Read the full story here.

The post El Salvador Farmers Successfully Defy Monsanto appeared first on Fair World Project.

According to Alexandra Guáqueta, chair of the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights, the Fair Food Program is a “smart mix” of monitoring and enforcement tools, including “market incentives for growers and retailers, monitoring policies and, crucially, a robust and accessible mechanism to resolve complaints and provide remedy,” adding, “Workers have no fear of retaliation if they identify problems.” Read more here.

Over the years, the CIW has had solid success with their campaign efforts, including key with everyone from Taco Bell to Whole Foods. To learn more about the CIW and their work, please see Supermarkets, Tomatoes and Farmworker Justice from Fair World Project’s “For a Better World” Fall 2012 edition.

Wal-Mart’s involvement in the CIW’s Fair Food Program doesn’t erase their decades of worker and farmer abuse, nor fundamentally address their unsustainable business model. Without addressing serious abuses in its supply chain, Wal-Mart’s work with the CIW will be little more than “fair washing” its image. Importantly, Wal-Mart continues to face ongoing pressure from a strong coalition of civil society organizations, including OUR Walmart, Jobs With Justice, Farm Labor Organizing Committee, National Guestworkers Alliance, National Family Farm Coalition, United Farm Workers, United Workers Congress and Warehouse Workers United released a statement renewing their call for justice in light of the federal Labor Board’s landmark decision to prosecute Walmart for its aggressive violations of workers’ rights in 14 states and a decision by a California court to name Walmart in a massive wage theft lawsuit at warehouses.

OUR Walmart member Martha Sellers, who works at Walmart in Paramount, CA said: “Walmart must publicly commit to increase wages and improve working conditions for the hundreds of thousands of us who work in Walmart’s retail stores, warehouses, global supply chain, food processing plants and those who harvest food. As the largest retailer and employer in the country and the world, Walmart can have an impact on strengthening the US and global economy by improving jobs.

Read the statement and learn more here.

The post Tale of Two Wal-Marts appeared first on Fair World Project.

However, FTUSA is still eliminating the commercial availability requirement for most items, that is the requirement that any ingredient available in fair trade form be sourced as such.  Though it may make sense to offer some sourcing flexibility to well-intentioned brads that may source ingredients ethically through non-certified supply chains, FTUSA does not have additional safeguards to ensure that ingredients sourced domestically or through non-certified international supply chains are not exploiting farmers. FTUSA has also kept the threshold of only 20% ingredients certified before a product label can be used. Research has also shown that consumers benefit from a disclosure of percentage of certified ingredients on the front of the package. Because there are still concerns in terms of accountability and transparency, FWP will continue to track the impact of this policy and advocate for continual improvement.

The post Fair Trade USA Publishes New Multi-Ingredient Labeling Policy appeared first on Fair World Project.

WHAT would an ideal food label look like? By “ideal,” I mean from the perspective of consumers, not marketers.

Right now, the labels required on food give us loads of information, much of it useful. What they don’t do is tell us whether something is really beneficial, in every sense of the word. With a different set of criteria and some clear graphics, food packages could tell us much more.

Even the simplest information — a red, yellow or green “traffic light,” for example — would encourage consumers to make healthier choices. That might help counter obesity, a problem all but the most cynical agree is closely related to the consumption of junk food.

Of course, labeling changes like this would bring cries of hysteria from the food producers who argue that all foods are fine, although some should be eaten in moderation. To them, a red traffic-light symbol on chips and soda might as well be a skull and crossbones. But traffic lights could work: indeed, in one study, sales of red-lighted soda fell by 16.5 percent in three months.

A mandate to improve compulsory food labels is unlikely any time soon. Front-of-package labeling is sacred to big food companies, a marketing tool of the highest order, a way to encourage purchasing decisions based not on the truth but on what manufacturers would have consumers believe.

So think of the creation of a new food label as an exercise. Even if some might call it a fantasy, the world is moving this way. Traffic-light labeling came close to passing in Britain, and our own Institute of Medicine is proposing something similar. The basic question is, how might we augment current food labeling (which, in its arcane detail, serves many uses, including alerting allergic people to every specific ingredient) to best serve not only consumers but all contributors to the food cycle?

