Fairtrade

[bun-u]

Yeah, that's what I thought, to be designated Fair Trade means that you are paying a high/fair price doesn't it? I thought it applied to companies such as Starbucks not to a supplier. Are you (Vim) using the phrase Fair Trade supplier to apply to a producer that deals with a company that has been designated Fair Trade?

I notice that companies with very bad image problems are sometimes the ones flaunting fair trade goods. Your tea on a Ryanair flight is fair trade - like the fair trade badge on the cuppa will somehow make you feel better about flying with a company fucking over staff and the environment. There was also the recent story about the exploitative working practices (long hours, no breaks) for staff at a M&S sorting depot with fairtrade goods - it wasn't relevant to the fair trade badge because that only related to the practices at the source country

 

[Mr. Tea]

But who is quantifying anything? do you know at the point of purchase how much the farmer is being paid for the product you are buying? No - so your buying into a brand, a notion that something good is being done somewhere, somehow...a similar vague notion to your chances of getting laid will somehow be improved by buying something

I should imagine there's some sort of regulation to the effect that the prices paid to the producers must be higher than the going market rate?

Edit: there actually seems to be a fairly stringent definition of what constitutes 'fair trade' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLO-CERT

 

[Mr. Tea]

Your tea on a Ryanair flight is fair trade - like the fair trade badge on the cuppa will somehow make you feel better about flying with a company fucking over staff and the environment.

Not to mention customers! Fucking Ryanair, grrr bah mumble grumble...

 

[crackerjack]

But who is quantifying anything? do you know at the point of purchase how much the farmer is being paid for the product you are buying? No - so your buying into a brand, a notion that something good is being done somewhere, somehow...a similar vague notion to your chances of getting laid will somehow be improved by buying something

Oh, cobblers. You don't just get to stick the Fair Trade badge on at lesiure - it's earned.

 

[bun-u]

Oh, cobblers. You don't just get to stick the Fair Trade badge on at lesiure - it's earned.

Yes, it's a badge, an accreditation - won and then circumvented and abused. A bit like a the companies I've worked for with the 'Investors in People' quality mark who curiously treat their staff like shit

 

[IdleRich]

"Yep, but then there's no reason for the premium, unless they are paying a premium in excess of the one necessary for higher quality coffee."

Obviously. I was working on the assumption that it was in excess of that.

"Yes, it's a badge, an accreditation - won and then circumvented and abused. A bit like a the companies I've worked for with the 'Investors in People' quality mark who curiously treat their staff like shit"

I'm inclined to agree, those things are just ticking boxes/jumping through hoops whatever. I don't think that you can improve the working life of employees by setting general one-size-fits-all style targets for companies. In fact, in all the shitty jobs I've had with IIP companies the one thing that would have improved everyone's lot is being paid more but somehow that never got mentioned.

 

[crackerjack]

Yes, it's a badge, an accreditation - won and then circumvented and abused. A bit like a the companies I've worked for with the 'Investors in People' quality mark who curiously treat their staff like shit

So it's true because you've got anecdotal evidence relating to something else entirely? That's pretty concrete

 

[bun-u]

So it's true because you've got anecdotal evidence relating to something else entirely? That's pretty concrete

on the contrary, the two things are completely linked - companies will use these symbols to show their practices are non-exploitative when in fact they are anything but

 

[crackerjack]

on the contrary, the two things are completely linked - companies will use these symbols to show their practices are non-exploitative when in fact they are anything but

Oh, please, I understand the theory, but where is your evidence? Without it, this is just bog standard comfort-cynicism from Chomsky page 1.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Yes, 'comfort-cynicism' is right - if you're going to adopt the stance that so-called Fair Trade produce is somehow just as bad as normal stuff (or worse, in fact, because middle-class people buy it in order to feel superior to scummy povvos) then you're free to sit back and relax with your nice cheap coffee and congratulate yourself for having seen through the scam.

Bun-u, can you provide any evidence to back up your claim?

 

[bun-u]

Yes, 'comfort-cynicism' is right - if you're going to adopt the stance that so-called Fair Trade produce is somehow just as bad as normal stuff (or worse, in fact, because middle-class people buy it in order to feel superior to scummy povvos) then you're free to sit back and relax with your nice cheap coffee and congratulate yourself for having seen through the scam.

Bun-u, can you provide any evidence to back up your claim?

Well I already referred to this and this
isn't a bad example of how the accreditation is being used for an image makeover

 

[Mr. Tea]

That second one is an example of a company lying about its products - and I wouldn't put anything past Nestlé, I really wouldn't - but it's not a criticism of the Fair Trade policy per se. It's an example of a firm trying to exploit the idea as a marketing tool; something they may (hopefully) no longer be able to do if the ASA decides they've broken marketing laws. Do you know what happened in that case, by the way?

 

[nomadologist]

I think what Vim is saying is that in most cases there is no discernable difference in the quality of the product? So on an economic level it doesn't make any sense to pay more for it.

