Save the Rain Forest?

The developed (rich) world is quick to condemn when it sees what it considers the wanton destruction of tropical rain forests in what it calls the developing (poor) world. While at times this condemnation may be warranted, what happens in these rain forests is not always the fault of the people that live there. A case in point is illustrated in a recent article in the New York Times entitled “Skin Deep: Pressing Açaí for Answers” by Abby Ellin.

The millions of residents of the tropical rain forest areas have to be able to make a living. If it is desired to save these forests the people living in and around them have to be able to exploit them in a non destructive way. The best method of doing this is to be able to harvest the natural products of the forest and sell them. Açaí is ONE of the many, perhaps hundreds, perhaps thousands (see a partial list below) of tropical fruits that currently end up on the ground, rotting, for want of a market. Instead of trying to help, the article constantly points out the UNPROVEN health benefits of açaí and the sometimes unscrupulous methods used by those selling it in the US.

To be PROVEN, health claims need to be confirmed in clinical trials costing a great deal of money. Who is going to pay for them? Pharmaceutical companies who really have no interest in finding natural substances that keep us healthy? Their real interest is in finding treatments (not cures) for chronic conditions so they will be able to sell us their products as long as we live.

The governments of the developed countries could fund these studies, but they are more interested in keeping most agricultural products from the developing world out. Even where it would be theoretically possible to export, assuming that you could get all of the bureaucratic hurdles taken care of, the short shelf life of most tropical fruits would dictate pulping and freezing (like is being done with açaí) or the use of refrigerated airfreight.

So, are we really interested in saving the tropical rain forests? Or do we just want to seem green and still be able to criticize and condemn? The New York Times can and should do better.