Global Mamas is struggling with success. That may sound like a strange statement from an organization celebrating a ten-year anniversary, but it is true nonetheless. We have grown from six women entrepreneurs earning a steady living wage, to nearly 600 women producing handmade apparel, accessories, jewelry and shea butter of the highest quality. Our annual sales have grown from $22,000 in 2004 to just over $1 million in 2013. Volunteers from around the globe have traveled to Ghana to provide the Mamas with training in business development, financial planning, product design, health improvement and even yoga. The Mamas are realizing prosperity. They are sending their children to school, sending themselves to school, building homes, investing in better health and nutrition, and saving for their future. As Global Mamas seamstress Molly Linda Djan says, “I’ve changed. I don’t depend on anyone. I am dependable.”

The challenge for Global Mamas is how to keep up with our success. We currently have significantly more demand for our products than we can produce, resulting in regular backorders. Our customers are supportive and loyal, but they are also pushing us to expand quickly, so we can ship their orders in full. The Mamas are facing orders that are too large to complete in the required time frame. The Ghanaian and American staff of Global Mamas are stressed trying to manage the production of significantly larger orders through a business model that worked well in the early years but is now very strained with growth.

“We initially assumed that as demand for our products grew, the entrepreneurs we worked with would grow their businesses, too,” explains Renae Adam, Global Mamas Executive Director. “But this did not happen, despite countless hours of business development training. The Mamas simply preferred to keep their businesses small and invest profits into their families. To meet growing demand, we were forced to add more and more small businesses to the program. Even as a relatively small organization ourselves, Global Mamas soon turned into an extremely complex distributed manufacturing company that was facilitating small orders with over seventy small businesses in the Cape Coast area. It did not take long before we found our breaking point in scaling our operations!”

When Global Mamas started working with recycled glass bead makers in 2005, we used a hybrid producer/employer model, contracting family-owned businesses to produce the beads, while directly employing local women to assemble the beads into finished jewelry and home décor items. This new model improved product quality, lowered costs due to rejects, helped ensure fair wages to producers, and expanded production capacity to meet the growing demand for Global Mamas products.

In 2011, we made the decision to test the success of our direct employment model with a group of new batikers and seamstresses. We targeted a community that had trained batikers and seamstresses, but due to its extremely depressed economy, the women were struggling to keep their own small businesses afloat. The model worked! The small textile center in Ashaiman now employs twenty-five women and is poised to double that number in 2014.

Direct employment allows us to provide benefits, like paid sick leave and vacation, as well as twelve weeks of paid maternity leave. On top of that, Global Mamas pays an additional 13% of total salaries to social security, ensuring that the women have access to retirement funds and free national healthcare, to which only 8% of workers in the craft industry in Ghana currently have access . The Mamas of Ashaiman are empowered to make decisions that guide the organization, such as setting the hours of operation to allow them to see their children off to school each day, and setting the break schedule that is most convenient for them. Global Mamas believes that none of our income-generation models can be successful without a major focus on education, and we’ve modified our training programs to expand beyond business training to include topics like personal financial management. This is especially important, given that 85% of the Mamas have not studied beyond high school.

In 2013, after carefully weighing the benefits of both of our production models, Global Mamas made the decision to begin raising funds to build a production campus called the “Global Mamas Fair Trade Zone.” The Fair Trade Zone will allow Global Mamas to create 200 full-time jobs and increase production output by nearly 50% by operating in a central facility. The Fair Trade Zone will utilize our direct employment model which has proven to increase production capacity, improve quality, reduce rejects, provide the Mamas with more access to training, and allow a greater percentage of sales to be directed to wages and benefits, as compared to working with many independent micro- and small businesses.

Two hundred women working together in a single location sounds a lot like a factory, yet it is extremely important to us that it does not feel like a factory. Building on successful local models that the producers can identify with, the Mamas work in teams of three, much like a small business, and create their own team name. Each team has an experienced leader who provides on-the-job training to the less-experienced Mamas. This model sets the stage for sustainable growth — as a Mama gains expertise in production, she can “graduate” to start her own team.

We also partnered with Architecture Sans Frontières to design the Fair Trade Zone to be an open, comfortable production space filled with natural light. Landscaping will create outdoor spaces for batik production and fabric drying, as well as for the Mamas to gather, eat and rejuvenate during the workday. An on-site daycare center is included in the plans to enable mothers to work while not being far from their children.
Given our commitment to long-term environmental sustainability, Global Mamas plans to build the facility with local, sustainable construction materials like compressed earth blocks, bamboo, and recycled plastic, glass and tires. It will incorporate renewable systems, such as rainwater harvesting, water recycling, solar energy and biogas toilets. Building our own facility allows us to incorporate these unique features which our current rented facilities do not offer.