As desirable as the traffic light might be, it’s merely a first step toward allowing consumers to make truly enlightened decisions about foods. Choices based on dietary guidelines are all well and good — our health is certainly an important consideration — but they don’t go nearly far enough. We need to consider the well-being of the earth (and all that that means, like climate, and soil, water and air quality), the people who grow and prepare our food, the animals we eat, the overall wholesomeness of the food — what you might call its “foodness” (once the word “natural” might have served, but that’s been completely co-opted), as opposed to its fakeness. (“Foodness” is a tricky, perhaps even silly word, but it expresses what it should. Think about the spectrum from fruit to Froot Loops or from chicken to Chicken McNuggets and you understand it.) These are considerations that even the organic label fails to take into account.

Beyond honest and accurate nutrition and ingredient information, it would serve us well to know at a glance whether food contains trans fats; residues from hormones, antibiotics, pesticides or other chemicals; genetically modified ingredients; or indeed any ingredients not naturally occurring in the food. It would also be nice to be able to quickly discern how the production of the food affected the welfare of the workers and the animals involved and the environment. Even better, it could tell us about its carbon footprint and its origins.

A little of this is covered by the label required for organic food. Some information is voluntarily being provided by producers — though they’re most often small ones — and retailers like Whole Foods. But only when this kind of information is required will consumers be able to express preferences for health, sustainability and fairness through our buying patterns.

Still, one can hardly propose covering the front of packages with 500-word treatises about the product’s provenance. On the other hand, allowing junk food to be marketed as healthy is unacceptable, or at least would be in a society that valued the rights of consumers over those of the corporation. (The “low-fat” claim is the most egregious — plenty of high-calorie, nutritionally worthless foods are in fact fat-free — but it’s not alone.)

All of this may sound like it’s asking a lot from a label, but creating a model wasn’t that difficult. Over the last few months, I’ve worked with Werner Design Werks of St. Paul to devise a food label that, at perhaps little more than a glance (certainly in less than 10 seconds), can tell a story about three key elements of any packaged food and can provide an overall traffic-light-style recommendation or warning.

How such a labeling system could be improved, which agency would administer it (it’s now the domain of the F.D.A.), which producers would be required to use it, whether foods should carry quick-response codes that let your phone read the package and link to a Web site — all of those questions can be debated freely. Suffice it to say we went through numerous iterations to arrive at the label we are proposing. We put it out here not as an end but as a beginning.

Every packaged food label would feature a color-coded bar with a 15-point scale so that almost instantly the consumer could determine whether the product’s overall rating fell between 11 and 15 (green), 6 and 10 (yellow) or 0 and 5 (red). This alone could be enough for a fair snap decision. (We’ve also got a box to indicate the presence or absence of G.M.O.’s.)

We arrive at the score by rating three key factors, each of which comprises numerous subfactors. The first is the obvious “Nutrition,” about which little needs to be said. High sugar, trans fats, the presence of micronutrients and fiber, and so on would all be taken into account. Thus soda would rate a zero and frozen broccoli might rate a five. (It’s hard to imagine labeling fresh vegetables.)

The second is “Foodness.” This assesses just how close the product is to real food. White bread made with bleached flour, yeast conditioners and preservatives would get a zero or one; so would soda; a candy bar high in sugar but made with real ingredients would presumably score low on nutrition but could get a higher score on “foodness”; here, frozen broccoli would rate a four.

The third is the broadest (and trickiest); we’re calling it “Welfare.” This would include the treatment of workers, animals and the earth. Are workers treated like animals? Are animals produced like widgets? Is environmental damage significant? If the answer to those three questions is “yes” — as it might be, for example, with industrially produced chickens — then the score would be zero, or close to it. If the labor force is treated fairly and animals well, and waste is insignificant or recycled, the score would be higher.

These are not simple calculations, but neither can one honestly say that they’re impossible to perform. It may well be that there are wiser ways to sort through this information and get it across. The main point here is: let’s get started.
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on October 14, 2012, on page SR6 of the New York edition with the headline: My Dream Food Label.

