How fair is fairly traded food ?

[Astrocat]

I think that produce ought to be labelled, to show how much money is given to the actual growers - especially in the case of Fairly Traded produce.

It seems to me that many supermarkets take their opportunities to profit from others' misfortune , rather than letting them profit from their own hard work.... even in the case of Fairly Traded food, although in a different way.

For example, if there are two bunches of bananas.....

One may cost 80p for the bunch , and the grower might get 10p a kilo for the bananas, of which your bunch is maybe half.

With Fairly Traded bananas, they might be able to make a sustainable living through selling their produce for 60p a kilo.... but the supermarket might ramp up the price per bunch to £1.80 in order to get as much as they can out of the situation.

In this way they must surely also deter people from buying Fairly Traded produce as much as they might otherwise, or simply make it impossible for a lot of people to buy Fairly Traded produce regularly, by pricing them out.

Then, when few people buy their pricey producs they announce "well, there is little demand for this stuff" , and diminish their ranges of Fairly Traded produce, or drop them altogether, making it impossible even for those who want to buy it, and who can afford to do so, unable to do so, or left with a very limited selection on offer.

I think they would be ashamed if they were forced to expose their genuine pricing on labels, with direct comparison made there too on all produce, between comparable fairly traded and unfairly traded produce of it's kind, and might choose to drop their prices a bit and/or to be less mean about their profit-distribution structure.

which i think can only be a good thing !

[Anthony Butcher]

I suppose that it is all about the market economy though. "Fair trade" is really just protectionism under another name. That is not to say that it doesn't necessarily perform a useful role, but it does have a destabilising effect on the market and is in effect just a subsidy for foreign farmers.

You say that the supermarkets gain from "other people's misfortune", but I think that is unfair. It is a market place. Without the supermarkets most of those people wouldn't have a livelihood at all, and if they aren't happy with the deal they get, they should sell to a different chain.

As for the top up on 'fair trade' products, I imagine that it is pretty much in line with the mark up they put on all of their products, and is largely dictated by what they can get away with.

Incidently, I am sure that I read somewhere that the British pay on average 40% more than world food prices largely due to the EU trade protectionism and the CAP that seriously distort the natural market prices.

[Astrocat]

if they aren't happy with the deal they get, they should sell to a different chain.

That's the line which the supermarkets take, also.
So.... who should they all be selling their produce to ?
And what efforts are being made to educate them as to the existence of this 'ethical' supermarket ?
I have no idea who it might be, so i can only assume that people in deprived communities would have even less of an idea who to go to.

"Fair trade" is really just protectionism under another name. That is not to say that it doesn't necessarily perform a useful role, but it does have a destabilising effect on the market and is in effect just a subsidy for foreign farmers.

Please describe this destabliising effect.
Certainly, it seems to me that the opposite is true.
Leaving supermarkets to burn out supplier after supplier is doing nobody any good other than the richest people in the supermarket chain, as far as the market is concerned.

Fair Trade is about giving people the option, should they wish to do so, to pay people in impoverished communities enough for their produce, that the sellers in the supply chain are at least able to make a bare minimum sustainable wage.

UK supermarkets drive down wage of poorest workers

Action-Aid report : who pays ?

If you just don't care about this sort of thing, then that is your decision to make..... but supermarkets haqve been exposed for paying people 5p an hour to shell cashews, and giving people 10p for a kilo of bananas, and so forth....

Please read the report, to learn about the techniques which supermarkets use to exploit and control their suppliers.

If you can read all about it then come back and honestly say that you find all of that acceptable, then so be it.

[Anthony Butcher]

Originally Posted by Astrocat

If you can read all about it then come back and honestly say that you find all of that acceptable, then so be it.

Of course I would like for people to earn a decent wage. I think that goes without saying. Bear with me through this next bit - I do a for and against thing...

Against:
1. It is patronising imperialism to suggest that we know best and other countries can't manage their own laws.

