# Blood Bananas and Ethical oil



## a_majoor (19 Dec 2011)

Ezra Levant on an outrageous stunt by Chiquita; claiming moral qualms and stating they will stop using Canadian oil products. Ezra's video takedown is priceless:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid868989705001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAAybGjzqk~,6NfTc6c241GVQxOh-GBHNHu5Cuhlf-y9&bctid=1331946778001 

Mmmm, delicious Dole Bananas for me...


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Dec 2011)

More, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/top-business-stories/oil-and-bananas-politicians-chiquita-in-tit-for-tat-boycott/article2278561/


> Oil and bananas: Politicians, Chiquita in tit-for-tat boycott
> 
> MICHAEL BABAD
> 
> ...




As Ezra Levant noted (first post) _Chiquita_, when it was the _United Fruit Company_, gave us terms "banana republic" and "send in the marines," the latter was done when some "banana republic" got uppity and tried to apply national laws to the UFC.


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Dec 2011)

Chiquita boycott in full swing here. Bought Del Monte bananas today.  ;D


----------



## Redeye (22 Dec 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Chiquita boycott in full swing here. Bought Del Monte bananas today.  ;D



I love how Conservatives hate the free market so much, and the ability of businesses to make their own decisions. I don't eat bananas much, but I know whose I'll be buying.


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I love how *Conservatives *  hate the free market so much, and the ability of businesses to make their own decisions. I don't eat bananas much, but I know whose I'll be buying.


It's not just Conservatives.  Homosexual groups in Toronto are calling for a boycott of the Salvation Army, because the Salvation Army doesn't buy their assertion that homosexuality is a "normal and positive variation of human sexuality", for example.  People everywhere boycott something, usually from a perceived position of higher moral ground.  

It's not just conservatives.  (or "conserva-droids")  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (24 Dec 2011)

And now a word from Ethical Oil:

http://www.kathrynmarshall.ca/ethical-oil/396/



> *CANADIANS FIGHT BACK: THE BANANA WAR*
> 
> I liked a tweet by Andrew Coyne the other day: “What did you do in the war on bananas, Daddy?”
> 
> ...


----------



## Redeye (24 Dec 2011)

Is there any actual evidence of a change in consumption patterns of bananas to back up this almost comical, hysterics-ridden press release?


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Is there any actual evidence of a change in consumption patterns of bananas to back up this almost comical, hysterics-ridden press release?


Maybe Chiquita can sell bananas to the Saudis - the guardian of human rights.....


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I love how Conservatives hate the free market so much, and the ability of businesses to make their own decisions. I don't eat bananas much, but I know whose I'll be buying.



It's not about conservatism or the free market. It's about a corporation holding itself out to be something it's not. That it's better than I am.

Don't crap on my cake and tell me it's frosting!


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Is there any actual evidence of a change in consumption patterns of bananas to back up this almost comical, hysterics-ridden press release?



In the world economy's current state, can Chiquita afford all of the negative press from its decision to appease the eco-left?


----------



## Redeye (24 Dec 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> In the world economy's current state, can Chiquita afford all of the negative press from its decision to appease the eco-left?



This is the root of my question? Does anyone actually care? I'm going to hypothesize "no, not even a little". Anyone got evidence otherwise?


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Dec 2011)

Does evidence really matter? Chiquita has randomly taken a stand on oilsands without knowing any facts, so why should a boycott actually require people not to boycott their items? If it gets into the press that people are boycotting Chiquita, even if they aren't, its bad press and stock prices will go down.


----------



## MJP (24 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> This is the root of my question? Does anyone actually care? I'm going to hypothesize "no, not even a little". Anyone got evidence otherwise?



Hey that was what I was saying about the people thoughts on the XL keystone pipeline.  Glad we are in violent agreement...


----------



## Redeye (25 Dec 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Does evidence really matter? Chiquita has randomly taken a stand on oilsands without knowing any facts, so why should a boycott actually require people not to boycott their items? If it gets into the press that people are boycotting Chiquita, even if they aren't, its bad press and stock prices will go down.



I have no idea what the root of their decision was, though social responsibility features heavily on their website, rich since I've been to banana plantations, and there isn't a lot socially responsible about them that I could see. Their stock (which trades on the NYSE under the symbol CQB, funny enough) is up lately, though it's taken a beating in the last six months. I doubt the rantings of Ezra Levant and Jason Kenney will do much to the stock at all.


----------



## Sythen (25 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Their stock (which trades on the NYSE under the symbol CQB, funny enough) is up lately, though it's taken a beating in the last six months. I doubt the rantings of Ezra Levant and Jason Kenney will do much to the stock at all.