The post My Dream Food Label appeared first on Fair World Project.

2011 marked a flashpoint for many small farmers and fair trade producers. Fair trade producers from Mexico and Colombia to Ghana and Indonesia experienced a record number of climate change influenced disasters, including landslides, severe floods and crop failure. According to Fairtrade International (FLO), fair trade farmers are experiencing up to 28% reductions in yield due to erratic weather patterns and droughts. Small farmers, already vulnerable from a lack of financing options, limited market access and/or volatile markets, among other factors, are now faced with lower yields, ?natural? disasters and higher costs to adapt to and mitigate climate change impacts.

Climate change is impacting specific crops in very specific ways. A recent report by the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) detailed how a significant percentage of Ivory Coast and Ghana, the two biggest cocoa producing countries, will be too hot for cocoa by 2030. Compounded by erratic and unpredictable weather patterns, flooding and new pests, cocoa and cocoa producers have a very bleak future. Sadly, this pattern is replicated in other crops like coffee. Coffee producing regions are experiencing a dangerous combination of lower rainfall and higher temperatures, which some speculate will render production unsustainable in lowland countries and regions by 2050. While coffee plants may be able to adapt to higher altitudes in search of cooler temperatures, small farmers are tied to their land, both historically and financially. The United States Agency for International Development?s (USAID) work with the Global Climate Change Initiative recently published a study that analyzed a number of intersections of climate change, poverty and agriculture. Key to the study is an index of ?country vulnerability? with many of the countries with significant fair trade presences ranked as ?extremely? vulnerable to the negative impacts of climate change.

Size matters: small farmers are key to combating climate change

Global trends in farming point towards an increasingly large-scale and industrialized approach to farming. The last century has seen a significant transformation of the global food system away from locally-based, family-scaled farms towards large industrial farms. Gone are the days of family-scaled farmers providing food and fiber to their local communities. The global food system is now largely dominated by multinational corporations, exploitative conditions for farmers and farmworkers and chemical dependent agriculture.

Large-scale, industrial agriculture is a primary contributor to climate change. According to author and farmer Will Allen, the ?combination manufacture and use of pesticides and fertilizers, fuel and oil for tractors, equipment, trucking and shipping, electricity for lighting, cooling, and heating, and emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide account for approximately 30% of the United States? carbon footprint.? The US-styled energy intensive approach to agriculture, not only adopted by many industrialized countries but also exported to underdeveloped countries, ironically contributes to food insecurity or the ability of a given country or community to feed itself.

Impoverished countries and communities have long experienced varying degrees of food insecurity. As renowned NGO, Food First, has detailed, the underlying causes of hunger are largely attributable to poverty, inequality and failed institutions, not scarcity, overpopulation or a lack of technological fixes. The last five years– collapsing financial markets, the global push agriculture fuels (biofuels, like ethanol) and the expansion of speculation of the food market?have been the near ?perfect storm? for small farmers. With close to 1 billion victims of malnourishment in 2011, it is clear that the industrial agriculture model is a failure.

However, there is hope. Despite the strong global tide towards industrial agriculture, small farmers, who not only form the backbone of the global food supply, are central players in safeguarding biodiversity, fostering environmental stewardship and innovating sustainable agricultural practices. According to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, small farmers hold the key to doubling food production while mitigating climate change and alleviating rural poverty. Similarly, Via Campesina, the global movement of millions of peasants, small and medium-size farmers, has demonstrated that small farmers can address the global food crisis in a far more equitable and sustainable way than agribusiness and large-scale farming.

Fair Trade: An Antidote?

Fair trade is a social movement and market model that aims to empower small-scale farmers and consumers in underdeveloped countries to create an alternative trading system that supports equitable exchange, sustainable development and long-term trading relationships. Fair trade supports fair prices and wages for producers, safe working conditions, investment in community development projects and the elimination of child labor, workplace discrimination and exploitation.