2. If you interfere in the free market too much, it starts to build levels of inefficiency into the system.

3. It is none of our business. People everywhere struggle to make a living.

4. The more rights you give people, the less likely they are to keep their job. This is why France and Germany have such high rates of unemployment; their socialist style employment system means that employers try to employ as few people as possible.

5. There is also the obvious point that the companies that sell the produce only get the business because they keep their costs right down; hence the wages have to match. If they upped the wages, another company elsewhere would potentially get the business instead. This is the same the world over, and British farmers are no different. That's capitalism.

6. Pre-globalisation, many of these low paid workers wouldn't have had any work at all, or it would have been even worse.

I think that is a fair summary of the supermarket position, and is of course the stark financial reality.

For
Having said all that, fair trade is a great example of a consumer-driven campaign to help out other people and demonstrates that we really can make a different by setting up campaigns.

One of the goals of this campaign is to get restaurants to say where their food comes from, and that encompass Fair Trade and so on.

The problem with the Fair Trade system is that it immediately segregates the food, rather than building it into the mainstream system. Ideally the supermarkets would bring it in wholesale into their premium ranges. For example, one might expect the Sainsbury's Taste The Difference range to use better quality ingredients sourced from more 'ethical' companies. They already use free range eggs across the line, so this isn't unachievable.

The real problem is not the supermarkets; they are just an easy scapegoat. It is a reasonably typical modern blame dodge.

The real problem is the consumers - the people who buy the goods. Supermarkets are just businesses who will sell what people want. If they make themselves less competitive and more expensive, people will just shop elsewhere.

People spend far less on their food now, as a percentage of income, than ever before. They expect cheap food. Until that attitude is changed, or people start buying the Fair Trade goods in sufficiently large numbers then it will never change.

I hope that one of the effects of this campaign will be to make people far more aware of all aspects of the their food.

[Astrocat]

It is patronising imperialism to suggest that we know best and other countries can't manage their own laws.

If people examine behaviour on it's own merits rather than through the lens of 'our' and 'their' behaviour, then that's no longer the case.

Bear in mind that I am advocating campaigning against UK supermarkets. I am a UK citizen, so I'm not sure where your comparison to patronising racism comes from.

It also seems to be clear to me that many countries' authorities do indeed choose not to enforce human rights protection of various kinds, in many cases.l

The problem with the Fair Trade system is that it immediately segregates the food, rather than building it into the mainstream system.
Ideally the supermarkets would bring it in wholesale into their premium ranges.

That isn;t a problem with Fair Trade or the system behind it.
It's simply a matter of lack of support for it resulting in it being a minority option, rather than the majority one.

For as long as people view it as a bad thing to give people a decent wage, and prioritise saving a few pence, things are unlikely to change in the way which you describe.

I'm not sure how you expect fair trade to become any more inside the mainstream system than it presently is, given the low demand for it..... supermarkets sell whole ranges of fairly traded goods, and Sainsbury's even announced that all of it's own bananas would be fairly traded (which they now are, which i congratulated them on)

For example, one might expect the Sainsbury's Taste The Difference range to use better quality ingredients sourced from more 'ethical' companies. They already use free range eggs across the line, so this isn't unachievable.

I wouldn't assume that there was any ethical improvement there, although i would imagine that better quality produce would be used, in order to produce a better flavour.
None of the Taste the Difference range uses any fairly traded ingredients, so unfortunately I'm not sure what point you are making there.

There is also the obvious point that the companies that sell the produce only get the business because they keep their costs right down; hence the wages have to match. If they upped the wages, another company elsewhere would potentially get the business instead.

Supermarkets squeeze sellers, who pressure field workers in turn.
But you seem to be saying that there is nothing wrong with supermarkets doing that, since you reckon that's ok because they are doing it in order to make money.

A supermarket chain could easily raise their wages.

For example, Sainsbury's are seemingly not going out of business because of their banana decision.

The people who are the middlemen between growers and supermarkets often get business from growers because they lock people into situations where they have no other option.

