Fairtrade man

33 Responses to “Fairtrade man”

1. joe says:
   

   Well I think it is plain stupid and he deserves to make himself ill.

   Presumably he could get carbohydrates from a Co-op fairtrade chocolate cake….

   February 22nd, 2007 at 9:21 am
2. Karin says:
   

   There is pasta from Traidcraft with FT quinoa (sp?) – S American cereal.

   February 22nd, 2007 at 9:30 am
3. jody says:
   

   for those doing LLLL (LoveLifeLiveLent) apparently I have to have a meat free day today, I wonder what the veggies do?

   x Jody

   February 22nd, 2007 at 9:39 am
4. joe says:
   

   Is that fairtrade marked, though, Karin. I don’t think it is…

   February 22nd, 2007 at 9:50 am
5. Chris Clark says:
   

   I have a problem with fairtrade as those in the next farm who are not in the scheme are worse off…very unfair. I know you can argue that you need to make a difference where you can but the real problem in my view is unfair subsidies from the EU and US and open and covert barriers to producing countries trading fairly.

   Sorry to be an extemist on this one!

   February 22nd, 2007 at 10:21 am
6. joe says:
   

   I’m not sure that is really true. Why are those who are not in the scheme any worse off?

   Yes, we need to change the trade rules, but then fairtrade undoubtedly makes a difference to those involved.

   February 22nd, 2007 at 10:32 am
7. John says:
   

   Hmm. Fair trade is a Good Thing, I believe. But it’s just as good to eat locally sourced food, especially if you can buy direct from suppliers at farmers’ markets and similar events, and it’s much better for the environment. But, as a publicity stunt rather than a way of life, I can’t really fault it!

   pax et bonum

   February 22nd, 2007 at 10:54 am
8. Fairtrade Man says:
   

   Stumbled across this – cheers for the mention

   In response – it is absolutely about tackling unfair trade rules alongside buying Fairtrade, and hopefully i’ll be able to highlight ways of doing this throughout the fortnight.

   And local produce is of course great – keep buying that, but for products that are sourced overseas – buy Fairtrade

   Anyone fancy joining me for a day?

   February 22nd, 2007 at 11:11 am
9. MadPriest says:
   

   Founder of Traidcraft and a member of the council with the final say at Traidcraft is none other than Chris Sugden of Anglican Mainstream. I’ve always thought that because of the support Traidcraft get from liberal churches and town councils that this is ironic. Chris thinks we should not relate his religious views to his ethical views – if only he had the same conviction about the relationship of other people’s religious and ethical views.

   February 22nd, 2007 at 12:52 pm
10. jody says:
    

    is that serious? not relate religious views to ethical views? i think my brain just seized…

    February 22nd, 2007 at 1:47 pm
11. jody says:
    

    Quote from ‘committment for life’ website;

    “As Jesus met different groups of people, he sought the ‘frontier’ of the good news of the Kingdom with their situation. For each group of people, we could imagine Jesus asking, ‘If the Kingdom of God came tomorrow morning, what would change most significantly for them?’ Seeking justice through trade is a frontier of the Kingdom with the current economic order. Working for justice through trade demonstrates what the Kingdom looks like when it encounters the injustice of the world economic trading systems.” Revd Dr Chris Sugden, Traidcraft.

    Phew doctrine and ethics do belong together after all!

    February 22nd, 2007 at 1:55 pm
12. Sarah B says:
    

    I would have thought bananas would keep him going for a long time. In fact I think the lack of SPICES would be the most difficult for me. What about salt and pepper? eggs? milk?

    If he has a Co-op nearby he’ll be a lot better off as they do LOADS of stuff.

    I am popping across to his website… thank you infomative Archbishop Dave.

    February 22nd, 2007 at 2:37 pm
13. Sarah B says:
    

    apparently he DOES hav spices… my mistake. Still no milk or butter though!

    February 22nd, 2007 at 2:47 pm
14. Chris Clark says:
    

    Why Fair trade may not be.

