A CASE FOR MORE CAPITALISM.

Common Dreams contributor Ginger Cassady, a blonde with the Rainforest Action Network, gripes, "Oreo’s Sweet Image Hides a Bitter Truth About Forests and Human Rights."  Why?  "Oreo may seem harmless. But when palm oil is sourced from destroyed rainforest or land taken without consent, the cost is not just environmental—it is human."  That's what markets, property rights, and rules of contract are for.  Their absence leads to bad outcomes.

Oreo is marketed as “milk’s favorite cookie.” But behind that familiar blue package is a supply chain tied to rainforest destruction and violence against the people who defend their land.

Mondelēz International, the corporate giant that makes Oreo, has built a global snack empire worth nearly $40 billion a year. Its products line grocery shelves across the country. What most consumers never see is the palm oil that goes into those products—or the damage connected to its production.

Catch the non sequitur bridging those paragraphs?  The "people," presumably tropical natives, don't have the property rights to "defend their land," which would mean selling the palm oil on their property to the highest bidder.  That highest bidder might well be Mondelēz,  but the blonde ginger would rather rile up readers by invoking the grasping food conglomerate rather than the absence of property rights that lead to the destruction of the rain forests, with the ultimate depletion of the palm oil, and thus, the Oreo.

It's so much easier, though, to carry on about all the usual Class Enemies, even though her complaint very accurately spells out the absence of property rights and rules of contract.

Palm oil expansion remains one of the leading drivers of tropical deforestation. It is also linked to land grabs, intimidation, and violence against Indigenous and local communities who resist losing their forests.

According to Rainforest Action Network’s 2025 Keep Forests Standing Scorecard, Mondelēz ranked last among major consumer goods companies on deforestation and human rights safeguards. The company scored just 4 out of 24 possible points. Most alarming, it received zero points for having a public policy protecting Human Rights Defenders—people who face threats, criminalization, and violence for standing up to destructive development.

Translation: Mondelēz might not be interested in paying protection money to the local professional protest communities, who occasionally interfere with the harvesting of sequoias but don't pester Christmas tree farms or the lumber and paper companies that understand how stupid it would be to deplete your timber stock.  But such property rights might be a marker of a rich country.

Mondelēz has been exposed more than once for sourcing palm oil linked to illegal deforestation in Indonesia’s Leuser Ecosystem—often called the “Orangutan Capital of the World.” The Leuser region is one of the last places on Earth where critically endangered species including rhinos, elephants, tigers, and orangutans still coexist in the wild. It is also home to Indigenous communities who depend on intact forests for survival.

Satellite monitoring continues to show forest loss in protected areas within this ecosystem. That means safeguards are failing.

Mondelēz promotes its “Snacking Made Right” campaign as proof of sustainability leadership. But marketing language does not stop chainsaws. Without enforceable policies and independent monitoring, companies continue to profit while forests fall.

The absence of a Human Rights Defender policy is not a minor oversight. It sends a message through the supply chain that violence and intimidation are not red lines. When corporations fail to adopt zero-tolerance policies against threats and criminalization, suppliers operate with fewer consequences.

Theft is also a crime, and property rights held, say, by the Leuser area tribes to their forests,  or perhaps by Nature Conservancy types establishing a free range for those rhinos, pachs, tigers, and orangs (whose coexistence in the wild might include the occasional tiger eating an orang or an old pach?) bring in their train the consequence that harvesters of palm oil have incentives to replant the forest and leave enough shelter for people and large animals alike.  Naturally, the lady understands none of this.  "

"This is not just about environmental damage. It is about whether communities have the right to say no when their land is targeted for development. It is about Free, Prior, and Informed Consent. It is about whether corporate profit outweighs human safety.

She continues,

Oreo may seem harmless. But when palm oil is sourced from destroyed rainforest or land taken without consent, the cost is not just environmental—it is human.

Communities should not be displaced for cookies. Forest defenders should not risk their lives so multinational corporations can maintain margins.

"Taken without consent" here means the absence of property rights and rules of contract.  That's too adult a concept for Common Dreams types, who still seek to rile up the vanguards.

Protecting forests starts with protecting the people who defend them. Until companies like Mondelēz adopt enforceable policies that prioritize human rights and end deforestation in their supply chains, their sustainability claims will ring hollow.

Consumers deserve snacks that do not come at the expense of forests and communities. And the people risking their lives to protect the planet deserve more than silence from the corporations profiting from their land.

Here I sit, working to "protect the planet" by making the case for better-defined property rights.  The only risk to my life is busting a gut laughing at the sort of stuff the likes of the Rainforest Action Network circulate.