What you are saying gives me the impression that you have not read the reports which i posted. Is that the case, or do you simply disagree with their contents ?

You reckon that buying fairly traded goods is a form of subsidy, but that seems to contradict the meaning of 'subsidy'

A subsidy is, by definition, "a grant paid by a government to an enterprise that benefits the public" ...

As is no doubt clear, consumers paying a price for something which enables the manufacturer to stay in business .... is something which has happened since the dawn of time, and is not necessarily anything to do with subsidisation.

For comparison, all flesh , eggs and milk produced in the UK (and many other countries) is heavily subsidised through 3-pronged subsidisation.
The government uses a lot of tax money to pay for crops for farmed animals to eat, the government pays money to reduce the product cost for consumers, then they give handouts to help with pollution cleanup, and as a bonus they also dole out subsidies to cover things like foot & mouth outbreaks, and so forth.

The only technicality is that there is no evidence that doing that truly benefits the general public. It's still considered to be subsidisation , though.

For comparison, if there were 'fairly traded eggs' which were ten times the price of 'normal eggs' because the farmers are in a country where they receive no subsidy, and they have to charge that much to stay in business and keep their families from dying of hunger...... and if people chose to buy those full-price eggs, then they are simply choosing to pay for what they buy.
They subsidise nothing in doing so, and nobody necessarily would subsisdise their purchase.

If you interfere in the free market too much, it starts to build levels of inefficiency into the system.

If you ask supermarkets about the ethics of their supply chain, they usually (always so far, for me) feign confusion and lack of knowledge, insisting that their chain of supply is involving and complex, and it will take a long time to figure out what's going on in it but they might get back to me eventually.

To my mind, that is the sort of thing which breeds inefficiency in the world of trade.... not fair trade support or activism.

As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that the fair trade foundation are inefficient, or that their efforts cause inefficiency of any kind.

The more rights you give people, the less likely they are to keep their job.

Then, if that is the case, and if the converse were true (that the more you deprive people of rights, the more likely they are to keep their jobs) then why are so many impoverished produce growers and suppliers going bust left, right and centre as a direct result of supermarket market tactics ?

This is why France and Germany have such high rates of unemployment; their socialist style employment system means that employers try to employ as few people as possible.

It sounds to me as if that has much more to do with capitalism than socialism.
The companies are tight-fisted, so they try to save money by employing as few people as possible.
It is a business 'tactic' which is repeated millions of times globally, in all kinds of companies, under all kinds of governments.

Pre-globalisation, many of these low paid workers wouldn't have had any work at all, or it would have been even worse.

Why do you think so ?

Supermarkets are just businesses who will sell what people want.

This is a common misconception, but supermarkets know how much power they have, and milk it.

This is why the only kind of lettuce you will often see in supermarkets is the bogus iceberg lettuce, why Morrisons gets away with selling wooden carrots and cardboard spring onions, why the only varieties of apple which are ever available are ghastly nasty things like the misnomered 'golden delicious' strain, and so forth... this is not because the consumers have a special love for dire apples, inedible salads and unstorable lettuce..... it is because that is what the supermarkets choose to sell. They know that people can not simply choose to not buy groceries, and they not uncommonly make efforts to put any and all local competition out of business.

It is well documented that in many areas, local business has been devastated by big supermarket chain/s and many people have no option but to get all of their groceries from one chain (to reach another chain they might have to go out of town at enormous expense which they can not necessarily even afford)

Until that attitude is changed, or people start buying the Fair Trade goods in sufficiently large numbers then it will never change.

If people are prepared to pay 80p say, for bananas......

Then supermarkets can make a lot of profit by selling bananas for that price, which are fairly traded.

The point i made in my first post, is that fairly traded produce is not typically prohibitively expensive through necessity, but usually through supermarkets' greed.