If only the fact that there's no "discernable difference" between two given types of commodity had anything to do with their pricing or public perception of the quality of the products. A majority of generic products in the U.S. are manufactured in the same plants as their brand name equivalents, they just have a different logo on the box.

Branding and lifestyle branding have *everything* to do with what people will overpay for a product.

 

[nomadologist]

That second one is an example of a company lying its products - and I wouldn't put anything past Nestlé, I really wouldn't - but it's not a criticism of the Fair Trade policy per se. It's an example of a firm trying to exploit the idea as a marketing tool; something they may (hopefully) no longer be able to do if the ASA decides they've broken marketing laws. Do you know what happened in that case, by the way?

"Fair trade" in the U.K. sounds a lot like the market for "organic" products in the U.S., which are by-and-large lower quality garbage that gets marked up by 300% because the farmers who produce it claim that they don't use pesticides or genetic modification. Of course, the FDA and other regulatory agencies do not actually vouch for the accuracy of these claims, nor do they regulate "organic" products to the same standards as they do regular products, so all sorts of horrible stuff gets passed on at a ridiculous price to people who want to feel like they're being healthy without being sure that all food is produced to high standards of quality at affordable prices.

This has been a big issue in the U.S. for a long time. Is "Fair Trade" new over there?

 

[nomadologist]

Asking for "evidence" to back up Bun-U's claims is sort of odd. What is he supposed to do, furnish the message board with YouTube videos documenting boardroom discussions between execs who are discussing just how far they can push the "ethical" envelope while still stamping "free trade" on something?

Where is the big-picture "evidence" that commodifying "free trade" rather than legislating it will work at all? Could we get some evidence to back up that claim?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Asking for "evidence" to back up Bun-U's claims is sort of odd. What is he supposed to do, furnish the message board with YouTube videos documenting boardroom discussions between execs who are discussing just how far they can push the "ethical" envelope while still stamping "free trade" on something?

Easy: some kind of report, summarising the findings of an investigation, that concludes "Fair Trade companies pay their producers no more, or almost no more, than the regular, exploitative companies". (which is what Mr. U seems to be claiming)

Where is the big-picture "evidence" that commodifying "free trade" rather than legislating it will work at all? Could we get some evidence to back up that claim?

I assume you mean "fair trade"? Well if you ask the companies involved, I'm sure they'll furnish you with plenty of evidence. Seems to me that the onus of proof is on someone claiming that they don't, in fact, do what they claim to do. (And if that is the case, as it seems to be with Nestlé, it is illegal and there are government bodies set up to stop them from doing so.)

 

[Slothrop]

Where is the big-picture "evidence" that commodifying "free trade" rather than legislating it will work at all? Could we get some evidence to back up that claim?

It's kind of tangential to the immediate point, but part of the value of 'ethical consumerism' is that it brings the treatment of the producers to the western consumer's notice at all. Although fair trade may not be the solution, buying into fair trade at least means accepting that there is a problem.

I've never really bought the argument that lots of people buy fair trade bananas and think they're 'doing their bit' and that all is well and right with the world - or rather, it's probably true, but not many upper middle class mums would have been revolutionary marxists if they hadn't been seduced by fair trade bananas. Whereas some people who are into ethical consumerism may listen if you tell them that ethical consumerism isn't enough and another solution is needed.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I've never really bought the argument that lots of people buy fair trade bananas and think they're 'doing their bit' and that all is well and right with the world

Yeah, you'd have to be pretty stupid to think it was going to solve everyone's woes (or even just the third world's woes) overnight, but it's still better to do *something* than to do absolutely nothing. And as you say, buying Fair Trade stuff could help bring to people's attention the wider issues and problems.

or rather, it's probably true, but not many upper middle class mums would have been revolutionary marxists if they hadn't been seduced by fair trade bananas.

You certainly don't have to be "upper middle class" to afford this stuff - I mean, it's not like they cost ten times as much as any other bananas, is it? Not to mention the fact that there are all sorts of expensive luxury goods (Nike shoes, anyone?) that are produced in conditions just as exploitative as the cheap stuff.

 

[Gavin]

As far as putting "ethical labels" on exploitatively produced commodities, see "conflict-free" diamonds. It's a way to make sure that all diamonds flow through client government channels (and particularly Israel), not to groups opposed to Western interests. It's the same cartels holding a tighter reign on their product. Even the poor regulatory agencies have found millions of dollars of "blood diamonds" in the "legitimate" market.

I think it is interesting the anxiety that centuries of alienation from labor has produced... not just ethical labels, but TV shows about production, making-of docs, etc... the mode of production getting spectacle-ized, ... you see why people with leftist sympathies are wary of this.

 

[noel emits]

It's kind of tangential to the immediate point, but part of the value of 'ethical consumerism' is that it brings the treatment of the producers to the western consumer's notice at all. Although fair trade may not be the solution, buying into fair trade at least means accepting that there is a problem.

Also if you are going to buy stuff anyway then you can at least 'send the market a message' about how you would prefer the food to be sourced. It doesn't mean that you think it solves all problems or that you are even necessarily really getting what it says on the label but I think it's better than doing nothing.