Comments on: Does fair trade certification matter? Rink says no.

By: Danielle

Danielle — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 02:25:45 +0000

Fair trade like trade in general is complicated. Nothing is black and white, what I think Rink is afraid of is as people realize the flaws in Fair Trade it will undermine the label. Starbucks as previously noted has 1 blend of coffee that is Fair Trade a mere 3% of it’s production. With the current standards being watered down and not as high as companies who go above and beyond requirements such as Equal Exchange, Global Exchange, Deans Beans, etc. it creates customer confusion. The label is easy to look at for a customer and for them to be able to associate social justice with it, which I view as a good thing. Equal Exchange being the first fair trade company in the United States, they seem to be the mosquito on the back of people like starbucks, if no one keeps Trans Fair now Fair Trade USA in check then the label will continue to be watered down. Those who participate in it should have a say in the way that it is used since consumers relate the label to the companies that use it. We need to be constantly critical of our trade system and for it to truly be an alternative we need smart consumers, we need to show people that as our world continues to be more unjust, as we continue to disrespect our planet and become overly materialistic, people are all on this earth together and we are all connected. We should understand the implications of our actions and should encourage people not to be lazy. Brand means a lot, if Fair Trade starts to get a bad rap it could potentially kill the movement, which has the potential and still does to create a lot of good and create alternative trade relations that are respectful of human rights and engage in trade that is fair for the consumers and producers and all those along the supply chain.

By: Rodney North

Rodney North — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:59:19 +0000

Justin Purser, of Trade Aid in NZ, and others might like to know that in the U.S. Fair Trade Certified cocoa products like cocoa mix and chocolate bars have never required the use of Fair Trade sugar. This is despite the fact that in products like hot cocoa mix sugar makes up about 60% or more of the product by weight.

Maybe sometime Siel can do some postings on Fair Trade sugar as its SUCH a complicated story, full of trade barriers, subsidies, cold war politics and much more. Also, unlike coffee or cocoa the US produces 85% of the sugar it consumes, but that’s in part dependent upon the afore-mentioned trade barriers. It’s a case where FREE trade might actually be more FAIR, too, but I’m still learning, so look into it yourself.

Also, the FT sugar scene offers an interesting twist as the current FT leader is also the nation’s largest sugar corporation, Imperial Sugar, aka parent co. of Wholesome Sweetners, who have converted almost all their organic sugar to FT organic sugar.

For the record at Equal Exchange we’ve always used FT organic sugar in our cocoa mix, chocolates, and sell it separately, too.

By: tim

tim — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:47:16 +0000

Siel,

Yes, it comes across as a disincentive when TF does this kind of thing. We can express our feelings to TF until we are blue in the face and our argument is quickly marginalized as “elitist” or “entrenched” Many of my peers have simply given up and accepted the new arrangement.

Interestingly, when we write a contract with a cooperative many times we can choose if the lot will be fair trade certified or not. The price paid to the cooperative doesn’t change, but if we select a FT option the person who handles our importing has to pay a fee to transfair, then we pay a fee to transfair.

Some of the roasters under the new fee structre have opted to seperate their lots and buy the coffees that will end up in non-FT blends without a fair trade contract. The co-op actually nets more money because in addition to the price the roasters agree to pay the cooperative the .10 premium they used to pay transfair. If the importer agrees to do the same thing then the co-op can add .05-.10 more to the selling price of the coffee. The net effect is a larger sum paid to the cooperative. Rather than send the dimes to oakland they would rather put it in the hands of the farmers. In a sense it is an act of protest.

Sadly, Transfair isn’t putting much stock in what many of the smaller outfits want. Can you blame them? Afterall, SBUX is the single largest buyer of FT coffee followed by GMCR and Equal Exchange. When 3 outfits account for just past 50% of the annual FT purchases it isn’t hard to see who has the ear of Paul Rice.

By: Siel

Siel — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 23:26:28 +0000

Hey Tim — I was recently talking about this issue with a roaster in North Hollywood called Supreme Bean. They have the deal that your company chose not to sign — and as you can imagine, are not too happy about it — especially since organic certification (which they strongly support) doesn’t work that way.

As I don’t run a coffee company, I can’t crunch numbers for this — but it does certainly seem like a less-than-ideal deal for companies that have made the choice (for various reasons) not to get 100% of their coffee fair trade certified.

I really don’t like the fact that this sort of policy can provide a disincentive for coffee roasters to use fair trade coffees as components of their coffee blends.

What bothers me most — and what interests me about your post — is the seeming opacity of TFUSA in this process — i.e. not soliciting the opinions of current licensees before announcing the change, and also not letting current licensees know clearly that they could stick to their original contracts…

This opacity clearly needs to change, and I do hope that companies like yours will speak up and push and prod TFUSA in a better direction –

By: Tim

Tim — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 07:51:36 +0000

Sorry, I put my email in the website section. It is corrected in this post for the sake of transparency…