Supermarkets are not going out of business with begging cups outstretched :P unlike many of the unfortunate people who are messed about with by their 'purchasing process'

[Anthony Butcher]

Originally Posted by Astrocat

Bear in mind that I am advocating campaigning against UK supermarkets. I am a UK citizen, so I'm not sure where your comparison to patronising racism comes from.

I said imperialism, not racism! i.e. Brits telling other countries that we do things better than they do and their systems are old fashioned or inhumane.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

It also seems to be clear to me that many countries' authorities do indeed choose not to enforce human rights protection of various kinds, in many cases.l

Well, that is my point above. It is fairly arrogant of us to assume that our system is better than theirs. They have their own governments, who are responsible for their people, not us. If the locals have a problem with workers' rights or pay deals, then that is really their business, not ours. You wouldn't thank Indonesians for constantly criticising British businesses saying that all of our employees are over paid and lazy.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

I'm not sure how you expect fair trade to become any more inside the mainstream system than it presently is, given the low demand for it..... supermarkets sell whole ranges of fairly traded goods, and Sainsbury's even announced that all of it's own bananas would be fairly traded (which they now are, which i congratulated them on)

Anything is possible, and vocal minority movements can carry a lot of weight, especially when they have a trend behind them. Supermarkets like to look more 'ethical' than their competitors.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

I wouldn't assume that there was any ethical improvement there, although i would imagine that better quality produce would be used, in order to produce a better flavour.

I highly doubt that ethics enters into it at all; it is purely branding and finance.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

None of the Taste the Difference range uses any fairly traded ingredients, so unfortunately I'm not sure what point you are making there.

I am saying that perhaps this is something that will come in time.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

Supermarkets squeeze sellers, who pressure field workers in turn.
But you seem to be saying that there is nothing wrong with supermarkets doing that, since you reckon that's ok because they are doing it in order to make money.

No, I am saying that it is going to happen regardless of whether we like it or not. It is a fact of life for every single business that doesn't operate a monopoly.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

A supermarket chain could easily raise their wages.

I doubt that. If they raise their wages, they have to either absorb the losses or raise their prices. Either way means they make less profit. Shareholders won't accept that easily. It is only through economies of scale that they make so much money. It is still a very tight and competitive business.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

For example, Sainsbury's are seemingly not going out of business because of their banana decision.

Yes, because it is a good move that creates good will towards Sainsbury's, which in turn brings in more customers. That's the kind of thing that we have to support, to encourage more such ventures.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

What you are saying gives me the impression that you have not read the reports which i posted. Is that the case, or do you simply disagree with their contents ?

I read them, but I just think that it is nonsense to blame supermarkets for globalisation. It is a fact of life. No amount of complaining is going to make the slightest bit of difference. I say focus on what can be changed.

I also have no idea whether the quoted wages are bad or not. 30p in another country can be worth a heck of a lot more than it is in Britain. Without comparative numbers, the articles are meaningless.

If the workers think that the wages are worth the effort, then who am I to argue? I am yet to meet someone who doesn't think that they should be paid more.

And if it is truly a case of work or total poverty, then I have to ask, what were they doing before the work was available? Presumably living in total poverty. So surely the opportunity to have some work is better than none, regardless of how hard it is?

Originally Posted by Astrocat

You reckon that buying fairly traded goods is a form of subsidy, but that seems to contradict the meaning of 'subsidy'

It is a kind of subsidy from consumers to the Fair Trade companies. We are paying an artificially high price, way above the market price.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that the fair trade foundation are inefficient, or that their efforts cause inefficiency of any kind.

I think I phrased that badly. Cut-throat capitalism means that businesses have to be as efficient as they possibly can - they must keep their prices low, costs low and productivity high, just to keep the repeat business from the supermarkets. If you have growers who are already promised a minimum contract value, there is no need for them to be ruthlessly efficient - because there isn't any competition. That's not a problem as long as the supermarket maintains the contract, but if they move on the company will have no chance in the open market.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

Then, if that is the case, and if the converse were true (that the more you deprive people of rights, the more likely they are to keep their jobs) then why are so many impoverished produce growers and suppliers going bust left, right and centre as a direct result of supermarket market tactics ?

