Accusations of Fair Trade Lite
Posted by Siel in caffeine, fairtrade (July 2, 2008 at 9:49 pm), on http://greenlagirl.com
If you’re like most Americans, you have just a vague idea of what fair trade means (i.e. something “good”). Try to find out any more, and you’ll be bombarded with all sortsa crazy info, from how fair trade isn’t really fair to how some companies are going over and above than fair trade to how Starbucks is the fairest of them all to how big corps are fucking up fair trade.
You can catch up on those debates here (my take is that fair trade certification is an imperfect solution — as all “solutions” are — yet the biggest part of the current solution available) — but for those more familiar with the debates, here’s something ’bout the current debates of “fair trade lite” — and conversely, “fairer than fair trade” — debate.
The basic argument goes thusly: Fair trade certification’s watered down, so you need to look beyond the label and support the REALLY fair trade companies. That’s the idea behind Andrew Purvis’ post in Word of Mouth, The Observer’s food blog, about a fair trade UK company called Cafedirect.
On the whole, Andrew says lotsa good things about fair trade — about how it’s not just about a baseline price, but about empowerment of people. Andrew’s post came after he visited Uganda, to write a longish article about fair trade is changing people’s lives there.
Where Andrew loses me is when he basically says Cafedirect rocks and everyone else using the fair trade label sucks. “The Fairtrade mark look like a rather pitiful base standard,” he opines, and says “whenever you see the Fairtrade mark on a packet of coffee in Tesco or Sainsbury’s, remind yourself that it is ‘Fairtrade Lite’ - a pale version of what Cafédirect is doing.”
But while Cafédirect’s doing some good stuff, Andrew seems blithely unaware of the work of other fair trade companies. He points out that Cafédirect pays 10% above the world market price or the Fairtrade minimum price, whichever is higher — without noting that many other coffee companies — including Equal Exchange and all of Cooperative Coffees — are doing the same.
Furthermore, Andrew — even while pointing out the fact that minimum fair trade prices for coffee are going up — fails to note that the REASON these prices are going up is due to the work of both fair trade producers and companies working WITHIN the fair trade system. Cafedirect, after all, has opted to keep the fair trade label — which implies that the company’s willing to work from within the system to shape what fair trade is.
In the US, diehard fair trade company Dean’s Beans recently went back to getting fair trade certified — after taking a few years’ hiatus accusing the standards of getting too watered down. Why? Part of the reason is that the producers wanted Dean’s Bean to get recertified. “Universally, the farmers asked me to rejoin,” Dean said, “because they said they need strong voices that understand them inside TransFair to make TransFair an organization that understands farmers.” Andrew might do well to ask the farmers who produce the coffee for Cafedirect why they choose — and pay for — fair trade certification, despite his contention that the label’s practically meaningless.
That’s not to say fair trade certification is perfect. My point is that a critique of fair trade certification need to consider and elucidate the reasons as to which many “fairer than fair trade” producers and companies decide to stay within the system.
I also think that a critique that champions one company so strongly above all other companies usually requires a very myopic viewpoint.
There are more legitimate arguments about fair trade lite, of course — a debate less about promoting a single company than about looking at the bigger picture that corporations play in the definition of fair trade as a whole. More about that later.
If you’re like most Americans, you have just a vague idea of what fair trade means (i.e. something “good”). Try to find out any more, and you’ll be bombarded with all sortsa crazy info, from how fair trade isn’t really fair to how some companies are going over and above than fair trade to how Starbucks is the fairest of them all to how big corps are fucking up fair trade.
You can catch up on those debates here (my take is that fair trade certification is an imperfect solution — as all “solutions” are — yet the biggest part of the current solution available) — but for those more familiar with the debates, here’s something ’bout the current debates of “fair trade lite” — and conversely, “fairer than fair trade” — debate.
The basic argument goes thusly: Fair trade certification’s watered down, so you need to look beyond the label and support the REALLY fair trade companies. That’s the idea behind Andrew Purvis’ post in Word of Mouth, The Observer’s food blog, about a fair trade UK company called Cafedirect.
On the whole, Andrew says lotsa good things about fair trade — about how it’s not just about a baseline price, but about empowerment of people. Andrew’s post came after he visited Uganda, to write a longish article about fair trade is changing people’s lives there.
Where Andrew loses me is when he basically says Cafedirect rocks and everyone else using the fair trade label sucks. “The Fairtrade mark look like a rather pitiful base standard,” he opines, and says “whenever you see the Fairtrade mark on a packet of coffee in Tesco or Sainsbury’s, remind yourself that it is ‘Fairtrade Lite’ - a pale version of what Cafédirect is doing.”
But while Cafédirect’s doing some good stuff, Andrew seems blithely unaware of the work of other fair trade companies. He points out that Cafédirect pays 10% above the world market price or the Fairtrade minimum price, whichever is higher — without noting that many other coffee companies — including Equal Exchange and all of Cooperative Coffees — are doing the same.
Furthermore, Andrew — even while pointing out the fact that minimum fair trade prices for coffee are going up — fails to note that the REASON these prices are going up is due to the work of both fair trade producers and companies working WITHIN the fair trade system. Cafedirect, after all, has opted to keep the fair trade label — which implies that the company’s willing to work from within the system to shape what fair trade is.
In the US, diehard fair trade company Dean’s Beans recently went back to getting fair trade certified — after taking a few years’ hiatus accusing the standards of getting too watered down. Why? Part of the reason is that the producers wanted Dean’s Bean to get recertified. “Universally, the farmers asked me to rejoin,” Dean said, “because they said they need strong voices that understand them inside TransFair to make TransFair an organization that understands farmers.” Andrew might do well to ask the farmers who produce the coffee for Cafedirect why they choose — and pay for — fair trade certification, despite his contention that the label’s practically meaningless.
That’s not to say fair trade certification is perfect. My point is that a critique of fair trade certification need to consider and elucidate the reasons as to which many “fairer than fair trade” producers and companies decide to stay within the system.
I also think that a critique that champions one company so strongly above all other companies usually requires a very myopic viewpoint.
There are more legitimate arguments about fair trade lite, of course — a debate less about promoting a single company than about looking at the bigger picture that corporations play in the definition of fair trade as a whole. More about that later.
Add a Comment
© 2009 Created by Maarten on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
You need to be a member of MyPICO to add comments!
Join this Ning Network