You probably know that if you are a person who believes and buys organic and is a staunch supporter of local trade, you are on the side of right. What I mean is that you are on the side of all who are ethical, responsible, protective of the planet’s resources, pesticide-free, fight to remove GMO from food shelves, respectful of the animal kingdom’s natural cycle, even if you have to pay a little more. And of course, you have the support of every do-gooder on the Plateau-Mont-Royal.

Did you also know that last month, The Economist, a magazine that has a circulation of more than one million, cast the first stone in the glass house of righteous tranquility. In a resolutely assertive editorial, with little room for nuance, this British magazine asserted that consuming fair trade products is more harmful to the planet than buying and using regular products!

What?
I cut out the article. Should I ever be invited on the popular talk show Tout le monde en parle for a discussion with ecologists wearing Peruvian caps and organically grown cotton shirts, I will have the right ammunition to defend myself.

Let me summarize the editor’s position1. Until the early 60’s, writes the author, forestland was taken over to make room for agriculture. Definitely an alarming trend, but what can we do, the ever-growing world population needs to eat. Thank goodness technology and the massive application of chemical fertilizers tripled production without significantly increasing farmland. Thus, the editor believes that a massive return to organic growing is not a desirable option for the planet since reverting millions of hectares of farmland back to active production would endanger remaining forestland. Do you follow?

The author then attacks the celebrated – and popular – concept of fair trade. It is a genius idea: stay away from the crooked and greedy fingers of multinational corporations by buying directly from producers. So, what’s so wrong about that? Everything, states the author. This idea reveals a level of calculation that is worthy of a mendicant order. Of course, he writes, some producers, too few in fact, take advantage of this. Roughly 98% of peasants remain in the background. Besides, this system provides rich consumers with a false sense of generosity, since it is the merchant who, in rich countries, turns a quick dollar and who, bottom line, gets the biggest slice of the pie, and not the producer.

All right, is there anything else wrong? Yes, concludes the author, we are often mislead into thinking that community agriculture and local sourcing are the solution. How come? It is a well-known fact that food travels on average 2,500 km before reaching the consumers’ dinner table. If we prioritize community agriculture, we reduce transportation, consequently greenhouse gas emissions? Not at all, asserts The Economist. The author, who states his opinion based on a scientific study, affirms that local sourcing requires more transportation than a single weekly trip to the supermarket. And on a grand scale, local trade consumes more energy than traditional food distribution. Wow!

Robert LaPalme, an old friend who is 85 years old, once told me that he no longer believed in the church nor did he believe in religion anymore. However, sensing that the end was near, he made arrangements to see a priest. Why? “Just in case, he would say, I don’t want to take any chances!”

I really like The Economist: it makes you think, asks the right questions, states opinions that are worth more than those proposed by alterglobalists and granola do-gooders. But where does the truth lie?

I don’t know.
And I won’t take any chances. What I mean to say is that I will continue to imagine that our agriculture – primarily traditional and family-owned – will not fall into the excesses of American agriculture and will continue, within the limits of its ability to be the lifeblood of producers, and will continue to get its inspiration from the principles of organic production, fair trade and local sourcing.