The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Rite Aid: Still Making the Wrong Choice for Forests
Earlier this year, we told you about how Rite Aid—the third-largest drugstore chain in the U.S.—has been making the wrong choice for forests by not managing where its paper comes from. Without a paper procurement policy, Rite Aid is exposed to controversies in its supply chain via the millions of pounds of paper it purchases for throwaway flyers.
Rite Aid has reason to scrutinize where its paper comes from. Resolute Forest Products, currently one of its major suppliers, is destroying endangered forests—including precious wildlife habitat—and has at times logged in Indigenous First Nation territories without consent. Despite repeated outreach to Rite Aid back in April, the company continues to ignore the signs and symptoms that it has a serious problem.
It’s time for Rite Aid to make the right choice for our forests. Here’s what’s at stake.
The Problem: Destruction in Canada’s Boreal Forest
With roughly 4,600 stores in 31 states and DC, Rite Aid is a neighborhood staple for many Americans. Many of us have likely been inside a store and touched the very paper linked to unsustainable logging without even knowing.
While its advertised sales and discounts may be appealing, the paper the company uses for its sales flyers is currently bad news for the largest remaining intact forest in North America, the Boreal. And that means bad news for the climate, endangered wildlife and Indigenous First Nations communities.
Rite Aid’s sales flyers are printed on paper from Resolute Forest Products, a company that is logging in some of the last ancient forests in Canada still undisturbed by industrial development. This type of logging threatens wildlife like the woodland caribou and puts one of Earth’s largest carbon sinks at risk. At times, Resolute has even ignored the rights of First Nations communities that have inhabited the Boreal for countless generations and who are decision-makers in their territories.
So far, Rite Aid has continued to ignore where its paper comes from and turn a blind eye to the forest destruction behind its throwaway flyers. But it doesn’t have to be this way.
Companies Prove Forest Protection Is Possible
Public support has been an important force behind more companies abandoning practices that destroy our forests. In just the last few years, a growing number of large companies like Kimberly-Clark, Procter & Gamble, Hewlett-Packard and others have adopted policies that minimize their impact on endangered forests.
And now, even while Rite Aid still refuses to adopt a meaningful paper policy—a standard practice for a company of its size—we can again send the company a strong message. One of the largest drugstores in the United States cannot continue to ignore what the best science tells us: the Canadian Boreal forest is at risk and Rite Aid’s paper supplier, Resolute, is making a bad situation worse.
It’s Time for Rite Aid to Make the 'Rite' Choice
We know that Rite Aid can make the right choice for the Boreal by adopting a paper policy that avoids unsustainable sources and maximizes the use of recycled and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)-certified paper. These sort of customer signals encourage the sustainable use of forests that are economically viable for local communities, respects the rights of First Nations and doesn’t threaten the existence of wildlife species like the Woodland Caribou.
Now, we’re calling on Rite Aid to do the ‘rite’ thing before the damage to endangered forests in the Boreal gets worse.
Take action today. Tell Rite Aid’s CEO to do the ‘rite’ thing for forests.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
A new multiyear study found that people living or working within 2,000 feet, or nearly half a mile, of a hydraulic fracturing (fracking) drill site may be at a heightened risk of exposure to benzene and other toxic chemicals, according to research released Thursday by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE)
The crowd appears to attack a protestor in a video shared on Twitter by ITV journalist Mahatir Pasha. VOA News / Youtube screenshot
Some London commuters had a violent reaction Thursday morning when Extinction Rebellion protestors attempted to disrupt train service during rush hour.
By Kristen Fischer
Though the science has shown sugary drinks are not healthy for children, fruit drinks and similar beverages accounted for more than half of all children's drink sales in 2018, according to a new report.
Farms with just one or a handful of different crops encourage fewer species of pollinating and pest-controlling insects to linger, ultimately winnowing away crop yields, according to a new study.
Up to half of the detrimental impacts of the "landscape simplification" that monocropping entails come as a result of a diminished mix of ecosystem service-providing insects, a team of scientists reported Oct. 16 in the journal Science Advances.
Monocrop palm oil plantation Honduras.
SHARE Foundation / Flickr / CC BY-NC 2.0
"Our study shows that biodiversity is essential to ensure the provision of ecosystem services and to maintain a high and stable agricultural production," Matteo Dainese, the study's lead author and a biologist at Eurac Research in Bolzano, Italy, said in a statement.
It stands to reason that, with declines in the sheer numbers of insects that ferry pollen from plant to plant and keep crop-eating pests under control, these services will wane as well. But until now, it hasn't been clear how monocultures affect the number and mix of these species or how crop yields might change as a result.
Aiming to solve these questions, Dainese and his colleagues pulled together data from 89 studies cutting across a variety of landscapes, from the tropics of Asia and Africa to the higher latitudes of northern Europe. They tabulated the number of pollinating and pest-controlling insects at these sites — both the absolute number of individuals and the number of species — along with an assessment of the ecosystem services the insects provided.
In almost all of the studies they looked at, the team found that a more diverse pool of these species translated into more pollination and greater pest control. They also showed that simplified landscapes supported fewer species of service-providing insects, which ultimately led to lower crop yields.
The researchers also looked at a third measure of the makeup of insect populations — what they called "evenness." In natural ecosystems, a handful of dominant species with many more individuals typically live alongside a higher number of rarer species. The team found as landscapes became less diverse, dominant species numbers dwindled and rare species gained ground. This resulting, more equitable mix led to less pollination (though it didn't end up affecting pest control).
"Our study provides strong empirical support for the potential benefits of new pathways to sustainable agriculture that aim to reconcile the protection of biodiversity and the production of food for increasing human populations," Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter, one of the study's authors and an animal ecologist at the University of Würzburg in Germany, said in the statement.
The scientists figure that the richness of pollinator species explains around a third of the harmful impacts of less diverse landscapes, while the richness of pest-controlling species accounts for about half of the same measure. In their view, the results of their research point to the need to protect biodiversity on and around crops in an uncertain future.
"Under future conditions with ongoing global change and more frequent extreme climate events, the value of farmland biodiversity ensuring resilience against environmental disturbances will become even more important," Steffan-Dewenter said.
Reposted with permission from our media associate Mongabay.
Ivory Coast's rainforests have been decimated by cocoa production and what is left is put in peril by a new law that will remove legal protections for thousands of square miles of forests, according to The Guardian.
By Karin Kirk
Greenland had quite the summer. It rose from peaceful obscurity to global headliner as ice melted so swiftly and massively that many were left grasping for adjectives. Then, Greenland's profile was further boosted, albeit not to its delight, when President Trump expressed interest in buying it, only to be summarily dismissed by the Danish prime minister.
During that time I happened to be in East Greenland, both as an observer of the stark effects of climate change and as a witness to local dialogue about presidential real estate aspirations, polar bear migrations and Greenland's sudden emergence as a trending topic.