Unfortunately, Latin American
regulations regarding pesticides tend to be more lax than those in the United States. Numerous nongovernmental organizations,
such as the Pesticide Action Network, found that Colombian and Ecuadorian flowers were heavily treated
with the likes of aldicarb, which can cause dreadful health problems - especially if it seeps
into the local water supply. (Pesticide residues may pose a risk to farm workers, but they
are extremely unlikely to harm your girlfriend.) Flowers are also an exceedingly thirsty crop, and the rapid
increase in cultivation has sorely taxed Latin American rivers and aquifers.
The flower industry's recklessness
started attracting a fair bit of negative press in the late 1990s. Some growers responded by joining certification
programs, for which they agree to abide by certain environmental and labor standards in exchange for a label that consumers
will ostensibly associate with green cred.
In Colombia, for example,
more than one-quarter of flower farms are certified by Florverde, which is operated by the industry's domestic trade association;
the program boasts that its participants currently use 50 percent less pesticides than a decade ago.
Yet Florverde is nowhere near
as green as VeriFlora, which forbids the use of dozens of pesticides that are permissible
under Florverde's regime. VeriFlora farms must also commit to moving toward organic growing - a stipulation that many Latin
American growers say they can't meet, due to the fragility of their crops and the prevalence of ravenous insects.
Pesticides, of course, aren't
the only environmental factor to consider the next time you need to curry favor with your beloved. The importation of flowers
from Latin America would seem to result in the emission of appreciable carbon dioxide, due to the fossil fuels that must be
expended on transportation. But there's considerable debate as to whether "flower miles" really tip the environmental scales
in favor of domestic products - at least those grown in energy-intensive indoor facilities.
Try as he might, the Lantern
couldn't find any studies comparing the field-to-market carbon emissions of Latin American flowers with those grown in the
United States. The best he could come up with was this (PDF) much-discussed
report from Europe, which concluded that Kenyan roses destined for British retailers emitted 5.8 times less CO2
than those grown in Dutch greenhouses.
That's because the indoor
Dutch operations require much more electricity and natural gas than Kenya's sun-kissed fields.
It's exactly the sort of contrarian
conclusion that typically delights the Lantern to no end. But it's also pretty shaky: If you read the three-page report
closely, you'll see that it's based on back-of-the-envelope calculations and estimations, rather than first-hand research.
It also compares just a single Kenyan operation against a single Dutch one; since the report was funded by entities with a vested interest in seeing the Kenyan flowers win out, you
have to wonder whether the data were cherry-picked.
In the absence of truly scientific
studies regarding flower-related carbon emissions, the Lantern advises you to use common sense: Look for a VeriFlora
sticker affixed to the wrapper or box, and be prepared to have your wallet lightened a bit more than you're accustomed to.
A dozen guilt-free roses start at around $50, which may be double the cost of those cellophane-wrapped beauties at the corner
store - particularly if the cheapies came in from China, a nascent floral powerhouse.
Ouch, huh? Well, look at it
this way - if you're going to make yourself pay $50 or more every time you get in a lovers' quarrel, that's a pretty good
incentive to keep things cool between you and your lady.
source site - make it a regular stop for some thought provoking
reading! click here
