Fair Trade - C/D?

Is it as bad as Rough Trade tea?

Is this one of Chris Martin's ideas or is Thom Yorke behind this one?

Apparently Michael Hann insisted that the Rough Trade shop on Brick Lane serve tea to show that they're providing a service for ordinary people.

What fair trade tea are you drinking? The Tea Direct tea is actually the best tea you can buy IMO, Like Yorkshire tea but better, regardless of the paying-a-fair-wage-ness of it all.

Aren't the limits on what can legally be called 'Fair Trade' ridiculously loose? And the fact that even Nestle has Fair Trade brands in its arsenal now, because it's another market to cater for.

I'm not trying to be cynical for the sake of it or pin this on strawman flakey middle-class would-be-socialists and obviously the concept is classic, but it's still difficult to be sure where the money's going.

What fair trade tea are you drinking?

Marks & Spencers! I didn't buy it, it's in the office, it's foul stuff, tastes like it's got sugar in it!

Aren't the limits on what can legally be called 'Fair Trade' ridiculously loose?

I don't know, there's only one type of Green & Blacks that is fair trade (the Maya Gold one) - I'm surprised their others aren't - not sure how big the price difference is.

And if you're buying it it has to have the symbol on the packaging, ala Soil Association. I would've thought these would be solid enough assurances.

if you buy Traidcraft products eg yog raisins and yog banana, Cafe Direct and Tea Direct, Maya Gold chocolate etc then you can be sure that they are fair trade, coz all their products always have been as it was set up specifically for that purpose, years before the big players got in on the act (1979 to be precise).

http://www.traidcraft.co.uk

the coffee in the machines here at work is all Traidcraft.

Yes, the Brazil Nut cookies I had were Traidcraft

it's not D, obviously. i've heard people say "buying fair trade stuff is an excuse not to do anything else" but that sounds sort of specious -- people need no excuse to do nothing lol amirite.

It's nice to be nice

used to try and buy fairtrade coffee from oxfam as that was helping two lots of people. but oxfam's never open when i'm in town on monday mornings so that's kinda slipped. currently drinking co-op fairtrade coffee which is surprisingly cheap and has been BOGOF for the last couple of weeks.

co-op also do fairtrade chocolate. the divine stuff is nice too, especially the fruit and nut (oxfam again)

lots of FT bananas about as well.

yeah i heart Divine. don't really buy any other chocolate now except occasional bag of Minstrels. half-arsed ethical consumerism ftw.

ALL sainsburys bananas are FT, including their bargain-basement 'BASIC' bananas. if there's a choice i'll always take Fairtrade over not, though I have no real faith that this makes the world a better place (but it cou;dn't hurt, right?)

I have no real faith that this makes the world a better place

Surely with big hitters like Tate and Lyle and even bête noire Nestlé joining the party the point is that we are close to the tipping point where those food companies who *don't* offer fairly traded goods are named and shamed in the press and are forced into doing so. And once ever food producer has a fairly traded range alongside its "normal" one, people will start asking "Why can't *all* food be fairly traded?". From humble beginnings.....

And Sainsburys sugar too I noticed yesterday.

Marks & Spencers! I didn't buy it, it's in the office, it's foul stuff, tastes like it's got sugar in it!

Sounds like my cup of tea, I'm trying to give up sugar in tea.

I have no real faith that this makes the world a better place

Oh, I think it does actually. Certainly from people I know who are buyers they think that even on a basic level, like whether plantations have decent sanitation and things (let alone schools, etc) fairtrade places are better.

Some of it is a partial con though. Tesco's have fairtrade cotton goods, where the cotton production is fairtrade but the manufacturing is still done in huge sheds in bangladesh or china.

I'm not sure that consumers are really that aware of it - I mean, I'm a consumer and I don't know much about it - it's been pushed far less than "Green"/ecological issues, prob'ly because companies want to get away with being as unfair as possible for as long as they possibly can, and try to avoid drawing attention to the fact that they are unscrupulous shitheels for the most part. The fact that it hasn't been rammed down people's throats is prob'ly a good thing.

i think there's a film on more4 tonight called 'black gold' about the coffee industry. maybe we shd watch and report back!

xp

Well, yes, because it would inevitably lead to some story in The Guardian about one place where it was supposed to be fairtrade but where it wasn't and that would lead to everyone who wants the excuse not to spend a few more pence on fairtrade coffee to take that excuse because "it's all a con".

