there seems to be so much misinformation from all parties out there, including from oxfam.

i am as frustrated as siel was (?is?)about not being able to get enough information from either side.

while i work for SB, i have a head to think & reason with – so don’t think i haven’t done as much due diligence as all sides have allowed me…so here are some additional thoughts:

-i don’t believe starbucks, or any corporation has the right to dictate governmental laws in any country – but especially not in ones across the globe.

-i don’t believe that starbucks stood in the way of the trademarking. they have not filed any oppositions to the trademarking.
there’s no evidence or even an overheard story of how they ‘used their might’ to make the offices say no – i’d even accept someone who read a memo, heard it in the washroom, had a vision or dream about it – but there’s nothing anywhere to support that.

-i don’t believe that oxfam has any idea of how much money the farmers are potentially losing from the lack of trademarking and don’t understand where they pull their numbers from – there has been no explanation of monetary breakdowns to support their claims or even to show how it could be generated. it seems it may just be a number they came up with.

-the bubbly wines from france, and blue coffees from jamica have all been geographically certified, not trademarked and have been able to benefit financially – so without understanding fully what trademarking would do – it would make sense to do the geographical stamps first.
i don’t believe that only one classification can exist, so if the stamping doesn’t work they can always trademark later.

and finally – since one coffee has already been trademarked, i think the best answer to all of this ismuddled confusion may be to wait and see what happens with the farmers and bean prices from yergacheffe.
see if it does any good and makes them more money.
there are two growing seasons a year, so we could potentially see the results within 6 months.

on an end note: i like this company that i work for. i am informed and take the time to look into things. i’d recommend it for some of the people here – hating starbucks is fine. but be informed of what and why you’re hating.
the buying practices established over the last 35 years have helped to improve people’s lives, farmer’s lives.
i know about the lack of transparency clauses.
i also know about a lot of the work outside of buying beans that starbucks does in countries of origin. there are many hospitals and schools that wouldn’t be out there today without starbucks.

i also know that starbucks has set the stage for greatness to come. it holds the industry accountable, and is making it possible for people everywhere to get non-starbucks gourmet coffees, simply by being itself.

Lageb A — I hear you with your concern that writing about ER’s arguments might only bolster ER. That said, I have to say ER has a lot of readers — and just on that perspective, I feel it’s important to let others know that there are other perspectives out there. Sometimes, ignoring arguments that are — ok, outlandish — but widely reported only leads less-informed people into thinking they are true.

Declan — The trademarks depend on the country. In the US, the phrase “fair trade certified” is trademarked by the nonprofit TFUSA. In the UK, I believe the Fair Trade Federation has trademarked “Fairtrade.” I’m less sure about what trademarks have been approved by other countries.

Unlike some of you, I’d have been surprised if I read some opositive developments about eth.on that website. For instance, the website had posted a call to oppose any help for eth. from donors with the delusion that it paralyses the gov’t.How can one shut the mouth of millions of aid -dependent ethiopians for self political gain?
Ethiopian review has an “anti” prefix invisible to its readers.