I don't understand the issue here, because I'm not acquainted with this scenario at all.
Is the problem that restaurant, bar, shop or pub owners are selling stuff which is partially fairly traded in origin, but not entirely .... and are doing so while claiming that what they sell is fairly traded, even though the actual product may not contain 100% fairly traded ingredients ?
Quote:
|
Perhaps the solution is to request that food retailers explicitly state which products are Fair Trade, rather than just using the label in a general all-inclusive way.
|
Perhaps some kind of certification process could be set up, similar to that of the Vegetarian Society or Organic Associations.... whereby an official Fair Trade logo could be used to illustrate genuinely Fair Trade products.
In such a climate, it would be natural for many people to be suspicious of claims that something is 'fairly traded' without an official logo being present..... and thus, those who DO use fairly traded ingredients would feel very inclined to get officially certified for those products.
Maybe they could have some kind of percentage system, maybe with colours to represent it.... like, they could have different fair trade logos ..... the present blue/green one for 100% fairly traded stuff, a yellow one for stuff which is at least 3/4 fairly traded in content, a red one for stuff with lower percentages of fairly traded produce, and of course no label at all for stuff which contains none.
But yes, i totally agree with you.
If someone sells something which is not fairly traded and claims that it is fairly traded, that is dishonest, manipulative and downright wrong of them.... in which case it is entirely appropriate to feel aggrivated by it and to advocate that they change to be more honest.
This goes the same whether something is an ingredient or a stand-alone item.