I think that it is much easier to make farming practices fair than manufacturing ones due to the clandestine nature of the latter. Both in print and online, I hear about sweatshops being "exposed" by undercover journos in a cloak and dagger fashion. Sometimes people like Tesco and Gap are only too aware that this is going on, and turn a blind eye, but sometimes they are not, on a/c of the supply chain being so long with so many stages to it. Without governments which are on the ball enough to carry out inspections and enforce working conditions legislation, or international bodies who do the same or similar, it is v difficult to see unfair practices, sometimes involving inhuman treatment, coming to an end until long after the same is achieved on developing countries' farms.

Yes. Mrs T used to have to audit factories that did manufacturing for A Popular High Street Store, who employed her, and it was clear that in some cases the factories had obviously been 'dressed up' for her visit. Having said that a lot of people she spoke with thought that, even though they were working a ton of hours for little money, they were better off than with what they had previously. They had pretty good live-in quarters, holiday pay, healthcare. I'm not saying it was a utopia or that I could do what they do but it was relatively better.

When I say 'audit' I mean 'do an environmental audit' not accounting. And when I say 'environmental' I mean that in its widest sensen not whether they had ecover washing up liquid in the kitchens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smithfield_Foods

Surely with big hitters like Tate and Lyle and even bête noire Nestlé joining the party the point is that we are close to the tipping point where those food companies who *don't* offer fairly traded goods are named and shamed in the press and are forced into doing so. And once ever food producer has a fairly traded range alongside its "normal" one, people will start asking "Why can't *all* food be fairly traded?".

Yes but they're not selling fair trade because they passionately believe in it, they're selling it because there's a market that will buy it that would otherwise go elsewhere.

As for your second point, once again we're back at the old chesnut that fair trade food is more expensive and not everyone can afford it. Same with organic.

(On a semi-related note one of the reasons that even yer bog-standard non-fair-trade loaf of bread has been going up in price recently has been food companies passing on the cost of rising commodity prices to the consumer, but this doesn't necessarily benefit the farmers).

As for your second point, once again we're back at the old chesnut that fair trade food is more expensive and not everyone can afford it. Same with organic.

i think i read somewhere that we spend a lot less, as a proportion of income, on food, than we did in the good old days of whenever. obviously there are people who can't afford paying more for food than they do, and posh-food-evangelists who ignore this are cockfarmers.

but there are also a large number of people who can afford to pay more but don't: it's about your priorities.* i'm not a fair trade/organic nut but not everyone gets off that easily.

*also about waste -- we "can afford to" waste a shocking amount of food.

There were a spate of stories recently about how cocoa producers are still using child labour:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/24/news/international/chocolate_bittersweet.fortune/index.htm

The bottom line of that story with reference to fair trade is very much this quote: "The farmers don't get the best price. If the cocoa price is good, then kids go to school. No money, and kids work at home."

i wonder how many people there really are who see FT stuff and want to buy/would buy but feel it's beyond their budget

Sorry, that quote is not about fair trade, but it puts fair trade into context. x-post

there are people who can't afford paying more for food than they do, and posh-food-evangelists who ignore this are cockfarmers

We could if stopped eating so much meat

dude you crazy?

Explain?

http://li-la-lo.blogspot.com/2008/01/weekly-food-expenditure-across-globe.html

i wonder how many people there really are who see FT stuff and want to buy/would buy but feel it's beyond their budget

-- blueski, Tuesday, February 26, 2008 3:17 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

yah, think this applies more to organic-ness, and meat, than fair trade coffee (which isn't significantly pricier, really, than regular stuff).

xpost

joeks.

Oh;)

Yes, I don't think Fair Trade stuff is that expensive

Plus I don't have any real interest in eating "organic" food - I mean, what's going to happen if I don't, will I die?

no, it's about how the chickens are treated before the inevitable occurs.

I don't buy meat much anyway. I was thinking more of ripoff organic vegetables

I've been v happy with the products at equalexchange.com -- the Lutheran (incl my parents) church in America has committed a lot of support to this group, including using only their coffee at church events and promoting it for sale to their members & communities. So far it's a huge success.

Their coffee & tea are from farmer co-ops, which seems like even a little stronger protection than a possibly vague "fair trade" label. And the chocolate is made not only w/ fair-trade cocoa beans but also with FT organic sugar from co-ops in Coast Rica AND with milk products from a co-op in the US. I think this is one of the strongest efforts I've seen, and they've got enough major purchasers on board that it seems to be working...?

NB: Besides FT, another important qualification for coffee is "shade-grown", meaning the coffee fields co-exist with rainforest ecology. Nicely done all around.

