Fair Trade 15/3/08 We are reputed to sell more fair trade products than any shop in Witney. WE CURRENTLY HAVE BETWEEN 30 AND 40 that display the "Fair Trade Logo. But! The Health Food Industry has always been caring and ethical, many companies whose products we sell have been ethically trading for years although their products may not show the Fair Trade Logo. One of our suppliers, a co-operative wholesaler recently had a statement on the front page of their catalogue saying: "You will not find us climbing on the ethical bandwagon, we have been driving it for thirty years". Yes, fair (ethical)trade is a way of life for a lot of people in the Health Food Industry. But there are alternative points of view, here's a controversial one by:
Marc Sidwell of the Adam Smith Institute
Fairtrade Fortnight is a marketing exercise intended to maintain the Fairtrade mark’s predominance in an increasingly competitive marketplace for ethically branded products. The hype is necessary, because there is every reason for the shrewd consumer to make other choices.
• Fair trade is unfair. It offers only a very small number of farmers a higher, fixed price for their goods. These higher prices come at the expense of the great majority of farmers, who – unable to qualify for Fairtrade certification – are left even worse off.
• Most of the farmers helped by Fairtrade are in Mexico, a relatively developed country, and not in places like Ethiopia.
• Fair trade does not aid economic development. It operates to keep the poor in their place, sustaining uncompetitive farmers on their land and holding back diversification, mechanization, and moves up the valuechain. This denies future generations the chance of a better life.
• Fair trade only helps landowners, not the agricultural labourers who suffer the severest poverty. Indeed, Fairtrade rules deny labourers the opportunity of permanent, full-time employment.
• Four-fifths of the produce sold by Fairtrade-certified farmers ends up in non-Fairtrade goods. At the same time, it is possible that many goods sold as Fairtrade might not actually be Fairtrade at all.
• Just 10% of the premium consumers pay for Fairtrade actually goes to the producer. Retailers pocket the rest.
• The consumer now has a wide variety of ethical alternatives to Fairtrade, many of which represent more effective ways to fight poverty, increase the poor’s standard of living and aid economic development.
• Fairtrade arose from the coffee crisis of the 1990s. This was not a free market failure. Governments tried to rig the market through the International Coffee Agreement and subsidized over-plantation with the encouragement of well-meaning but misguided aid agencies. The crash in prices was the inevitable result of this government intervention, but coffee prices have largely recovered since then.
• Free trade is the most effective poverty reduction strategy the world has ever seen. If we really want to aid international development we should abolish barriers to trade in the rich world, and persuade the developing world to do the same. The evidence is clear: fair trade is unfair, but free trade makes you rich. Here is another point of view
Here is an opinion by Just two weeks ago we reported on a new ethical business initiative called SEE, which has already recruited a number of organic companies including Pukka Herbs, Graig Farm, Greenfibres, The Better Food Company and Vintage Roots. This week we hear about Ethical Consumer's new Best Buy Label scheme which has also signed up a clutch of companies well known to Natural Products readers (Equal Exchange, Faith In Nature and Mooncup among them). Both schemes have some compelling USPs. SEE breaks new ground by being the only scheme that accredits companies, not individual products, across a broad range of social, environmental and ethical (SEE) issues. Ethical Consumer's Best Buy Label take into consideration the not-so-ethical activities of big corporations so that it can deal with the growing problem of corporate greenwash. Without actually saying it, both these new schemes seem to be partly rooted in a dissatisfaction with the perceived shortcomings of existing ethical initiatives. In reality though, it's unlikely that any one single scheme is going to tick every box. The most skillfully framed fair trade scheme may have environmental shortcomings, or be over-bureaucratic. A particular organic standard might fall short on local sourcing, or animal welfare issues. And in the end 'personal ethics' are always going to be just that, personal. Different schemes will inevitably appeal to different people. But there's also a danger that the growing proliferation of ethical marks and labels might end up adding to the real sense of bewilderment some shoppers say they now feel whenever they pick up a product. As Harriet Lamb, director of the Fairtrade Foundation, told NP last year: "We want a happy shopper, not an anxious shopper who feels guilty, confused and overwhelmed". Create too much shopping anxiety, she says, and you run the risk that people will give up and go back to buying the big brands. |