    Some arguments form a scientist dabbling in economics!

    Macro Economics

    We live in a Market economy. I tend to the view that the market is morally neutral and that it is those that use it for exploitation who are morally deficient. I am willing to be persuaded on this.

    However de facto the whole aim of WTO discussions is to remove subsidies and import tariffs that prevent the market from working. Fair-trade is a subsidy in reverse it is a palliative not a cure, done for the best possible intentions but it is actually supporting a broken system. We either need to let the market work or come to a considered system of appropriate subsidies. Fair trade probably increases the time before these issues are really sorted.

    Micro Economics

    If there are two farms adjacent to one another lets call them FT and NFT. FT is better off. Both farms go to an auction where a really good pruning hook is on offer. FT can out-bid NFT he gets more productive. NFT is further disadvantaged. You could just simply say that increased money supply causes inflation which hits the poorest hardest

    Moral Issues

    Who decides who gets a FT deal and who doesn’t is at least on one level arbitrary and hence unfair and morally dubious

    Weaknesses in my arguments.

    These are theoretical considerations I have no hard proof that this happens. However the FT lobby generally doesn’t seem to go out to see the impact on NFT it only looks for the good results to FT. I have never seen an analysis on the impact on NFT.

    This is not an excuse for inactivity but changing the subsidies and import tariffs is the priority. Write to your MP and MEP now!

    February 22nd, 2007 at 3:52 pm
15. Karin says:
    

    Let me recommend you read 50 Reasons to Buy Fairtrade
    http://www.plutobooks.com/cgi-local/nplutobrows.pl?chkisbn=9780745325842&main=

    Joe, don’t all Traidcraft products carry the FT logo?

    February 22nd, 2007 at 6:55 pm
16. John Cooper says:
    

    Two wee things
    1) Fairtrade could and should work for farmers around the world. It is about ensuring a good price for farmers and is based on principles of selling and purchasing which also hit farmers in the UK etc (see Milk subsidies)
    2) All products that are Fairtrade (recognised by The Fairtrade Foundation) carry the Fairtrade mark, other products sometimes write a version of fairtrade but it isn’t fairtrade (as we recognise it) unless it has the mark. It is like purchasing organic goods -the soil association mark is the authentication mark but items often write organic on them anyway.

    So check out what you put in your basked and think before you purchase

    *climbs down from ethical high horse*

    Regards
    John

    February 22nd, 2007 at 9:06 pm
17. Dave says:
    

    Welcome Fairtrade man. I think it is a good thing you are doing.

    John – I’m not sure that we think subsidies are a good thing. I can’t remember what we think in fact. Someone – remind me what we think.

    Also the bit about the mark. The mark is good, but there are Fair Trade products which don’t carry the mark for different reasons. So not carrying the mark does not mean it is bad. It just might not be good.

    Local things are good, mark or no mark.

    February 22nd, 2007 at 9:28 pm
18. Karin says:
    

    You do have to beware of fakes, but as Dave says, there are some genuinely fairly-traded products that can’t afford to have the mark on the packet. There are also some partially fairly-traded products that do carry the mark, like M&S clothing, which last time I heard it mentioned may have been made from Fairtrade cotton, but may not have been cut and sewn etc in Fairtrade conditions.

    Buying local when available and buying fairtrade if pos when it has to come from developing countries, or is important to the economy of struggling nations, seems a good rule of thumb to me.

    February 22nd, 2007 at 9:34 pm
19. Jack the Lass says:
    

    There’s also the issue of the multinational corporation that’s well-known for being embroiled in controversy about promoting baby milk powder in developing countries and which is the subject of a large international boycott of its products which recently got a FairTrade mark on one of its products. So although, by and large, I think the FT mark is a good thing, it’s not as simple as FT mark = ethical company.