Also re child labor: I know education is the key and all that, but is anyone rly surprised that farm children have work to do...ON THE FARM? I wd guess that conditions when you work with and for your own family are a lot diff than "child labor" ie sweatshops, indentured child servants, Iqbal Masih, etc etc.

it can be any number of things, whichever is of concern or non-concern to you

my point is merely that to say people cannot afford certain foodstuffs is at best ironic when we have such a heavily meat intensive diet (in common with many western countries). there is a high price for maintaining these kinds of diets

Yesssssss?

I think one of the hardest questions in trade is local v. fair global, i.e. is it more important to spend our dollars in a way that will raise the standard of living (assuming we're buying fair trade) of people in other countries or to buy in a way that supports a local economy, reduces carbon footprint, is more sustainable, etc. Although I guess it'd be pretty hard to have everything you eat come from one source or the other so maybe it's better to do some of both for now.

Yeah but is coffee grown domestically anywhere in the US and/or UK?

Or tea, for that matter, apart from maybe herbals.

Obviously not. And that's the problem -- we want to live ethically but we also want the stuff we want.

Well duh. I can see cutting down on meat or getting veg locally, but is anyone rly going to give up coffee and tea because they have to be shipped in? Right. A reasonably good deed actually carried out is better than the best intentions.

So coffee growing might be an industry that is always with us, but the individuals contributing would ideally be a rotating cast of people learning new techniques and improving their income and family conditions. Possib I am a hopeless idealist.

Yeah, that's just bullshit (the Adam Smith foundation thing)

well, yes, if it wasn't all going to service loans back to the developed world

god the IMF is seriously a global criminal of historic proportions

Well, who do the IMF and World Bank benefit?

It seems like the only two ways to interpret the actions of the IMF are 1) Corporate imperialism by another name or 2) Blind adherence to an ideology that doesn't make sense. Or I guess it could sort of be #2 in the service to #1

With perfect timing The Adam Smith Institute have published their opinion.

...for all its good intentions, Fairtrade is not fair. Firstly, by guaranteeing certified farmers a minimum price for their goods, it can distort local markets leaving other farmers even worse off. Secondly, only about 10 percent of the premium paid by consumers actually makes it to the producer, which makes it an inefficient way of helping the poor. Most importantly, Fairtrade does little to aid economic development, focusing instead on sustaining farmers in their current state. Although helpful to some in the short term, this holds back mechanization, diversification, and moves up the value chain. And by requiring farmers to form co-operatives, Fairtrade rules reduce opportunities for labourers to get full-time, permanent jobs and can foster corruption. The report also details the range of alternatives available to ethical consumers, which may be better options than Fairtrade.

ooops, didn't see what Hurting put...so...er...xpost?

people produce things, pay taxes on their wages/business/etc - that money, which belongs to the people is YOINKED away to service debts that were run up by major corporations - it's not just theft on an international scale, it's theft from the very people who most need the services their tax dollars would have paid for

OT - apparently small-producing meat farmers are f*cked right now because feed costs have become so high

Aha, so fair-trade actually holds back the transition to a morally superior service economy!

This is the bit where we mention EU subsidies right?

The ASI's slavish devotion to the market is a wonder to behold sometimes.

And by requiring farmers to form co-operatives, Fairtrade rules reduce opportunities for labourers to get full-time, permanent jobs and can foster corruption.

lol, waht?

Is it just me, or does that Adam Smith Foundation statement make it seem like mechanization and commercialization are clearly the most natural and desirable goals of any production chain?

Oh good, it's not just me. I are an economics dummy.

Secondly, only about 10 percent of the premium paid by consumers actually makes it to the producer, which makes it an inefficient way of helping the poor.

Well, ok. This might be a point.

Yeah, but if you don't buy fairtrade coffee than 0% actually makes it to the producer.

Well, not exactly 0% but pretty close.

Bretton Woods was a cashcow for the west really

Right, but I guess you could HYPOTHETICALLY just give 100% of the premium you would pay to Heifer International or something.

only about 10 percent of the premium paid by consumers actually makes it to the producer

Yeah, but if you don't buy fairtrade coffee than 0% actually makes it to the producer.

in other words, international peonage

Bretton Woods was a cashcow for the west really

-- laxalt, Tuesday, February 26, 2008 5:01 PM (32 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

maybe we need a "breaking news" thread for "western states will use every weapon in their armoury to their advantage whatever the consequences"-type challenging opinions.

Peonage is the second word I have learnt on ilx this week. Good work ilx!

yes, we're talking about a system of exploitation, not progressive employment

it's like when people are like "well if general motors didn't open a factory in ciudad juarez and pay their employees 25c an hour, the peoples of that place wouldn't have any work at all!!" and general motors is like "yes that's true, 25c is actually substantially larger than the average wage in that area"

Oh for pete's sake, how much of the purchase cost of ANY food item makes it back to the growers??? 10% is probably a lot fucking higher than some commercial-giant strawberries at Zabar's.

