Are supermarkets the best judges of what’s green and healthy?

ON the surface, the idea of supermarkets taking a stand against rain forest-destroying food exporters with a threat to ban their products and to prioritise ‘healthy’ food over the stuff which does us harm sounds like a positive move. With increasingly well-informed consumers demanding products that don’t damage the planet or their health, it seems to makes sense – economically, environmentally and socially – to tweak product ranges and buying policies to give the people what they want.

But it is already becoming abundantly clear that ‘protecting the environment’ is a complicated business, with all sorts of vested interests and unsubstantiated claims being made in the name of what’s allegedly green or genuinely healthy. And with powerful lobbying groups and investor bodies pulling the strings, there is a risk that the alleged ‘cure’ for some of the supposed ills of the consumer society might be nothing of the kind.

This week, in a flurry of activity by the major supermarket groups, progress on making our shopping greener and healthier appeared to be made. Tesco, responding to pressure from the people who put the money into the company, set goals to increase sales of ‘healthy’ products as a proportion of total sales to 65%, up from the current level of 58%. And in a separate move, Tesco, along with Aldi, Marks & Spencer, Lidl, Sainsbury’s, Co-op, Waitrose, Iceland and others, raised concerns over a new effort by Brazil to legalise the private occupation of public land, mostly in the Amazon.

They, along with Asda, Morrisons and Greggs, have signed an open letter warning against the proposed law, along with other retailers, producers, investors and industry bodies. If the law is passed, they say they could stop sourcing products from Brazil.

Some might well be asking why this kind of selective approach to which countries can sell their produce to British retailers doesn’t apply more widely, to cover – for example – those guilty of humanrights abuses, or other questionable production practices?

The companies say they want to help develop sustainable land management and agriculture in Brazil, and support economic development while upholding indigenous community rights, without putting at risk progress in protecting vital natural systems that are essential for the world. A noble aim. And Tesco, with its healthy food initiative, shows similar lofty ambitions to give all its customers access to “affordable, healthy and sustainable food”.

Livestock farmers fear, however, that the definition of what’s “healthy and sustainable” – especially when it comes to home-reared meat – could be seriously skewed by the current fashion for veganism, which owes as much to celebrity endorsements as it does to genuine benefits for the planet or our health.

Supermarkets used to concentrate on quality and price, leaving the politics of food production and the sustainability of imports to the Government, which sets the rules, letting customers decide what to buy. It will be interesting to see whether this allegedly more ethical approach can sustain in a competitive market.