Global Mamas is setting out to prove that we can grow, provide fair trade jobs for hundreds of new women, and maintain empowerment of the Mamas within a larger organizational structure. At the same time, Global Mamas is committed to working with all of the Mamas in our original textile production center in Cape Coast, utilizing our traditional model of working with small, independently-owned businesses.

As a non-profit organization operating under the principles of fair trade, how we grow requires careful consideration. While the principles of fair trade do not prevent growth, the centralized production model that we are pursuing will be somewhat unusual in the fair trade community. Thanks to our history of transparency and our proven commitment to operating under fair trade principles, the Fair Trade Zone concept has garnered incredible support from our retail partners and the fair trade community in which we are active. As Renae explains, “In addition to creating prosperity for more women in Ghana, we also see a tremendous opportunity to change the face of the garment industry.”

1 The Labour Market in Ghana, p. 24, SASK, December 2009.

The post A Decade of Prosperity in Ghana appeared first on Fair World Project.

It was not long ago that consumers knew where their food came from. Most of it, including meat, dairy and eggs, came from backyards and neighborhood family farms. But today, after decades of consolidation, 95% of our meat, dairy and eggs comes from industrial “factory farms” or, to use industry lingo, Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs).

CAFOs represent a corporate-controlled system characterized by large-scale, centralized, low-profit margin production, processing and distribution systems. The CAFO model, propped up by taxpayer-supported subsidies, contributes to a host of environmental, public health, animal welfare, workers’ rights and fair trade crises and injustices.

How do we return to producing animal products that are safe for human consumption, using practices that support organic, sustainable farms and respect the environment and workers’ rights? We believe this will require a massive public education campaign, coupled with strict laws requiring restaurants and food retailers to label products — including meat, dairy and eggs — that are sourced from factory farms. Once these products are properly labeled, consumers will accordingly be able to make better, more responsible choices.
The facts about factory farms

The CAFO industry is rife with dirty little secrets, and it is getting tougher to expose those secrets, as states pass laws criminalizing undercover efforts to reveal the rivers of waste that CAFOs spew into communities, the injustices that they inflict upon the workers who labor there, and the cruelties that the animals confined there must endure.

A few of the ills that CAFOs inflict upon society:

They threaten the environment.

CAFOs contribute directly to global warming by releasing vast amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere — more than the entire global transportation industry. According to a 2006 report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), animal agriculture is responsible for 18% of all human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, including 37% of methane emissions and 65% of nitrous oxide emissions. Indirectly, factory farms contribute to climate disruption through their impact on deforestation and the draining of wetlands, and because of the nitrous oxide emissions from the huge amounts of pesticides used to grow the genetically engineered corn and soy that are fed to animals raised in CAFOs.

They put public health at risk.

CAFOs generate 220 billion tons per year of agricultural waste, which can include blood, dead animals, chemicals, antibiotic and growth hormone residues and sanitizing chemicals. The raw liquefied sewage they produce is 25–100 times more concentrated than human sewage, yet thanks to industry lobbyists, it is largely unregulated. It thus runs off into rivers and streams, or is stored in open lagoons, which routinely burst, sending millions of gallons of waste into waterways and spreading microbes that can cause gastroenteritis, fevers, kidney failure and even death. Consequently, at least 4.5 million people are also exposed to dangerously high nitrate levels in their drinking water.

They violate workers’ rights.

The CAFO industry employs about 500,000 workers in the U.S. It consistently operates with one of the highest injury rates in the country, largely because state and federal labor agencies have failed to institute and enforce labor laws to prevent known workplace hazards. Most slaughterhouse facilities operate around the clock, killing and processing hundreds or thousands of animals per hour. Workers suffer chronic pains in their hands, wrists, arms, shoulders and back, caused by a combination of high speed, long hours and repetitive motions. CAFO workers also suffer from a high rate of respiratory illnesses, including asthma, caused by long-term exposure to animal waste.

In addition, as the work at CAFOs has become more automated, the need for highly skilled workers has declined, resulting in the industry relying on a non-unionized, “disposable” workforce. According to Human Rights Watch, workers who try to unionize are spied on, harassed, pressured, threatened, suspended, fired, deported or otherwise victimized for exercising their right to freedom of association.