    February 23rd, 2007 at 9:04 am
20. Jack the Lass says:
    

    Sorry, last sentence should read “… it’s not necessarily as simple …”

    February 23rd, 2007 at 9:05 am
21. joe says:
    

    Suggesting that Traidcraft is somehow not fairtrade – even though they were doing it long before the mark came along – because they don’t have the mark on all their products is laughable.

    The FT Foundation does not have the monopoly on the term ‘Fairtrade’. It was set up by four charities after more than 20 years of campaign work by radicals.

    Given that some of the companies graced with the fairtrade mark are not worthy to sit at the feet of those old ladies in church halls, I think a touch more grace is required from those who administer the mark.

    February 23rd, 2007 at 9:08 am
22. joe says:
    

    PS – there is also misinformation about the Soil Association mark.

    In brief, the government sets a standard that all foods must meet to be described as ‘organic’. There are several ‘sector bodies’ who have standards above the legal minimum, of which the Soil Association is the biggest.

    It is simply incorrect to suggest that organic goods without the Soil Association mark are not organic.

    February 23rd, 2007 at 9:11 am
23. John Cooper says:
    

    Deary me, maybe i haven’t expressed myself clearly

    i) Subsidies for milk are bad – are I was trying to point out that exploitation of farmers is not just a “third world” issue

    ii) There was an issue raised earlier about Fairtrade marking and so I was saying it is used like the Soil Association mark – it is a recognised symbol which has certain criteria in order to gain said accreditiation – that is not to say other products do not carry the words/other marks but if your going for simplicity then always check for the relevant mark.

    This second point is not to point about any form of misinformation or slander against other companies but to say that the “recognised” fair trade outside (rather than internal) accreditation is done that way.

    For those wondering why the need for the mild cycnisism then look up “Greenwashing” on the internet and you’ll see what little language based tricks etc (mainly) multi-nationals get upto to convice us we’re bying one product with certain standards….

    REgards
    John

    February 23rd, 2007 at 12:15 pm
24. joe says:
    

    With reference to the Fairtrade mark, you have a point, albeit not a very good one – as there are no current alternative marks, so it comes down to whose credentials you trust. As others have said, there are plenty of ethical products that do not have the mark (and if you like I can explain to you some of the reasons), and there are complaints about some of the products that do have the mark.

    With reference to the Soil Association mark, you are completely wrong. There are no food goods which are labelled organic which are not organic. Whether you buy Soil Association marked, Organic Farmers and Growers, Biodynamic Agriculture mark is personal preference. If it says it is organic, it must be organic and must meet the minimum standard set by law. In actual fact, the Soil Association mark is not even the most stringent.

    February 23rd, 2007 at 1:09 pm
25. Clare says:
    

    Gosh, lots of interesting comments. I shall attempt to add to them.

    The Fairtrade Mark can be used on products where the main ingredients(s) meet set Fairtrade Standards. These Standards are set by the independent Fairtrade Labelling Organisation (FLO) and monitored by FLO-Cert. There are therefore only a certain number of ingredients for which Standards exist. The early ones were tea, coffee, cocoa – products where, thanks to unfair trade rules, farmers were forced to sell their crop at less than it cost them to produce it. Standards for other products have now been developed.

    However there are also companies that have been trading fairly with producers – including buying and selling products for which there currently exists no indpendently set and verified Fairtrade Standard. Hence Traidcraft can say all its products are fairtrade and where a product can be certified (ie where there is a Standard) they apply for certificaiton and use the Mark.

    Re, the M&S clothing – there is a Fairtrade Standard for Cotton (due to the plight of poor cotton farmer) but, to date, there is no set standard for Fairtrade garment making.

    As for NFT farmers, yup, they’re often suffering even more than the FT ones. That’s what happens with unfair trade rules. Does it mean we should leave all farmers to suffer until the rules can be changed? The use of the Fairtrade Mark on products with the associated promotion of the issues, I think, really made a difference to raising people’s awareness of the complex issues, which means they can now can campaing for change which will help all farmer not just the FT ones.