So let's all give up! If you don't like what a company is doing just lower your eyes and keep buying its products! If a news organisation highlights what this company is doing wrong, complain about them! Insult the pundits who call a spade a spade!

Its funny Redeye, I very rarely respond to your posts but I do always read them. At first I honestly believed you were saying things just to spark debate and play the devil's advocate. Lately, though, I really think you believe the foolishness you spout. Its crazy. The best part about your posts is you never support anything. You're always opposed to everything. "Clowns who support Keystone" "Also Clowns who oppose Keystone" is a good example. Basically you belittle those who support it, in spite of the massive amount of evidence that its good far outweighs its bad, but realizing anyone who opposes it comes across as a fool you also distance yourself from them. Its interesting the mental gymnastics someone needs to do in order for this to make sense.

Edited for spelling.


----------



## Redeye (25 Dec 2011)

Sythen said:
			
		

> So let's all give up! If you don't like what a company is doing just lower your eyes and keep buying its products! If a news organisation highlights what this company is doing wrong, complain about them! Insult the pundits who call a spade a spade!
> 
> Its funny Redeye, I very rarely respond to your posts but I do always read them. At first I honestly believed you were saying things just to spark debate and play the devil's advocate. Lately, though, I really think you believe the foolishness you spout. Its crazy. The best part about your posts is you never support anything. You're always opposed to everything. "Clowns who support Keystone" "Also Clowns who oppose Keystone" is a good example. Basically you belittle those who support it, in spite of the massive amount of evidence that its good far outweighs its bad, but realizing anyone who opposes it comes across as a fool you also distance yourself from them. Its interesting the mental gymnastics someone needs to do in order for this to make sense.
> 
> Edited for spelling.



KXL I was playing devil's advocate on - because opinions on it are far from universal, and there's some pretty well-produced, decent opposition to it - mainly related to the exaggeration of benefits to the USA in terms of energy security and economic activity. Personally, I don't really care if it gets built that much - I suspect it will. What does in fact fascinate me is the way it's become such a political football. And there are clowns on both sides of the debate - like most. I usually wind up somewhere in the mushy middle on issues as a result. I do find, however, that there's a lot less eloquence on the right. There's exceptions, people like David Frum, but I get the feeling that he, like I was when I stopped renewing my PC membership, is just throwing up is hands a lot. 

I insult particular pundits because they deserve no better in my eyes. Primarily because they undermine whatever message they might have of value by layering it with so much stupidity and hyperbole as to make the actual valuable information impossible to decipher. There's pundits across the spectrum guilty of that too.

As far as Chiquita goes - I asked what I think is a legitimate question, does anyone actually care en masse? Is there any actual impact? I'm going to have to bet "no". Why? Bananas are a commodity - and a fungible one. Most grocers carry only a single brand, because customers by and large don't care whether they're grown and packed by Dole, Del Monte, or Chiquita, nor whether they come from Colombia, Ecuador, or Costa Rica. They just want bananas, and they buy bananas. The decision of a company to decide that it would rather not include a particular input in their supply chain, for whatever reason, is highly unlikely to have a great deal of influence. If someone has specific information that suggestions otherwise, I'd love to see it. I am not going to hold my breath, though.


----------



## Sythen (25 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> KXL I was playing devil's advocate on - because opinions on it are far from universal, and there's some pretty well-produced, decent opposition to it - mainly related to the exaggeration of benefits to the USA in terms of energy security and economic activity. Personally, I don't really care if it gets built that much - I suspect it will. What does in fact fascinate me is the way it's become such a political football. And there are clowns on both sides of the debate - like most. I usually wind up somewhere in the mushy middle on issues as a result. I do find, however, that there's a lot less eloquence on the right. There's exceptions, people like David Frum, but I get the feeling that he, like I was when I stopped renewing my PC membership, is just throwing up is hands a lot.
> 
> I insult particular pundits because they deserve no better in my eyes. Primarily because they undermine whatever message they might have of value by layering it with so much stupidity and hyperbole as to make the actual valuable information impossible to decipher. There's pundits across the spectrum guilty of that too.
> 
> As far as Chiquita goes - I asked what I think is a legitimate question, does anyone actually care en masse? Is there any actual impact? I'm going to have to bet "no". Why? Bananas are a commodity - and a fungible one. Most grocers carry only a single brand, because customers by and large don't care whether they're grown and packed by Dole, Del Monte, or Chiquita, nor whether they come from Colombia, Ecuador, or Costa Rica. They just want bananas, and they buy bananas. The decision of a company to decide that it would rather not include a particular input in their supply chain, for whatever reason, is highly unlikely to have a great deal of influence. If someone has specific information that suggestions otherwise, I'd love to see it. I am not going to hold my breath, though.