They violate fair trade laws.

Access to cheap grain and the government’s failure to enforce anti-trust laws have fueled the growth of GMO grain producers, like Monsanto, and the CAFO industry. Agribusiness spent $751 million over the past five years lobbying Congress and another $480.5 million in direct campaign contributions over the past two decades. Since 1995, taxpayers have provided $292.5 billion in direct agricultural subsidies, another $96 billion in crop insurance subsidies, and over $100 billion in subsidies to promote the growth of genetically engineered corn and soy. From 1997 to 2005, in fact, the four largest producers of broiler chickens paid $5 billion less than the cost of production for their feed.

Federal law preempts mandatory state labels on meat packaging, but labels indicating whether or not meat and dairy products come from a factory farm are allowed on store shelves (with shelf tags) and on meat and dairy cases. Some stores already provide this information. The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) would like to see legislation that requires this information, not only in grocery stores but also on restaurant menus. Until such legislation is passed, we urge consumers to pressure stores and restaurants to label all products sourced from a factory farm — and to boycott those stores and restaurants that refuse to do so.

For more information, please visit:
www.animalwelfareapproved.org
www.certifiedhumane.org
www.eatwild.com
www.globalanimalpartnership.org

The post Why We Need Labels on Food from Factory Farms appeared first on Fair World Project.

The Foodopoly, Trade and Democracy

“OUR FOOD SYSTEM IS BROKEN!”

It is a rallying cry for foodies everywhere, but what does it mean? Sometimes, it is a plea to shop locally, or to buy organic. But none of these shopping choices alone gets to the heart of our broken food system — the very policies that got us here in the first place.

How did we end up with the food system we have today? Why are we as a nation obese and sick? Why can our farmers not survive growing the food we need? How did our environment become so polluted? In my book, Foodopoly: The Battle Over the Future of Food and Farming in America, I take a look at the policies that left us with a handful of companies controlling most of what we eat today. These are policies that led to the deregulation of food and farming. The result? Extreme consolidation that has helped Monsanto, Tyson, Nestlé, Kraft, Cargill, McDonalds and other giant food, agriculture and chemical companies to write our food policies.

To give you an idea of what consolidation of the food system means, only four companies process 80% of the beef we eat, and only four retailers sell 50% of the groceries we buy (with one out of every three dollars spent on groceries in the U.S. going to Wal-Mart alone). The top ten fast-food companies control 47% of all fast-food sales.

When these companies enjoy near monopolies in food production and distribution, they get to write all the rules, whether it is blocking attempts to limit the marketing of junk food to kids, halting popular efforts to label foods containing GMOs, or successfully fighting government regulation of unfair treatment of farmers by agribusiness.

What does consolidation look like specifically in the poultry industry? JBS, Tyson, Perdue and Sanderson slaughter and process more than 50% of the chickens consumed in the U.S. Because there are just a handful of players in the poultry market, these companies can call all the shots — and reap large profits. For every $19.00 twelve-piece chicken bucket from KFC, only $0.25 goes to the farmer who raised the poultry, while $3.00 to $5.00 goes to the chicken processor (and the rest goes to KFC).

This market power has detrimental impacts on the people who grow our chickens. These large companies use unfair contracts, require expensive equipment and building upgrades, and employ other aggressive tactics to squeeze poultry farmers, forcing them to produce more and more chickens for less and less money. The average contract poultry grower in the U.S. makes only about $15,000 per year.

The big poultry companies own everything, from the chicks and the feed to the trucks, the slaughter facilities and the brand. The farmer assumes all the debt associated with the operation, including the mortgages on the special buildings he has to construct in order to get a contract. The farmer also shoulders the utility expenses and the costs of removing waste and dead birds.

The environment suffers from this model as well. Concentrating poultry production means concentrating the amount of waste seeping off of factory farms into nearby waterways (like the Chesapeake Bay). What is worse, these big companies like Perdue leave the farmers to shoulder all the responsibility of dealing with the waste.
Consolidated market power effectively allows a handful of food, agriculture and chemical companies to contribute large sums of money to lobbyists in Washington, DC, and the disastrous Citizens United decision will just make corporate lobbying power even stronger. Not only do the largest corporations have the profits with which to lobby Washington, now they are able to do so unrestrained.