That happens everywhere. The point isn't that the workers will necessarily keep their jobs, but they will be able to get a new one more easily. In other words, less job protection means more movement of labour. In a larger, national, sense that is better overall because it keeps more people in work. For an individual it is a nightmare because they have no job security, and can be hired and fired at the drop of a hat, which is very stressful. It is an employer's dream labour market. However, this is what keeps the developing nations in a position to be able to compete.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

It sounds to me as if that has much more to do with capitalism than socialism.
The companies are tight-fisted, so they try to save money by employing as few people as possible.

In France and Germany it is much harder to fire people from full time employment, so companies try not to employ people if possible. There is a lot of use of contract work instead, which of course removes all the worker protection that they fought to get in the first place. This is the false economics of socialism.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

Why do you think so ?

Well, if the mass farms didn't exist, then those jobs didn't exist. So what do you think all those people were doing before? Globalisation has created vast numbers of jobs world wide.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

It is well documented that in many areas, local business has been devastated by big supermarket chain/s and many people have no option but to get all of their groceries from one chain (to reach another chain they might have to go out of town at enormous expense which they can not necessarily even afford)

That's market forces at work again. Nothing can be done about that, and I imagine most people are actually happier buying everything from one place rather than having to visit several different shops.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

Supermarkets are not going out of business with begging cups outstretched :P unlike many of the unfortunate people who are messed about with by their 'purchasing process'

Again, that is just business. The farming and food business is notoriously tough at all levels, whether in Britain or abroad.

This is a fun debate, but it is getting too long! I hope that you understand that I am playing Devil's Advocate for a lot of this.

[Astrocat]

I said imperialism, not racism! i.e. Brits telling other countries that we do things better than they do and their systems are old fashioned or inhumane.

But, if UK businesses go into other countries and exploit the locals..... then it is racist to look at such a situation, and to declare "The UK does things better than that country does, the negative aspects of the situation are not UK responsibility even though UK companies are commiting a lot of the atrocities. Even though British supermarket chains are the ones ruining foreign economy and businesses, as long as we do it in other peoples' countries rather than our own, then that means that we do things 'better' than they do.", as many people would (and do !)

(^-~) Can you see what I'm getting at, here ?

Well, that is my point above. It is fairly arrogant of us to assume that our system is better than theirs.

I disagree, what i said is irrelevant to the point you have made above.

Likesay i am criticising UK supermarkets......
I don't have reverse-arrogance, though : I am prefectly open to criticising foreign chains such as Lidls or Aldi, as well, when they do unethical and totally unnecessary things also.

No, I am saying that it is going to happen regardless of whether we like it or not.

My point is , that in modern times there is the option to sometimes buy fairly traded food, and thus to opt out of being part of a system which is quite as exploitative. Your point seems to be that this is a bad thing to do.

I say focus on what can be changed.

Indeed so.
I will continue to buy fairly traded food, and to advocate others doing so.

I also have no idea whether the quoted wages are bad or not.

Then, where that is concerned, do you feel that the case studies mentioned in the reports, are misleading and misrepresentational of the larger picture ?

No amount of complaining is going to make the slightest bit of difference.

(^-~) You're going to have a rough time convincing me that activism (for example, fair trade activism) gets nobody anywhere. It's pretty clear to me that this isn't so, because consciousness raising can really change peoples' minds sometimes and supermarkets are far more likely to take on more fairly traded produce if people are lobbying them to do it... than if nobody is bothering with it at all.

If the workers think that the wages are worth the effort, then who am I to argue?

i imagine that going into their country and trying to convince them they would rather be dead with a dead family, than be working their asses off, wouldn;t get you very far but that doesn;t mean that it is ok for a company to take advantage of this situation while trying to keep people locked into it.