Yes sorry for that post! it was actually part of a longer one about a way of creating debt markets which has increasingly been done in the home markets also. I then got called away from my desk and pressed submit by mistake.

Oh for pete's sake, how much of the purchase cost of ANY food item makes it back to the growers???

exactly!

Sorry, I should have specified 10% of the premium. But you get my drift.

ok lol @ something called the Adam Smith Institute pretending to be able to speak with any authority about agrarian econ

Laurel OTM. Complaining that "only 10%" of the premium makes its way to the growers = complaining that fair trade actually works. 10% of a substantial consumer premium in US/UK/Europe = a hell of a lot of $$$ to growers in Africa & South America, esp if sales are good. Much of the ASI peice boils down to bitching about the fact that fair trade actually works. How do mechanization & industrialization not distort the market?

let's just go ahead and put it out there: farms have been around a little bit longer than capitalism

Well yeah. So industrialization "frees up" the worker to get a full-time job that will take up all his working hours per day so someone else in the household has to take full responsibility for any home work or upkeep or personal farming/food production? Or else our oh-so-lucky farmer really has to do TWO jobs. Seems conceivably better for someone's quality of life to use relatively low-tech methods to farm his co-op crops and be able to plow his own fields alongside and be done at the end of the day.

Plus, Fair Trade (or Direct Trade, even better) allows small farmers to actually, you know, OWN their own farms and still make a living. It must be that the Adam Smith Institute hates entrepreneurship.

Is that actually true? that small farmers own the land?

free trade has freed up a lot of Mexican farmers to seek full-time jobs in the United States

Dunno, lax, this is all I can find for Equal Ex: "Equal Exchange currently works with more than 32 small farmer organizations in 18 developing countries. Our trading partners are small farmer cooperatives — businesses owned and governed democratically by the farmers themselves."

Actually on the website you can read about their co-op partners per country. It's a long list, if you're interested. Includes "co-op profiles" and "photo journals". Haven't really investigated yet.

http://www.equalexchange.com/farmer-partners

Free Trade does not guarantee small farmer ownership of land. But it does allow and support this (Direct Trade moreso). It really depends on what the buyers want. That's the one real problem with "free trade" labeling - too many gray areas.

I also wonder if the 10% figure comes from, like, Maxwell House Free Trade Blend rather than something like Equal Exchange.

If it's a matter of 10% of premium goes to farmers and the other 90% is company profit for smacking a fair trade label on the bag, obv that's a little iffy. But it's probably more complicated than that.

fuk we both wrote "free" instead of "fair"

In the UK i think most farmland used to be owned outright, but gradually over time has been mortgaged. I wasn't sure of situation in 3rd world countries, and had imagined that owners of land were also indebted there

safe bet the 90% that doesn't go to farmers goes to the pricey urban overhead where you buy your coffee and the pricey diesel engines that bring your beans from wherever

fuk we both wrote "free" instead of "fair"

ha - language is difficult

I mean, let's say that free trade coffee costs $1.00/pound more than the regular sort. That means the farmer is making, at minimum $0.10/pound more than they ordinarily would. That's a lot of money at the grower's end of a very long international supply chain. How much do you figure they're making per pound in the 1st place?

Yeah, I'd rather order on-line from some co-op with only 20 employees and no-to-little brick & mortar overhead. I don't buy a lot of coffee or specialty blends so I'm not sure of relative prices of beans & etc but I'm sure cutting out the retail outlet and a bunch of other middle steps is putting more than 10% of the premium back in Nicaragua or wherever and it's not that expensive to begin with.

Fucking "free trade" AGAIN! Aarghr.

"free trade" = we have the right to screw you any way we can (i.e. the entertainment industry)
"fair trade" = you're currently screwing us any way you can, please stop (i.e. the automobile industry)

personally i think this is a way for multinationals to try to avoid dealing with unions

but ultimately the real problem for me with FT is -- how much of one multinational's business is FT? what about all their other product lines? if a company is exploiting the fvck out of the people who produce 95% of their goods, and doing a bit better by the other 5%, who fvcking cares?
apparently the international FT association has created a new category of FT approval for an "FT ORGANISATION", which gives certification to an entire company, rather than a product -- i think this is the real way to go (short of actual unions, of course)

where can i buy coffee that is brought to me via bicycle and magnet-powered trains

Moving things via bike.