Hypocritical much? Adelaide Zoo have ended a deal with a local supplier of palm-oil free ice creams and instead signed a deal with multinational Unilever to stock their Streets ice creams, which do contain palm oil. Audio story here (I haven't listened to it yet): Adelaide Zoo Ditches SA Palm Oil Free Icecream - ABC South Australia - Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) Worth checking out the comments below the story too, here is the blurb introducing the audio:
well I'm not impressed for one. The audio is about twelve minutes long. Elaine Bensted from the zoo is mostly talking in spin and quotes. Basically she is saying they got a lot of money from Streets, and it is fine to ditch the palm-oil-free brand because the other zoos in Australia (e.g. Melbourne and Sydney) also sell Streets and that Adelaide Zoo can use it to "acknowledge sustainable palm oil". Apparently Streets is aiming to be using only palm oil "traceable to known sources" by the end of 2014, and to be "globally palm oil free" by 2020. However the issue I think is really one of ditching a local company which already is completely palm oil free and going back to one which is not! I mean, a zoo selling products with palm oil when they are campaigning against it is hypocritical but also understandable (it is extremely difficult to get products not containing palm oil after all), but such a zoo actively reversing from selling palm oil free to the opposite is just ridiculous. Lorinda Jane, founder of Palm Oil Investigations, has a short piece near the end and makes the point that "sustainable palm oil" which is what Streets aims for, is not the same as "certified sustainable palm oil" (which is what they should be aiming for). The zoo is going to be selling both Golden North and Streets for the next 12 months (presumably due to contractual obligations to Golden North). EDIT: I've just been browsing the zoo's Facebook page. There is a massive backlash against this from zoo-goers. This is a PR disaster!!
I do understand how the public would feel upset about how Adelaide Zoo is focusing on an international rather than local brand, however, the zoo does not specifically state to boycott palm oil but instead use palm oil from sustainable sources (I am not aware though if Street's sources sustainable palm oil). People seem to be giving the zoo a rather hard time on Facebook not really knowing the facts (e.g. do the keeper talks really say DO NOT BUY PALM OIL COMPLETELY or rather PLEASE BE CAREFUL WHEN BUYING PALM OIL PRODUCTS). It seems that the zoo's stance is being manipulated to paint them in a light which is not reflective of their own position (being used as a sort of anti-zoo campaign now). What upsets me more is that people are willing to boycott the zoo (as well as Monarto) due to this issue, when it is a non-for-profit organisation and has recently been in tough financial times. But hey, whether they like it or not, Adelaide's PR has been tarnished and it will take a while for it to be regained. And now this leads to other zoos in Australia needing to justify their stance to the public, detracting away from the actual issue (need for local, sustainable products). Just one opinion.....
I thought this bit was just really crawling for a justification for their decision. Basically turning it back onto Golden North to try and make themselves out to have the moral high-ground. But the paragraph starts off saying the zoo is "committed to working with organisations that are making real progress to support sustainable practices" and ending by telling them to piss off. EDIT: I just checked their Facebook page. They posted that same message they sent in the member emails (as posted by zooboy28 above) eighteen hours ago and there are currently over 800 replies to the post, none of them good.
This sort of thing is like a wet dream for the anti-zoo brigade. A little more than gobsmacked at the stupidity of this move; I understand that Adelaide Zoo needs to remain viable financially...but in the end for what purpose. They really need to have a good look at their core mission and values here or they risk losing validity and integrity in just about any future conservation mission, as well as the support of the public. No matter how the zoo tries to sugar-coat this, its going to do a lot of harm. And if Karta the orang, ironically, gives birth later on, I daresay this is going to compromise any positive publicity the birth would generate. They (the zoo) certainly wont be able to look anyone in the face and say the birth is helping to save orangs...
the Adelaide Zoo actually made a big campaign about becoming "palm oil free" (actually called "Go Palm Oil Free" with the statement "Join us to help protect orangutan habitat and buy palm oil free!"). All those pages have now been removed from the ZOOSSA site (you just get an error message saying "this page cannot be found"). The "Don't Palm Us Off" pages are still there.
I have just split this topic into its own thread separate from the news thread. Zooboy28 may edit the title to one he likes better if he wishes
That is a different story then. However, I still think people should vote with their wallets (ie. don't but the Streets products) rather than punish the zoo by boycotting it.
Zoo's palm oil credibility melts away over ice cream deal | Nick Xenophon - Independent Senator for South Australia Zoo called to account | Nick Xenophon - Independent Senator for South Australia
This is the same as telling visitors about habitat loss and deforestation, then using tropical hard woods on zoo building rooves which are the covered any way with roofing felt etc to make the weather proof, it's not rocket science to think before you do something. Of course that takes the rarest thing in the modern world. Common sense.
It would appear that people power has motivated the Society to reconsider their options; theyre not extending the contract with Golden North and stocking Streets too, as they slowlyyyyyy transition to sustainable palm oil. I understand the sustainable palm oil thing, and support it. But the cynic in me fails to understand how a multinational company has to take until 2020 to make the switch, when a small company based in South Australia can do it in 12 months and absorb the cost within their supply chain. Get your act together Streets.
You have probably hit the nail on the head without realising it. A multinational company consumes palm oil in such huge quantities that by definition, it can't be 100% sustainable because there just isn't a large enough supply that they could get their hands on.... until 2020.
I guess there's a typo in there and you meant to say "they're now extending the contract with Golden North and stocking Streets too"? As far as I can see nothing has changed at all. They have sent out a PR blurb (quoted below in full) which includes the statement "We are pleased to advise that we have begun negotiations with Golden North and Streets, this may allow us to extend the current stocking of both brands of ice cream beyond June 2015." They were always going to stock both brands for another twelve months - because they have to due to the contract with Golden North. All they are saying now is "we are getting sick of all the backlash, here's something to try and mollify you: we may extend the Golden North contract further than that twelve months, while still selling Streets".
the stupidest part about the Zoos SA excuse for "we can influence Unilever from within" is that Unilever's publicly-stated aim is to be using palm oil only from "known sources" by the end of 2014 and using solely certified sustainable palm oil by 2020. Those are their already-stated aims. So Zoos SA isn't influencing anything; all they are doing is, well, repeating what the company already says that they are planning on doing!
Maybe they mean that they will assist the world's third largest consumer goods company with reaching their stated goals? I don't know man. Who knows what goes on in those meetings? As Bruce Willis said in 'Armageddon': "You're the guys that're thinking s**t up! I'm sure you got a team of men sitting around somewhere right now just thinking s**t up and somebody backing them up!" Adelaide Zoo posted this on their Facebook page 3hrs ago: "Thanks for all your comments and feedback. Sorry we’ve been a bit quiet, but we had to get the right people around the table and get talking. We certainly value the opinion of our many passionate members and the wider South Australian community. We are pleased to be working towards an agreement that supports both of our ice cream partners and is aligned with our on-going conservation efforts. We’ll keep you up to date with how we go."
They should just stop selling ice cream in zoos. I agree with the above statements about the stupidity and hypocrisy of this business move. I am amazed by the public reaction though, and the fact that politicians are getting involved. It seems like the decision could get switched as the zoo organization seems rather democratic. Is this normal policy/management for institutions in Australia? I do not know much about the political side of zoo organization, especially about Adelaide. I am from San Diego where the zoo tends to be rather private.
I think they are basically stuck with their stupid decision. They can't really get out of the Unilever deal without (I should imagine) a whopping great law-suit coming their way. The best they could do is get a continuing contract with Golden North and sell the products of both companies. I think that's what they are going for, and they'll need a hefty dose of spin to accompany it.