Again, you do not support anything. You claim the "mushy middle" but usually put forth the ideas and regurgitate the opinions of the far Left. You come off trying to sound like everything is beneath you, like most of the Left. Its easy to put anything down. Heck, you can find people who can very eloquently say that we should not have fought the Nazis. Its a lot harder to dumb down a complicated issue so average people can understand it. Being able to say something clearly is definitely a great skill to have.. Heck it makes uninformed people believe Obama to be a good president.. But just because you have a way with words doesn't make you right. I agree, the Right does need to work on how its message it put out there.. But just because someone who is an inbred red neck screaming in barely English has an opinion, doesn't make that opinion wrong. And just because someone has 100000 degrees hanging on their wall doesn't make them right. 

Your entire post could be replaced with a shrugging emoticon and by saying, 'Meh who cares?' You always put down ideas but never offer any of your own. To get this back on the topic of bananas, tell me this: What do YOU think a customer should do when a particular company does something they are morally against? Remember you have already stated that boycotting the company is the same as hating the free market, so give me some of your wisdom, please.


----------



## Redeye (25 Dec 2011)

Sythen said:
			
		

> Your entire post could be replaced with a shrugging emoticon and by saying, 'Meh who cares?' You always put down ideas but never offer any of your own. To get this back on the topic of bananas, tell me this: What do YOU think a customer should do when a particular company does something they are morally against? Remember you have already stated that boycotting the company is the same as hating the free market, so give me some of your wisdom, please.



When a company does something I'm morally against, I take my business elsewhere, where practical. In the case of commodities that's not particularly easy to do. The point I was trying to make is that the outrage is manufactured here. The idea that people will react aghast about Chiquita's supply chain decision strikes me as highly unlikely at best. Note that the remark was somewhat hyperbolic - as is the boycott demand. And frankly, very rarely do boycotts actually do anything - especially in the cases of commodities. I don't know how often, for example, I get emails saying "don't buy gas from Shell (or wherever)" to force prices down. Ever notice that never works? If you get into it a little more thoroughly, you'll see that it basically cannot.

Incidentally, it often strikes me that to a person on the right, anything left of their opinion is "the far left". I've never, to my knowledge, supported anything that's actually that far left. The same trend happens at the opposite end of the spectrum, though, particularly in the US. Mind you, the US far left is still pretty "right" as we'd construct any spectrum.


----------



## Sythen (25 Dec 2011)

> When a company does something I'm morally against, I take my business elsewhere, where practical.



So in other words, you boycott the products of one company in favour of another? And you consider it not practical to buy a different brand of bananas? Really, do you even think about what you type? If I spend $10 a month of bananas I would be surprised, but that is $10 a month less that they get. Who cares how it affects them? It affects me. No one is trying to change what Chiquita does with its business, but people are showing that they are no longer willing to sit idly by while people cater to extreme Leftist groups like Greenpeace, etc.. This boycott makes me happy for many different reasons, the main being Canadians are no longer willing to sit around while people trash talk our country. National pride is a good thing. 

I don't believe for a second that the outrage is manufactured. People on the Left side of the spectrum don't seem to get it. Canadians now care about their country. Canadians have a great sense of humour, and don't mind jokes.. But we will not be talked down to anymore, especially by companies with a past like Chiquita has.

To compare the people who call for boycotts of gas bars in an attempt to lower gas prices with this dust up with Chiquita shows how out of touch you are. If everyone decides to stop shopping at Shell (for example) for a day, it doesn't affect anything except putting a few small business owners out of business. Its more like a franchise then a corporation. With Chiquita, regardless of whether they even notice the amount not coming in, it does affect them even just a little... And I'd rather do a little hurt to them, even if they don't really notice, than just keep letting companies get away with this type of foolishness.

Its all very typical of the Left.. Heck, it only took a year after 9/11 for people to start saying we should maybe not fight them. Afterall, it makes 1000's more Bin Laden's everyday, right? Why bother resisting at all, we should all live as sheep and accept whatever bullying is thrown our way, be it from Islamic terrorists or eco-appeasing corporations.



> Incidentally



Go read the "Conservatism Needs Work" thread and check your posts. The majority are either like your ones here, not supporting anything and opposing everything or they are extreme Left. Heck, the Progressive post that I can't remember its name, you again you reread your posts. You do not come off as center left at all.



> Mind you, the US far left is still pretty "right" as we'd construct any spectrum.



I hear this all the time, and hate when people say it. Give me one example of a Left wing American policy that would be considered a Right wing cause here.


----------



## Rifleman62 (25 Dec 2011)

Two excellent posts Sythen!


----------



## Jed (25 Dec 2011)

I commend you Sythen, for your acumen and persistence on your latest posts.


----------



## Redeye (26 Dec 2011)

Sythen said:
			
		

> So in other words, you boycott the products of one company in favour of another? And you consider it not practical to buy a different brand of bananas? Really, do you even think about what you type? If I spend $10 a month of bananas I would be surprised, but that is $10 a month less that they get. Who cares how it affects them? It affects me. No one is trying to change what Chiquita does with its business, but people are showing that they are no longer willing to sit idly by while people cater to extreme Leftist groups like Greenpeace, etc.. This boycott makes me happy for many different reasons, the main being Canadians are no longer willing to sit around while people trash talk our country. National pride is a good thing.



Who argued about national pride? Oil exports aren't a fountain of such pride to me, I don't (and I suspect most Canadians don't, but yes, it's conjecture) base my abiding sense of pride in the contributions of our nation to the world in exports of oil. Or wheat. Or timber. Or anything else. And again I ask, is there any evidence that there is in fact any significant actual boycott happening? I don't think so, but again, if anyone has any evidence that it is, let's have a look then.



			
				Sythen said:
			
		

> I don't believe for a second that the outrage is manufactured. People on the Left side of the spectrum don't seem to get it. Canadians now care about their country. Canadians have a great sense of humour, and don't mind jokes.. But we will not be talked down to anymore, especially by companies with a past like Chiquita has.



Are you familiar with the term "non sequitur"? None of this paragraph has anything to do with the issue at hand. Chiquita, incidentally, isn't talking down to anyone. They made a corporate decision. And it's a pretty non-committal decision at that - avoid a particular product where reasonably possible. It is, at that, I suspect largely a throwaway statement, given that their operations probably aren't supplied with Canadian petroleum to begin with.



			
				Sythen said:
			
		

> To compare the people who call for boycotts of gas bars in an attempt to lower gas prices with this dust up with Chiquita shows how out of touch you are. If everyone decides to stop shopping at Shell (for example) for a day, it doesn't affect anything except putting a few small business owners out of business. Its more like a franchise then a corporation. With Chiquita, regardless of whether they even notice the amount not coming in, it does affect them even just a little... And I'd rather do a little hurt to them, even if they don't really notice, than just keep letting companies get away with this type of foolishness.



Again, I don't think you the argument I was making. People buying bananas, by and large, buy whatever bananas the store they're at sell, because generally supermarkets don't sell multiple brands in their produce section. They might sell regular bananas and organic bananas, but that's about the options you'll normally see. To have effect, someone actually deliberately wanting to participate in the boycott will not only have to a) know about it, which I'd almost be willing to wager most Canadians don't and b) potentially split their grocery shopping, which I also suspect will not happen. All I'm asking for here is some shred of evidence that the boycott is anything more than hot air being spewed by the oil lobby. Come on, now. If you're so sure of it, it must be out there. I'm also forced to wonder, if we reversed the situation, how would you look at it? Suppose some "lefty" organization decided they wanted to boycott Chiquita _because_ they buy Canadian oil?



			
				Sythen said:
			
		

> Its all very typical of the Left.. Heck, it only took a year after 9/11 for people to start saying we should maybe not fight them. Afterall, it makes 1000's more Bin Laden's everyday, right? Why bother resisting at all, we should all live as sheep and accept whatever bullying is thrown our way, be it from Islamic terrorists or eco-appeasing corporations.



When did that happen? Which "them"?



			
				Sythen said:
			
		

> I hear this all the time, and hate when people say it. Give me one example of a Left wing American policy that would be considered a Right wing cause here.



Take a look at the healthcare debate. The concept of social medicine to the degree we know it was ananthema to all but the most fringe of the left - though that's gradually changed. Likewise on social issues, the influence of religious/("traditional") values on the American left is extremely strong. The point I was trying to make is simply that notwithstanding that a one-dimensional (Left-Right) spectrum doesn't really work to begin with, the American spectrum doesn't map perfectly from one country to the other, and there are all sorts of reasons why. It's hard to sort of map what an idea "centre" point is, but the Weltanschauung of the average Canadian and average American tend to differ.

By the way, thanks for the discussion - for putting in the effort.


----------



## Redeye (28 Dec 2011)

Sounds like the whole thing is indeed a non-story.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/22/chiquita-says-reports-of-canadian-oil-boycott-are-bananas/


----------



## aesop081 (28 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Sounds like the whole thing is indeed a non-story.



Nothing more than  :backpedalling:

Good to see you swallow it whole when it suits your personal slant.


----------



## Redeye (28 Dec 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Nothing more than  :backpedalling:
> 
> Good to see you swallow it whole when it suits your personal slant.



Actually, that's pretty much what I said - that it was proobably a non-story. And hey, it looks like I was right.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Actually, that's pretty much what I said - that it was proobably a non-story. And hey, it looks like I was right.



You've bought into Chiquita trying to save face. They wrote a letter to an environmental group, it got leaked. Canada spoke up. Chiquita tries to save face by saying it was misinformation.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Dec 2011)

Nothing like a little sunshine to wilt the "narrative". Chiquita will probably discover this issue raised for years whenever they make a statement now that the blogosphere has gripped it.

The wonders of post progressivism is the self serving "narative" of any group can be rapidly subjected to fact checking and the reply crowdsourced beyond the ability of a PR department to deal with. People who buy into the "narrative" will also be subjected to a high degree of cognative dissonence as they try to respond to a wide range of contrary facts, figures, persnal anecdotes and other contrary information (although the common responses always seem to be  ad hominem attacks on the person(s) presenting the news, asserting their version is the truth without presenting any supporting facts or figures, attempting to redirect the argument to something else or simply dropping the subject rather than facing the contrary evidence).

Chiquita attempted to curry favour with environmentalists and climate alarmists, got caught doing so and are now backpedaling in an effort to prevent a PR disaster. Given the speed Chiquita reacted, the mere threat of a blogosphere inspired boycot focused the minds of executives very quickly.


----------



## eurowing (29 Dec 2011)

I need the cheap oil for my 49 gas sucking cylinders!!!  I actually checked the banana brand today and was pleased to see it was Doles.  I probably would have bought whatever was there, but the emotional response of slight satisfaction at not seeing Chiquita was there.


----------



## Scott (29 Dec 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You've bought into Chiquita trying to save face. They wrote a letter to an environmental group, it got leaked. Canada spoke up. Chiquita tries to save face by saying it was misinformation.



Ding, ding, ding.

Call it what you want, they got caught out and obviously, at least to me, the reaction warranted a release from them.

But I suppose that's easily explainable to some, eh?


----------



## dogger1936 (29 Dec 2011)

I personally don't care what brand of bananas end up in my fridge. In fact if I asked my wife (who does the majority of shopping it...read all of it) it would come down to what brand was cheaper per pound. To tell you the truth I wouldn't know the difference as I rarely inspect the sticker that ends up in the trash 2.4 seconds after I decide to eat a banana.

I really don't care if slave labour has been used...just give me cheap produce.


----------



## Redeye (29 Dec 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You've bought into Chiquita trying to save face. They wrote a letter to an environmental group, it got leaked. Canada spoke up. Chiquita tries to save face by saying it was misinformation.



Saving face? They answered the boycotters by issuing a statement which said essentially the same thing as their initial correspondence that touched off the whole thing. That isn't exactly backpedalling. If anything the other group took it as being more than what it was.


----------



## brihard (29 Dec 2011)

<shrug> A non-issue on both sides. I think Chiquita's as full of crap as the so-called 'Ethical Oil' lobby. Chiquita just sucks at PR.

It's an amusing pissing match though.


----------



## PuckChaser (29 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Saving face? They answered the boycotters by issuing a statement which said essentially the same thing as their initial correspondence that touched off the whole thing. That isn't exactly backpedalling. If anything the other group took it as being more than what it was.



They didn't answer the boycotters, they answered the negative press that the boycotters caused. Their statement didn't say essentially the same thing. The new statement is that they'll continue to use Canadian Oil. Their previous statement said that they would:



> Chiquita2 has committed to identify any connections between Chiquita’s fuel providers and Tar Sands refineries and to pursue the goal of eliminating fuel from those providers that is connected to Tar Sands refineries


 http://forestethics.org/major-companies-act-to-clean-up-their-transportation-footprints

If that's not trying to mitigate a PR blunder and save face, then I don't know what is. Chiquita got caught making dumb comments to appease the Eco-Left and now they're paying for it in the court of public opinion.

As a side note, the ForestEthics site has a real nice list of companies that I'll be avoiding due to their irrational stance on TarSands. Most are American but Avon is pretty big in Canada.


----------