Today, we also have an international trade system that benefits the largest economic interests. Companies can sue governments over democratically enacted measures to protect consumers, communities and the environment. We have seen this with NAFTA which has opened the door for a natural gas company to sue Quebec for $250 million for lost profits because of its moratorium on the dangerous practice of hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”) for natural gas. Under these expanded trade deals, corporations will similarly be able to sue state and local governments in the U.S. that have decided to ban fracking or to label foods containing GMOs, for example.

Accordingly, it is troubling that President Obama will attempt to fast-track two new “trade deals” — the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA). These are much more than trade deals; they are permanent power grabs by corporations and their financiers. TPP and TAFTA will lead to increased natural gas exports (and thus more fracking) and increased food imports from countries whose farmworker and food safety standards are weaker than ours.

These trade deals will forever enshrine the very economic system that has led to an ever-greater imbalance in wealth and income, as well as to increasingly frequent economic crises. They will also be enforced by new international tribunals akin to the World Trade Organization (WTO), stripping communities and nations of their ability to live under their democratically enacted laws.

So, the next time you hear someone say that our food system is broken, think about all the things beyond food that this means — and about how we got here. We cannot just “buy local” or join a CSA. While it is indeed important to support our local food systems, we have so much more to do, because this is a problem we cannot shop ourselves out of. We need to be politically aware and active. If we do not take charge of our democracy by busting up our food monopolies, resisting corporate power grabs in the form of new “trade” agreements, and fighting the Citizens United decision, then our food system will only continue to get worse.

Fair World Project continues to track the status and potential impacts of international trade agreements like the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Trans Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA). Click here to learn more and sign up for our newsletter for updates

The post Trade Policy Reform Corner appeared first on Fair World Project.

More than a century ago, Upton Sinclair shocked the nation with his groundbreaking and best-selling novel, The Jungle, reporting on life for immigrant workers in Chicago’s harrowing meat-packing industry. Sinclair described workers slaving in unsafe, unsanitary and unforgiving conditions in the packing plants, as well as tremendous suffering endured by the animals who would meet their end inside of these industrial slaughter complexes.

The novel’s connection between human and animal abuse united two socially progressive communities and helped pass the Pure Food and Drug and Meat Inspection Act in 1906. Sinclair famously noted about the effect his writing had that “I aimed at the public’s heart and by accident hit its stomach.”

Over a century later, slaughter plant work is still among America’s most dangerous jobs, and farm animals still suffer in ways no person with a sound mind could condone.

Erik Nicholson, National Vice President of the United Farm Workers, finds this problematic, saying that “Too often farmworkers are put in the terrible position of having to work in agricultural systems that are abusive to animals. Sometimes the animals are locked in cages their entire lives, or have parts of their bodies cut off without painkillers. This is of course terrible for the animals, but it can also be psychologically devastating for the workers.”

That is exactly the issue. Animal abuse impacts not only animals but people, too. In the U.S., our meat industry abuses billions of animals as if they were nothing more than assembly line production units, rather than living, feeling individuals. The vast majority of the animals raised and killed for food are confined indoors for essentially their entire lives, often in cages so small that they can barely move an inch for months or years on end. In fact, less than 1% of all animal products sold in the U.S. come from systems in which the animals spend their lives on pastures instead of in warehouses.

Farm animals have personalities; they each have their own preferences. Chickens are adaptive problem-solvers, have impressive memories and can anticipate and plan for the future. Pigs are smarter than dogs, and researchers have even taught them to play videogames by controlling joysticks with their mouths. Most importantly — like all animals — farm animals want to avoid suffering. But the sad reality is that nearly all of them endure enormous anguish that only ends when they are slaughtered.

What does this mean for those working toward a fair and just economy? In short, it means that if we are concerned about ensuring a fair shake for everyone involved in food production, we need to be concerned about everyone, both human and animal.

There is no doubt that working toward improved treatment for workers is a good thing, in and of itself, and of course the workers expect to leave these facilities alive, unlike the animals. The fact that farm animals are not voluntary participants in the agricultural system raises further questions about whether the trade in their products can even be “fair” at all. What is worse, though, is that for a large number of farm animals, the suffering inflicted upon them is so vast that death comes as a blessing — it is the day when their misery finally ends. We take so much from these animals, including their lives; indeed the very least we owe them in return is a semblance of basic decency while they are alive.

These animal welfare concerns extend to wild animals, too. The United Nations reports that animal agriculture, driven by our meat-centric diet, is a leading cause of global climate change, contributing 15% of all greenhouse gas emissions. The climate warming impacts wolves, polar bears and countless other wild animal species globally. This is one reason The Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental organizations are vocal proponents of reducing our national meat consumption.