    (Oh, and most FT farmers actually still sell the majority of their crop on the conventional market)

    Phew, I’ll shut up now shall I!

    February 23rd, 2007 at 1:21 pm
26. joe says:
    

    Thanks Claire.

    A chief bod said to me in a meeting that the FT Foundation had ‘no plans’ to certify clothing factories to a fairtrade standard as they have only ever certified raw materials.

    The process you have to go through to use fairtrade cotton is complicated – each factory needs to be registered and needs to prove certain things – mainly it seems about security of the raw material. If you are using fairtrade cotton, you have to be able to show what happened to it. There is also a minimum labour standard – which is the same as you would have for any product in any highstreet shop. This costs a considerable amount, so in practice only the biggest brands can afford it.

    The end result is that large brands can buy up a lot of the fairtrade cotton and export it to whichever factory they wish to use. The factory workers are probably treated no better – and hopefully no worse – making a fairtrade product than making any other product in a clothing shop. Most people do not appreciate this.

    I have also met an respected international factory inspector who was telling me that factories making another fairtrade product were dire. Again, this is because one part of the process was ‘fairtrade’ whereas another was not.

    The whole soggy mess is enough to curdle anyone’s brains.

    February 23rd, 2007 at 2:14 pm
27. mark says:
    

    This started off as an item about someone trying to do something good and has turned into a legalistic argument about just how good it actually is. Where have I seen something like this before. Go for it, Fair Trade Man

    February 25th, 2007 at 7:11 am
28. Clare says:
    

    Joe, oh trust me, I know about the complexities of FT cotton and the supply chain! But unless they’ve changed the standards for traders recently, things like membership of IFAT (the International Fair Trade Association) can also be used to demonstrate the labour standards in the supply chain so use of FT cotton is not just restricted to high street retailers that have an expensive code+audit model of monitoring working conditions.

    But as Mark pointed out we’re in danger of derailing Dave’s blog comments with detail. I’ve just checked out your link and realise I know your company, I’ll drop you a line there!

    February 25th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
29. joe says:
    

    Not really Clare – IFAT “The International Federation of Alternative Trade” is for producers – usually small handicraft manufacturers – working with minimum amounts of tools in highly skilled crafts.

    Most clothing factories do not qualify for membership as they are too large to be considered a marginalised producer.

    The brands usually use factories which meet the standard (which is a self-regulatory and voluntary standard to which most of the high street brands have signed up to). Which also costs a lot of money, and is of questionable value given that it is almost impossible to fall beneath the ETI standard and be expelled from the scheme.

    So basically, it is very difficult to know for sure much about where your clothing comes from. Personally, I would trust smaller radical brands such as Traidcraft, People Tree and Gossypium over a large brand product with the FT mark.

    February 25th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
30. Clare says:
    

    Joe,

    I know. I was responding to the point I thought you were making with
    “There is also a minimum labour standard – which is the same as you would have for any product in any highstreet shop. This costs a considerable amount, so in practice only the biggest brands can afford it.”
    And pointing out that fair trade brands such as the ones you mention could access FT cotton as well becuase they could use their IFAT membershiop instead of showing evidence of complying with the ETI code.

    On another note, I nearly met Fairtrade Man on Monday night. I was in the same room as him. But there were a few hundred other people there so I didn’t manage to actually meet him. Which is a shame!

    February 28th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
31. Smokey says:
    

    Just copying Beth, look at Oxfam’s generation Why and blog comments there.

    Hope Fairtrade man is wearing Pants To Poverty Underpants (.com) under his outfit

    February 28th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
32. Dave says:
    

    Thanks Smokey,

    It appears that Fairtrade man was first though. But I could be wrong.

    February 28th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
33. Smokey says:
    

    Could be. I was taught to let Ladies go first.

    Waht you do day by day makes the difference , I’ve enjoyed reading about Becks and Oxfam’s Blog

    March 1st, 2007 at 2:10 pm