44- Would Greenpeace run for supermarkets?

WOULD GREENPEACE RUN FOR SUPERMARKETS?

This is the question which has enough to surprise, no?

Nevertheless, there has been a thing which made me interrupt the writing of my next article, to react to it under heat.

This thing will have for main consequence to enrich supermarkets. A pernicious effect? Doubtless, I can’t imagine that Greenpeace made it deliberately, but it is nevertheless what is probably going to occur in coming two years. If you don’t believe me, thus see the new idea launched by Greenpeace France: make a competition of the supermarket which most approaches the zero residue. Have a look to the following link, in French:

http://www.lafranceagricole.fr/actualite-agricole/grande-distribution-greenpeace-lance-la-course-zero-pesticide-104730.html 

This is beautiful in its principle. This is politically correct and it will please consumers.

But what do you think will happen?

Supermarkets, in order to win this race that can bring them a lot, will impose on their suppliers, farmers, even more exacting standards, more and more difficult to meet, and ever more expensive. Beside this, the risk of rotting in stores or private homes will significantly increase. Fungicides against rot in conservation are indeed the main cause of the presence of pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables.

It will be a reason to cut prices to farmers, because the rotten products in larger amounts than before, will be deducted from payments. The farmer, ultimately, will have to work more, take more risks, and will be paid less.

But it will be also a good reason to increase consumer prices. This is normal because it is more difficult to obtain fruits and vegetables without residue. Someone has to pay the difference, right?

In the end, the consumer will find fruits and vegetables without residue, no doubt, but more expensive, more perishable, and all that at the expense of farmers and the benefit of supermarkets.

You think I exaggerate?

So ask other farmers who also work with supermarkets, if there is a relationship, however small, between the price displayed on the shelf and the price received by the farmer.

Ask them how does a supermarket chain or the purchasing center, when a batch rots, or when there are complaints, even if the farmer has nothing to do with it, such as for having waited too long to sell a batch. Simply by a loss deduction on the final settlement. If the farmer does not send someone on site to verify the problem and negotiate, an entire truck may be refused as being defective, for only one problematic box.

For now, the race only affects apple and potato, but it seems obvious that soon, perhaps before the end of this first step, the principle will be extended to all fruit and vegetables.

Second, who will win? I don't know. What I do know however is that the winner is going to get a gigantic publicity stunt, and will probably reap huge profits, without effort or marketing expense. Thus Imagine, Greenpeace will do it. It's unexpected!

The best publicity for supermarkets, at the expense of Greenpeace. This is of humor, no doubt.

So yes, on this case, we are entitled to ask what are the real intentions of Greenpeace.