Hellman’s Mayonnaise, a brand owned by the multinational corporation Unilever, currently has an “eat local” campaign in Canada. As part of it, they put out this video (found at BrandFreak) highlighting how much food Canada imports:
Hellmann’s – It’s Time for Real from CRUSH on Vimeo.
What I find odd here is that Unilever owns a large number of food brands (as well as non-food ones), including Hellman’s, Wishbone, Ben & Jerry’s, Bertolli, Lipton, Knorr, and Slim-Fast (check here for some images of organic brands owned by Unilever). The Lipton web page notes that Lipton is “…making a big splash in the global beverages market…” The main Unilever food page announces,
We have the heritage and knowledge to move effortlessly between cuisines and countries.
So on the one hand, according to wikipedia,
The company promotes sustainability and started a sustainable agriculture programme in 1998.[7] In May 2007 it became the first tea company to commit to sourcing all its tea in a sustainable manner, employing the Rainforest Alliance, an international environmental NGO, to certify its tea estates in East Africa, as well as third-party suppliers in Africa and other parts of the world. It declared its aim to have all Lipton Yellow Label and PG Tips tea bags sold in Western Europe certified by 2010, followed by all Lipton tea bags globally by 2015.
Covalence, an ethical reputation ranking agency, placed Unilever at the top of its ranking based on positive versus negative news coverage for 2007.
Those are admirable goals by any standard, and food/globalization activists often push for that type of responsible corporate citizenship.
On the other hand…Unilever owns 400+ brands, many of which are dependent upon global sourcing and distribution; they in no way contribute to or encourage local eating, and if people really began eating locally, Unilever’s market share would suffer dramatically. And there are questions about how well it lives up to its sustainability goals.
We’ve seen these contradictions from Unilever before: the company owns both Axe and Dove, brands that are often marketed in ways that conflict with one another.
One way to look at this is that Unilever is making efforts to encourage sustainability and other policies that many critics would appreciate, within a global marketplace that constrains their efforts. The more cynical view is that such contradictory messages in effect allow corporations to “have it all.” Don’t care about sustainability, working conditions, and so on? Chances are you’re buying Unilever brands by default. But if you do care about such issues, you can feel good about buying at least some Unilever brands–those that have a marketing strategy designed to appeal to you. And doing so in no way threatens Unilever’s overall profitability.
So, readers, whatcha think?
Comments 15
Rose — August 25, 2009
It's a somewhat paradoxical that a global food company would encourage folks to eat local foods. BUT, many of the brands that Unilver is listed as owning in this post make seasonings. In that instance, they are not replacing your spinach, but merely putting dressing on top.
Also, tea doesn't grow where I live, so if I want to drink it, then it must be imported...It's the original global product, having been traded for centuries.
Panic — August 25, 2009
If you're in Ontario, Alberta grain isn't local. I'm just sayin'.
Gwen Sharp, PhD — August 25, 2009
P--
Absolutely important points to consider. I specialized in the sociology of agriculture, and I'm all for changing a lot of food policies (particularly the effect of water subsidies in arid areas, etc.) particularly as they directly improve producers' lives.
But last year I read Barbara Kingsolver's book on eating locally called "Animal, Vegetable, Mineral," and I just thought, people aren't going to starve through winter (which can be awfully long in places like Ontario) so they only eat stuff that comes from very close by. They just aren't.
The other issue is that there's often an assumption that local automatically = organic. Here in Vegas, I can get "local" stuff, if by local you take a generous 200 mile radius that includes part of California. But it's not organic or in any way different from what I could buy at the grocery store. So in a situation where I can't get both...which is the "better" option--to buy (relatively) local produce, or to buy organics from Whole Foods?
I've gone with the organics, just b/c twice this summer my 5-year-old nephew and 3-year-old niece were doused with agrichemicals from aerial spraying nearby and it pisses me off, and buying organic made me feel just a little bit better.
hypatia — August 25, 2009
These commercials drive me nuts. Mainly because I do agree with a lot of their message, Canada, and especially Ontario is loosing a ton of farmland every year. No one wants to grow cucumbers when you can make a much larger gain over the short term by selling out to a housing developer to build a new subdivision of four bedroom houses on large swaths of lawn. The Kitchener-Waterloo area mentioned in the video is a prime example right now. Houses flying up and fields for sale everywhere.
However, I fail to see how eating mayonnaise is really going to help that situation. Let's face it, making mayonnaise is a highly industrial process, one that requires building a big old factory, storage and shipping facilities on land that could probably be used otherwise. It would probably be much more beneficial to buy local eggs and then actually prepare it at home yourself. A process that isn't as difficult as Unilever would probably like you to think it is.
I also hate the whole concept of eating locally to Unilever apparently means anything grown anywhere in Canada, but unfortunately eating cherries from BC is not actually doing anything to protect the farmland in Southern Ontario where I do live.
Annoyed — August 25, 2009
sorry, that was a comment on it's own. It wasn't meant to be a reply. BTW homemade mayonnaise is soooo much better!
Hugh — August 27, 2009
I'm curious why people see this as hypocrisy? Is there any contradiction in one company selling products with different ethical outlooks?
I wonder if this is a broader feature of the "ethical consumer" market, that you not only want a product made in accordance with your values, but you want it made by people who also share those values?
Food Production in the U.S. » Sociological Images — March 10, 2010
[...] Related posts: feeding a city, Unilever encourages local eating, and the global distribution of Starbucks and McDonald’s, ownership of organic brands. var [...]