happen. We mop it up, because we don't care, and the damage done is far, far away.
gpderetta 8y ago
And Nutella. Apparently palm oil is an irreplaceable component of its recipe.
- cyberferret 8y ago
  I believe Nutella is manufactured by Ferrero as well. I stopped eating it, though I love it, because of the initial backlash about palm oil many years ago. Then, when they said they were going forward with 'sustainable' palm oil production, I started buying it again, but having second thoughts again because of the points raised in my original post above.

kokey 8y ago

To put this into perspective: palm oil for biofuel and heating currently makes up around 60% of the palm oil imports into Europe. Greenpeace has been targeting European food companies over palm oil where the majority of the increased palm oil demand from Europe that has directly caused the clearing of rainforest to meet this demand, has been for biofuels because the EU had a mandatory biofuels component in fuel. This biofuels policy was driven by anti-nuclear organisations like Greenpeace, and yet they blame food producers whose demand has actually been sustainable without the need for massive clearing out of forests before biofuels came into the picture. The EU has now moved to ban the use of palm oil for biofuel, but it's only being phased out slowly until 2030. This is being replaced by rapeseed oil in Europe. Unfortunately protecting the seeds of this crop was one of the biggest uses of neonicotinoid pesticides which is blamed for the decline in bee populations. The EU now also put a moratorium on using these pesticides so now older and more harmful pesticides are being used instead and with the increased demand I am worried about the impacts we'll see in the future. Yet Greenpeace targets food companies. It's because Greenpeace is a political organisation, their purpose is to be anti-corporation and they just use the environment just as a tool to that end. They target retail brands while staying silent when governments destroy the environment intentionally or through badly conceived regulation.

dools 8y ago
Sources or it didn't happen
- abainbridge 8y ago
  https://www.copenhageneconomics.com/dyn/resources/Publication/publicationPDF/8/448/1528720336/eu-imports-of-palm-oil-16may2018.pdf https://www.copenhageneconomics.com/dyn/resources/Publicatio...
- fyfy18 8y ago
  https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-eu-climatechange-palmoil/eu-to-phase-out-palm-oil-from-transport-fuel-by-2030-idUKKBN1JA21F https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-eu-climatechange-palmoil/e...
- 8y ago

benjamoon 8y ago

This story is super relevant in the uk at the moment because one of our super markets (Iceland) made a Christmas advert about Palm oil and it was banned for being too political. Worth watching: https://youtu.be/oA10-oZi4Xc https://youtu.be/oA10-oZi4Xc

wastedhours 8y ago
Worth a caveat: it wasn't banned because it was political per se, but because it wasn't original content, re-purposed from a Greenpeace animation, an organisation who could be deemed a political advertiser. Had the same film been 100% produced by Iceland, it wouldn't have been banned.
- dools 8y ago
  It was banned exactly because it was political: “The advert wasn’t approved by Clearcast as it was seen to be in support of a political issue,” a spokesperson for Iceland says. -- source: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/iceland-advert-banned-christmas https://www.wired.co.uk/article/iceland-advert-banned-christ...
  - wastedhours 8y ago
    The organisation who banned it has explicitly said: 'it was deemed to be "an advertisement inserted by or on behalf of a body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature".' 'for Iceland to overcome the ruling, "Greenpeace needs to demonstrate it is not a political advertiser."' --source: https://www.thedrum.com/news/2018/11/12/clearcast-clarifies-iceland-palm-oil-christmas-tv-ad-ban-misunderstanding https://www.thedrum.com/news/2018/11/12/clearcast-clarifies-... Sorry if my point was too specific but I think it's a worthwhile one to press: The ad wasn't banned because it itself was political, had exactly the same creative been made by Iceland it wouldn't have been banned. It was banned because it was a re-purposed piece of content originally created by and used in partnership with a group deemed to be a politically-focused organisation. (and actually, it's worth pointing out that Clearcast can't "ban" ads by themselves, that's the ASA in most cases - they just really advise as to whether they abide by the rules) Given Greenpeace's status as an activist organisation, I can't bring myself to believe Iceland didn't expect this decision. Whether or not it was intentional, it's certainly achieved its purpose as an advert...

evincarofautumn 8y ago

I don’t mean to evangelise too hard, but this is yet another reason to keep kratom legal in the US. Last I knew, over 30% of the world’s kratom is consumed by the US, and most of that is from Indonesia, specifically Borneo. Kratom is an understory crop that can be cultivated without clear-cutting as is done for palm oil; and if kratom growers can’t afford to stay in business because the US demand dries up, you can bet they’ll turn to palm oil and rubber, leading to more deforestation and more habitat loss for orangutans. This is in addition to what I believe is clear potential for kratom to be instrumental in fighting the epidemic of opioid painkiller and heroin abuse.