And if it is truly a case of work or total poverty, then I have to ask, what were they doing before the work was available? Presumably living in total poverty. So surely the opportunity to have some work is better than none, regardless of how hard it is?

They were often working for other businesses, which supermarket dominance has consequently put out of business, forcing them to have no option then but to work for the supermarket chain.

They often then go on to work every hour they can for pitiful wages, while continuing to be in total poverty because the wages aren;t good enough for them to manage anything else.

The opportunity to have some work is indeed better than having none, but that isn;t the comparison : it's not between work or nothing, but between work which does not pay them a living wage, and work which does pay them a living wage. If i had the option, i know which one i would go for !

It is a kind of subsidy from consumers to the Fair Trade companies. We are paying an artificially high price, way above the market price.

Everyone pays way above the market price for everything they buy in supermarkets, due to artificial pricing structures.

For example, a supermarket chain might pay one group 10p to produce a kilo of cashews, then pay somebody 5p for an hour, to shell a kilo of cashews within that time. Then they might go on to sell that product for £8.

That doesn;t involve consumer subsidisation of supermarkets, since they are simply paying a price for a chosen product and that is simply consumerism, but it is the situation which you are describing.

I think I phrased that badly. Cut-throat capitalism means that businesses have to be as efficient as they possibly can - they must keep their prices low, costs low and productivity high, just to keep the repeat business from the supermarkets. If you have growers who are already promised a minimum contract value, there is no need for them to be ruthlessly efficient - because there isn't any competition. That's not a problem as long as the supermarket maintains the contract, but if they move on the company will have no chance in the open market.

If governments were to establish a ground ruling for wages (for example, if UK law were changed in order to make uk supermarkets responsible for their behaviour outwith the UK, as is possible but unlikely) then much of your points against fair trade become moot.

If all supermarkets were compelled to pay a bare minimum living wage to suppliers and growers, then those choosing to do so would not be overtaken by competition in any way because of it, and neither would any companies who are sub-contracted as fair trade organisations.

The point isn't that the workers will necessarily keep their jobs, but they will be able to get a new one more easily.

Why do you think this ?

Well, if the mass farms didn't exist, then those jobs didn't exist. So what do you think all those people were doing before?

I answered this point further up, but can expand on it if you like.

That's market forces at work again. Nothing can be done about that, and I imagine most people are actually happier buying everything from one place rather than having to visit several different shops.

Something can be done about it, but not if people are unsupportive of a movement for change. Laws can be made, and enforced, to deter huge companies from doing that.

No doubt some people are, on a selfish level, happier to be able to 'conveniently' shop in supermarkets.

Many are not, and the happiness of those who are happy is irrelevant to me because their own happiness is a trivial issue compared to the negative impact to others of their enjoyment and support of that 'convenience'.... for example, local businesses, those who grow the produce which they buy, etc.

It won;t be long before the supermarkets put every small business out of work, and even more people have no option but to shop at supermarkets - and when it happens, the difference between the market cost and the consumer cost is likely to rise even further. It already has happened in many towns, especially small ones.

I hope that you understand that I am playing Devil's Advocate for a lot of this.

Then, what do you think ?
You still have not said, and you seem to be definitely opposed to fair trade and fair trade activism.

Again, that is just business. The farming and food business is notoriously tough at all levels, whether in Britain or abroad.

And, as I said before, if you look at it and say that "it's just business, so it's ok" then that is your conclusion to reach.

I don't think that it's ok, which is why i campaign for improvement in support of fair trading.

It seems obvious to me, why so many companies throng around countries like China, India, The Dominical Republic or Taiwan, where legally human rights protection is pretty much nonexistent for most workers, local companies are comparatively impoverished so it's easy to clear a whole town of any competition just by building one large store, and there is no enforced minimum wage.

This is indeed an interesting and progressive, enjoyable debate, although i ask that if you're putting forth views which aren't your own just for the sake of argument (what is known as Devil's Advocacy), that you please don't, because I'd rather hear your honest views, and would find that much more constructive.