What is unique about the fair trade system is its ability to channel financial resources and technical support for small producers. A key benefit of the system includes a social premium that farmers use for use in their local communities and farms. Though the fair trade social premiums can be used for virtually any project that benefits the local community, fair trade producers are increasingly using the fair trade premium for environmentally focused projects. For example, Coocafe, a coffee co-operative in Costa Rica, used its fair trade premium to greatly reduce the amount of water wasted on washing the beans allowing for other farmers to plant trees around their crop as shade, which is good for the quality of their crop and for the environment. In India, tea workers have invested some of their fair trade premium to replace traditional wood-burning heating with a solar-panels.

Fair trade standards can also positively contribute to improving energy efficiency on the farm and throughout the supply chain. Fair trade standards encourages fair trade producers and traders to implement measures to improve water conservation, energy efficiency, eco-system management and waste management.

With a strong majority of fair trade producers also either certified organic or practicing organic and agroecological methods, fair trade producers can both significantly improve yields and mitigate the negative impacts of climate change. A landmark study published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology found that organic and agroecological farming practices increased productivity on 12.6 millions farms, with an average crop increase of 79%, while at the same time improving the supply of critical environmental services. According to Food First Executive Eric Holt-Gim?nez, following Hurricane Mitch in 1998, a large-scale study on 180 communities of smallholder farms in Nicaragua demonstrated ?that farming plots cropped with simple agroecological methods (including rock bunds or dikes, green manure, crop rotation and the incorporation of stubble, ditches, terraces, barriers, mulch, legumes, trees, plowing parallel to the slope, noburn, live fences, and zero-tillage) had, on average, 40 per cent more topsoil, higher field moisture, less erosion and lower economic losses than control plots on conventional farms. On average, agroecological plots lost 18% less arable land to landslides than conventional farms and had 69% less erosion compared to conventional farms.?

When it comes to reversing climate change, organic agriculture can, in fact, play an important role. According to the Rodale Institute, organic farming practices can not only sequester 7,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per acre per year, , but organic agriculture can also can boost yields significantly. According to the 2008 edition of Waste Management & Research, simple composting not only increases crop yield and replaces dangerous and greenhouse gas emitting synthetic fertilizers, but also sequesters carbon from the atmosphere. Many fair trade organizations have also invested in regional and local composting operations as an effective method to increase soil fertility, boost yield and sequester carbon.

Fair trade alone cannot address climate change, nor the daunting challenges confronting farmers on a daily basis. The planet will need a concerted effort to address the root causes of climate change with a comprehensive approach to energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Small farmers in the fair trade system can, however, improve farmers? likelihood of mitigating climate change?s negative impacts, showcase local innovations for reversing climate change, and provide one opportunity for Northern consumers to support farmers in a concrete way.

The post Fair Trade in a World of Climate Change appeared first on Fair World Project.

The Organic Consumers Association have made the critical connection between genetic engineering, food safety and corporate control of the food supply. Reporting on grassroots focus on Monsanto and the Occupy movement, “Robert Strype, 29, a protester from the Poughkeepsie, N.Y., area who was wearing a T-shirt that expressed his displeasure with Monsanto, said that anger about practices like factory farming and the genetic modification of vegetables was one of the factors that had roused him and some of his fellow occupiers. ‘Food plays a huge part in this movement,’ he said. ‘Because people are tired of being fed poison.'” – “Want to Get Fat on Wall Street? Try Protesting” – Jeff Gordinier, New York Times

Fair traders as well have shown their solidarity and support of the Occupy movement. Equal Exchange has released a statement in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement, expressing “Reckless investment bankers have gambled livelihoods away. Outsourcing, offshore tax havens and free trade agreements have contributed to the intolerable number of unemployed. Corporate lobbyists and their revolving door regulators have weakened health and safety protections and throttled the labor unions counted on by so many to defend living standards. Agribusiness consolidation and control of the food system has devastated family farms while contributing to the obesity epidemic across the country. And the steady disinvestment in public services and education has placed the American dream beyond reach for millions.”

Interrupcion* fair trade has shown their support, with their statement below.

The post The “99%” Weighs In On Food and Fair Trade appeared first on Fair World Project.