etaioinshrdlu 8y ago

I have also seen palm oil sold as a health food. It is actually very tasty...

goodmachine 8y ago

Kraft are a notably shitty company, as is Mondelez, the subsidiary owner here. 2010: One week after they acquire Cadbury the new owners sack 400 workers, despite pledging otherwise in order to get the deal waved through. 2016: They further renege on promises to use Fairtrade cocoa beans... but keep the logo on products to fool consumers. 2017: Mondelez pay £0 tax on profits of £185m in the UK. I wouldn't give my dog their chocolate, but the larger point is that this is not the kind of company we or the orangutans need around. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249728/Cadbury-sacks-400-workers-Kraft-breaks-promise-shut-factory.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249728/Cadbury-sac... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/cadbury-chocolate-fairtrade-logo-scheme-at-risk-mondelez-international-a7443226.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/cadbury-cho... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/cadbury-chocolate-mondelez-no-corporation-tax-paid-uk-profit-a8578951.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/cadbury-cho...

kevinconaway 8y ago
> I wouldn't give my dog their chocolate You really shouldn’t give your dog any chocolate. It is considered poisonous to most dogs
- newaccoutnas 8y ago
  Indeed, an old dog I had managed to eat a stash of easter eggs and she was very ill, on a drip. There is dog-safe chocolate available from pet shops
  - black-tea 8y ago
    Why bother, though? A dog will be just as happy eating its own vomit.
    - unfunco 8y ago
      No, it wouldn't.

vbuwivbiu 8y ago

like most too-big-to-fail corporations, their products are shit and they're fucking the planet as they make them if you want chocolate, there are many superb fair-trade brands which use only (> 70%) chocolate and sugar

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

AndrewSChapman 8y ago

In Australia Cadbury decided to remove palm oil from their plain dairy milk blocks in reaction to outrage caused by talk-back radio. Sadly the outrage wasn't about environmental devestation, but palm oil related health concerns.

martiuk 8y ago

Palm oil is a cheap substitute for trans fats in most processed food, so should we return to animal fats? I think so, and not just for the orangutans.

elhudy 8y ago

I was in Tawau a few years back and bused to Semporna. Generally when traveling within a new country I'm fascinated by the surrounding sights, and keep my eyes locked out the window. I got bored on this drive because it was oil palms as far as the eye could see. It was like corn fields in Nebraska.

grecy 8y ago
Same story in massive swaths of West Africa.

jrvarela56 8y ago

Is there an easy way of knowing which products I should boycott? I know this is way to open ended to be actionable (based on what ethical standards, what kinds of products, etc) but could you share how you go about boycotting companies you consider not in compliance with your morals?

NickM 8y ago
Individual action is unlikely to be effective in this case. For every person that cares enough and is aware enough to boycott these products, there are a thousand other people who either don't know, don't care, or can't afford to take the time and effort to change their behavior over something like this. If you want to make an impact, look toward political solutions; raise awareness among your friends and family, write to your representatives, send a letter to your local newspaper, etc. etc. The only reason companies are overexploiting these resources is because it's profitable; a small tax or tariff could tip the scales in a much bigger way than your own individual consumer habits ever will.
- jrvarela56 8y ago
  But if it's easier for 1 person to boycott, doesn't that make it easier for many people to do it too? I agree with what you're saying: spreading the word and trying to have an impact on the system as a whole will help solve the problem. What if I make it easier for myself to boycott and then communicate to others it would be easy for them too? Feel like this goes along the lines of solutions where you first brute-force-first/bottom-up/do-things-that-don't-scale and then spread the working solution.

Balgair 8y ago

Orangs are just amazing creatures. I remember 'playing' with a juvenile and a large male once, during a slow day at the zoo. They were behind a big glass wall, there was a flat-screen built into the center of the glass along the floor, kinda like an 'n' in shape. The male was mostly uninterested, but the juvenile was just so curious about everything. The little guy was trying to make a bed/nest on some of the gym equipment. Eventually, he saw me looking up at him and came over to the glass, where I was standing. I decided to play a bit of a game of hide and seek. I'd duck behind the flat-screen, and wiggle my fingers up above it, and then myself. The little dude seemed to really like it, swinging about and having a good time with hide-n-peek. The huge, jowly male took an interest too, maybe due to the activity of the juvenile. The giant male and I would 'hide' a bit, he behind the various objects in the cage, I in the viewing room with it's benches and educational boards. The juvenile would point us out/tag us and then swing off on some ropes and such. If the juvenile was a human toddler, I swear he'd be squealing in delight. It was just an amazing 20/25 minutes until other people walked in. Those beasts are just stunningly intelligent for animals.