Comments on: Top 3 changes: Dean of Dean’s Beans http://greenlagirl.com/top-3-changes-dean-of-deans-beans/ Urban environmental lifestyle blog in Los Angeles Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:11:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Siel http://greenlagirl.com/top-3-changes-dean-of-deans-beans/comment-page-1/#comment-14125 Siel Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:39:40 +0000 http://greenlagirl.com/2006/09/23/top-3-changes-dean-of-deans-beans/#comment-14125 Well -- At the USFT meeting, Jean -- who was speaking on behalf of TFUSA at the convergence -- pointed to the difficulty of getting big corps (who arguably could make the biggest quantifiable difference, economically) in the fair trade certification system at all, if the "statement of intent"s weren't kept confidential. Of course, one can disagree with that for various reasons -- But that's one of the objections to point #2 put forth by TFUSA. The objection to point #3, at least to me, seems mroe legitimate. Namely -- What about the companies that're, say, choosing to work with estates that're clearly providing fair wages and benefits to its employees? What about companies that're working with indiv. farmers that're not part of a co-op, for whatever reason? These companies would get a non-100% FT seal, which might make them look like they're at the Starbucks / Nestle level, when they're clearly not. In that case, it becomes a lil more difficult for me. While we can argue that the FT label denotes support co-ops, it's clear that many, many people don't necessarily associate fair trade with co-ops -- they associate it with fair labor practices. And with that latter interpretation in mind, it's difficult to argue that non-co-op coffee produced via fair labor practices shouldn't get the benefits of the fair trade seal. At least, that's how I see it, right now. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise -- Well — At the USFT meeting, Jean — who was speaking on behalf of TFUSA at the convergence — pointed to the difficulty of getting big corps (who arguably could make the biggest quantifiable difference, economically) in the fair trade certification system at all, if the “statement of intent”s weren’t kept confidential.

Of course, one can disagree with that for various reasons — But that’s one of the objections to point #2 put forth by TFUSA.

The objection to point #3, at least to me, seems mroe legitimate. Namely — What about the companies that’re, say, choosing to work with estates that’re clearly providing fair wages and benefits to its employees? What about companies that’re working with indiv. farmers that’re not part of a co-op, for whatever reason? These companies would get a non-100% FT seal, which might make them look like they’re at the Starbucks / Nestle level, when they’re clearly not.

In that case, it becomes a lil more difficult for me. While we can argue that the FT label denotes support co-ops, it’s clear that many, many people don’t necessarily associate fair trade with co-ops — they associate it with fair labor practices. And with that latter interpretation in mind, it’s difficult to argue that non-co-op coffee produced via fair labor practices shouldn’t get the benefits of the fair trade seal.

At least, that’s how I see it, right now. I’m willing to be convinced otherwise –

]]> By: Jerry at The Change http://greenlagirl.com/top-3-changes-dean-of-deans-beans/comment-page-1/#comment-14068 Jerry at The Change Wed, 27 Sep 2006 15:27:02 +0000 http://greenlagirl.com/2006/09/23/top-3-changes-dean-of-deans-beans/#comment-14068 I really agree with Dean's comments. #'s 2 and 3 in particular would make a significant change in solidying FT as an economic movement as opposed to just a selling point. And I cannot think of any earnest objection to putting them in place. I really agree with Dean’s comments. #’s 2 and 3 in particular would make a significant change in solidying FT as an economic movement as opposed to just a selling point. And I cannot think of any earnest objection to putting them in place.

]]>