In an open letter, Rob Cameron, CEO of Fairtrade International, wrote: ?I, the staff at Fairtrade International, and the entire global Fairtrade network sincerely regret FTUSA?s decision to pursue its own approach, rather than continue working within the global system. It is a decision they have taken themselves, and we have to respect their choice.?

Here at the Fair World Project (FWP), Fair Trade USA?s move raises many questions for fair trade producers in the Global South, as well as for fair trade advocates, businesses, and consumers. A major point of contention in the split and ?Fair Trade For All? is FTUSA?s unilateral decision to initiate certification of Fair Trade coffee on plantation and hired labor operations. FTUSA intends to open other commodities, like cocoa, to plantation and hired labor for certification as well. Fair trade was established on the values of supporting small-scale, disenfranchised farming communities, most often organized in democratic cooperatives. Despite claims to the contrary, hundreds of thousands of small producers organized in cooperatives still lack access to fair trade markets. To continue to make progress and expand the benefits of fair trade, these producers must be given priority and support when considering further expansion of the fair trade system. Without strict standards and implementation, the expansion of fair trade to include plantations in coffee and other sectors will most certainly erode standards and dilute fair trade?s impact.

For more details, read FWP’s Statement on Fair Trade USA?s Resignation from Fairtrade International (FLO).

Perhaps the most relevant of posts on FTUSA?s decision to resign from FLO has come from the three key fair trade producer networks, including the Network of Asian Producers (NAP), Latin American and Caribbean Network of Small Fair Trade Producers (CLAC) and Fairtrade Africa. Their perspective can best be summed up in CLAC statement, asserting “we as CLAC join the regret caused by the departure of FAIRTRADE USA and we express the fact that we cannot share its new vision of expansion, since it threatens the empowerment, development and self-management of small organized producers.”

Equal Exchange, fair trade pioneer and coop, supports the position of the fair trade producers networks.? Equal Exchange’s Rob Everts “In our opinion, this represents a continuation of Transfair?s years-long practice of playing to its own set of rules, almost always to the benefit of large scale players in the commodities world and against the interests of Fair Trade?s original primary stakeholders:? organized groups of small scale farmers.”

Vancouver Fair Trade did a good job summarizing some of the background information regarding the split. Read more to learn up on the issue. CRS has also done a good job of unpacking the implications for fair trade producers.

The post Roundup on the Fair Trade USA/FLO Split appeared first on Fair World Project.

Enter CADO. Deep in the foothills of the Ecuadorian Andes, small-scale family farmers are growing sugar cane on steep hills.? CADO, or the Sweet Organic Agro-craft Consortium (Consorcio Agro-artesanal Dulce Org?nico in Spanish) is a consortium of five small regional sugar cane producer groups, representing 18 communities in two provinces. Founded in 2003 with the support Rural Forestation and Progress Network Corporation or CRACYP, an Ecuadorean Non Governmental Organization, CADO?s mission is to facilitate fair prices and local self-development for member families.

CADO formed to provide value added product for sugar cane producers in the provinces of Bolivar and Cotopaxi, two of Ecuador?s the poorest provinces. With 198 member families, CADO has the capacity to produce 24,000 tons of organic certified alcohol annually. Located in a prolific sugar producing country, CADO undertook the challenge of finding a niche for producing socially and environmentally sustainable alcohol. At present, CADO produces organic ethanol for use in extraction of compounds, potable organic alcohol for use in the liquor industry and organic alcohol for use in perfumery or industrial processes.

Despite early setbacks, CADO has successfully secured contracts with the UK?s Body Shop and Dr. Bronner?s Magic Soaps. CADO attained The Body Shop sources CADO alcohol for a number of products, including its Love Etc?? perfume. Dr. Bronner?s will use CADO?s alcohol in its organic and fair trade Hand Sanitizing Spray as well as other products. Dr. Bronner?s will be the first to market products with certified organic and fair trade alcohol in the United States.? CADO was recently certified fair trade under IMO?s Fair For Life program.

More than just a mechanism for commercializing organic alcohol, CADO has embraced and advanced the fair trade ethic of true sustainability. Not only must CADO members commit to organic practices, and agree to have their land certified organic and fair trade, they pledge not only to leave existing forest intact, but also reforest degraded or logged land. CADO?s own internal social premium model requires a percentage of all sales be earmarked for a small reforestation fund. Maintaining and reestablishing the native forest is essential to both alcohol distillation and the integrity of the local ecosystem. To distill sugar cane juice into alcohol, families need access to an ample water supply. Without proper forest cover, the land dries up and families are left without water for personal consumption and the ability to distill alcohol.

Key to CADO?s approach to fair trade is fair and stable prices for its members. CADO members receive upwards of double the local market price for alcohol. According CADO member and Internal Control System team member, Luis Fredy Avalos, CADO?s program has provided a ?for my family, a fair price [for our organic alcohol] is very important. It allows us to provide for our family and send our children to school. Before fair trade, we were at the mercy of intermediary buyers.?

More than fair prices for their products, CADO members regularly point out two important outcomes of their organization: technology transfer and improved access to education. CADO facilitates microloans to families to purchase new distilling equipment, organic farming inputs and other resources to improve efficiency and quality of their alcohol. Rural technical advisors provide on the ground training for families on everything from organic farming techniques to quality control measures for the distillation equipment.

Prior to CADO, local community members rarely advanced beyond a 5th grade education. Children often worked side by side with their parents in the fields out of economic necessity. Today, the younger generation of CADO families universally graduating from high school. CADO policies and fair trade standards require that children not actively labor, but attend school. CADO?s efforts at improving efficiency on the farm and raising the standard of living for members has greatly facilitated educational endeavors for the communities? young people.? For Carlos Cabrera, CRACYP Director, CADO?s efforts go beyond simply ?creating a stable market for producers. Implementing traceability and internal control measures, key requirements in organic and fair trade certification, have greatly improved communities? environmental health and have assured that more children are now attending school.?

Looking to the future, CADO and CRACYP are setting their sites on diversification and cooperation. Next in the product pipeline is a ?Cocoa Cr?me? liqueur, blending organic and fair trade dairy, sugar, and cocoa from producer groups in the area. CADO is also working on developing a Farmstay EcoTourism Project and providing a sustainable alternative to the agrofuel craze. If the demand for agrofuels continues to rise, fertile land will continue to be converted from growing food to producing agrofuels. CADO?s vision provides a model for utilizing marginalized land, while safeguarding local ecosystems and provide just? and dignified work to vulnerable communities.

For CADO President Cecilia Arcos, ?fair trade is more than a fair price. It is about building consciousness in our communities. It is about acquiring the tools to be self-reliant?.It is about lifting up the poorest of our members and making sure no one is left behind.?

The post Ecuador Fair Trade Visit Part I: Adventures in Organic Fair Trade Alcohol appeared first on Fair World Project.

Fairtrade International has responded to the crisis with new coffee premiums, minimum prices and standards. Committed fair trade roasters and importers continue to support producers for the long run.? Taking the long view, the recent spike in coffee prices may merely represent a “natural correction” in the market. Coffee prices may have been artificially low and the market is simply catching-up.

While this issue is far too complex to distill into a handful of simple variables, it might be useful to look at two clear culprits in the coffee market roller coaster.

Climate change

The climate is changing and having disastrous impacts on farmers. While the world debates Cap and Trade and Kyoto, farmers around the globe have consistently raised voiced their concern for over? ten years. ? Coffee producers in particular have been hammered by increasing erratic? weather conditions. Recent reports from Mexico and Brazil to Uganda and Colombia have laid bare the crisis situation in the coffee lands.

Speculation

Speculation in the commodities market, including coffee, has contributed increased instability in the market. Even Starbucks is apparently feeling the crunch. Big investment banks are essentially betting on the price of food, from corn to coffee, leading to increases in food prices and threatening food security across the globe. The Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns, among others, has done a solid job on analyzing the cause and effect of commodity speculation.

Go further

For a good overview of the situation, take a listen Equal Exchange’s Todd Caspersen’s video below.

The post Coffee prices explained, sort of appeared first on Fair World Project.