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.
The Informal Economy: Michael Jackson Edition
Not much convenience in “convenience foods”
No healthcare reform without food-system reform
Comments
View as Flat
MACoen Posted 12:46 pm
02 Dec 2008
wake up and smell
Flower Confidential by Amy Stewart
http://www.amazon.com/Flower-Confidential-Beautiful-Busin ...
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:55 pm
02 Dec 2008
Maria Full of Grace
This piece -- like all discussions of flowers -- reminded me of "Maria Full of Grace," a great movie. I haven't bought anything but locally grown flowers since seeing it, which means that my wife never gets flowers for Valentine's Day. On the other hand, I get her a bouquet of gorgeous flowers almost every week from the Farmer's Market six months a year, so I figure it's OK.
Here's a review of Maria from Netflix:
The 5% Project Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:41 pm
02 Dec 2008
Yes, JMG
I too was thinking about that powerful movie.
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
virtual water trade
A related concern's the virtual water trade inherent in flower export / imports. Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food and Water Watch, talks about this often -- i.e. how Lake Naivasha in Kenya's shrinking in addition to getting polluted.
http://greenlagirl.com/
Permalink
PermieWriter Posted 5:18 pm
03 Dec 2008
Dead plant genitalia
No kidding. Next time you're tempted to give flowers, go buy a six-pack of organic lettuce instead. Try mache. It's pretty, tasty and won't have to be tossed (okay, maybe with a vinaigrette).
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
roses smell like... grass?
So, even before I found out how ridiculous the cut flower industry is, I didn't like cut flowers, because I've real roses.
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