Our meat-heavy diet also has devastating impacts on poor and underprivileged people globally. Because meat is so resource-intensive to produce, tipping our dietary scales in its favor essentially strips the world of valuable resources that could be better utilized. Oxfam, the renowned global aid and development organization, notes that “The reality is that it takes massive amounts of land, water, fertilizer, oil and other resources to produce meat, significantly more than it requires to grow other nutritious and delicious kinds of food.”

In addition to eating fewer animals (and more plants), there are many ways to improve how workers and animals are treated. For example, the Equal Justice Center and Western North Carolina Workers’ Center, two organizations dedicated to improving safety and rights for agricultural workers, joined The Humane Society of the United States’ lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s allowance of inhumane poultry slaughter practices that cause great suffering to both birds and workers. That suit did not prevail, unfortunately, but it is one example of many where these communities united to forge better agricultural conditions for all.

Were he alive today, Upton Sinclair would likely be disturbed by how industrial agriculture still abuses animals and workers. He often quoted a fellow journalist from London’s Lancet, who reported that the conditions in large-scale slaughter plants constitute a “menace to the health of the civilized world.” A century later, that could not be more true.

Every time each one of us sits down to eat, we can stand up for a less violent, more just world.

Learn More:
For more information on doing just that, see: www.humanesociety.org/meatfree

The post Fairness for Farmworkers and Farm Animals appeared first on Fair World Project.

Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps has been battling the systemic “fairwashing” that various certifiers and their licensees have been engaging in, as far as using front-panel “Fair Trade” seals on products with minor fair trade content.

In 2013, we helped bring fair trade leaders, including Whole Foods Market, Fair World Project and six leading eco-social certifiers (Fairtrade International, Fair Trade USA, IMO, Rainforest Alliance, UTZ and Ecocert), together to see if they would be able to voluntarily commit to the following criteria:

• Disclosure of the percentage of certified content in lettering in a minimum font size (to be determined), directly underneath any certification seal that appears on the front panel. The percentage to be disclosed would be calculated exclusive of water and salt, and could include the word “Certified” immediately following (for example, “37% Certified”).
• The front-panel percentage disclosure would be required, unless at least 70% of the content of the entire product is certified.
• Regarding volume credit for conventional cocoa and sugar, “made with” or “contains” are misleading; so, as an option, a simple declaration would be something like “Certified Fair Trade/Eco-Social Cocoa” in the text.
• To calculate the percentage of certified content in bottled coffee and tea beverages, the dried coffee or tea weight before extraction would be counted. (It would still be pretty insignificant versus sugar, and if certified fair trade sugar is not used, then the certified content of just the tea or coffee could be as little as 10%.)
• An optional separate “Made with Fair Trade/Eco-Social [specified ingredients]” could appear elsewhere on the front panel of the package.
• If no seal appears on the front panel, a back-panel disclosure of percentage would be sufficient, under or next to the eco-social seal, if present. (If there is no seal, then the percentage disclosure would not be required.)
• All   certified ingredients would have to be specified in the ingredients declaration.

In addition, there are other pressing problems to address in eco-social certification systems. Establishing a minimum “best practice” fair trade content percentage is the first step towards a more comprehensive baseline standard.

This front-panel transparency would serve to distinguish products on the shelf with more versus less fair trade content, and would allow ethical consumers to more easily purchase products from brands that are fully committed to fair trade, rather than from those with lesser commitment.

For details about how transparent the six major eco-social certifiers are in their multi-ingredient labeling policies, visit Fair World Project’s “Eco-Social and Fair Trade Certifier Analysis” at: www.fairworldproject.org/overview/certifier-analysis/.

While we are hopeful that the six major eco-social certifiers will make this move voluntarily, we are also exploring options that will compel them to do so, if that does not happen. Fair trade is about transparency, and we must take action to proactively minimize consumer deception.

The post Transparency for Consumers on Eco-Social Labels appeared first on Fair World Project.

The global conventional sugar market is large and complex. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), estimated production in 2014 will exceed 175 million metric tonnes. That will be significantly more than global consumption which they estimate at 168 million metric tonnes. This large sugar surplus has depressed world prices and subsequently returns for farmers and producers.

Oversupply has typically been the case for the sugar market over the last thirty years, except for only a few years where crop shortages bolstered prices for brief periods. That is, however, just part of the story. