In conventional development dogma, the fresh-cut flower industry makes plenty of sense.
Nations in the global south need foreign exchange and jobs; folks in the industrialized north have plenty of disposable income for buying pretty things. Moreover, land tends to be cheap in the south and dear in the north.
Pursuing the promise of what economists call "comparative advantage," why not set up a vast fresh-cut flower industry in places like Ecuador, designed to supply markets in the United States?
Of course, that is precisely what has happened. According to the trade group Society of American Florists, floriculture has blossomed into a $20 billion industry. Fully two-thirds of fresh flowers are imported -- and 93 percent of flower imports come from Latin America.
And in classic comparative-advantage fashion, U.S. companies control the trade; the global south supplies land and labor. Dole declares itself [PDF] the "the largest producer of fresh flowers in Latin America" as well as the "the largest importer of flowers in North America."
What could be wrong with this picture? To a conventional economist, all is going according to Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, and thus well. A market has been identified and supplied, capital has been deployed, profits have been booked, and jobs -- by one reckoning, 190,000 -- have been created in the global south.
When you look a little closer, though, the picture looks less rosy. As with so much in conventional development, the flower industry's success bobs on a sea of externalized costs.
From Reuters Health (hat tip to the great blog The Pump Handle):
In a study from Ecuador, babies and toddlers born to women employed in the cut-flower industry during pregnancy showed poorer communication and fine motor skills than children whose mothers were not flower workers. These children were also nearly five times as likely to have vision problems, the study team found.
The problem appears to be copious use of poisons.
Pesticides are used heavily in the cut-flower industry, especially organophosphates, carbamates, and dithiocarbamates, and animal studies suggest exposure to these chemicals before birth may impair neurological development both in the womb and in infancy and childhood.
However, that's not the only possible factor. "Long work days, job stress, and difficult work responsibilities where women are on their feet most of the day could contribute to adverse pregnancy outcomes," the researchers note, according to Reuters. "Furthermore, flower laborers work in a greenhouse setting where heat and exhaustion may also play a role in maternal and fetal health."
None of this is new, of course. In a paper published in the March 2006 Pediatrics (summarized here), researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health came to similar conclusions. Also studying women who work in Ecuador's flower industry, the researchers found strong evidence that prenatal pesticide exposure adversely affects brain development.
To this unconscionable human cost, we can add the greenhouse-gas consequences of shipping millions of cut flowers each year north and keeping them cool and "fresh."
Seen from these angles, the fresh-cut flower industry seems less like a triumph of conventional development and more like a calamity.
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
One doctor’s quest to sound the alarm on ‘wind turbine syndrome’
Comments
View as Flat
MACoen Posted 12:46 pm
02 Dec 2008
http://www.amazon.com/Flower-Confidential-Beautiful-Busin ...
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:55 pm
02 Dec 2008
Here's a review of Maria from Netflix:
You'll never look at the flowers your husband sends you the same way again. The things we take for granted without ever knowing the true story behind them--like the sickness, even the deaths that are caused by the toxic chemicals used to bring us the lovely flowers we puchase in the store. The horrors members of south American countries endure just to make a poor living. The horrors of living in countries where there are few rules, no government agency watches out for your health, and poverty is a place you will never leave. No wonder people in other countries take any opportunity to simply get to the United States. Whatever it takes, the risk --in their eyes -- may be worth it. This wakes you up to how lucky we are to have been born in the U.S. But you'll ask your husband not to buy you flowers grown in South America. You'll look at immigrants in a new way and wonder how much you would risk for a chance at life in the U.S.
The 5% Project
Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:41 pm
02 Dec 2008
And by the same token, one suspects that life would be far better for many people, if only Adam Smith's invisible hand were to be allowed to direct the commerce of some substances now controlled, e.g. cocaine.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
greenlagirl Posted 4:55 am
03 Dec 2008
http://greenlagirl.com/
Permalink
PermieWriter Posted 5:18 pm
03 Dec 2008
It might take some time to get your loved ones around to your POV, but you won't be poisoning them in the meantime. Or the workers, for that matter.
Eat what you grow, grow what you eat
Permalink
redambrosia99 Posted 4:32 am
05 Dec 2008
I used to keep a couple rose bushes, and those roses made the most HEAVENLY scent. That smell, drifting in my window in the summer was just wonderful.
Whereas the roses at the store smell like... grass? Or nothing at all.
"Sweetheart, get me another potted plant for Valentines, no cut flowers, plzkthxbai!"
Permalink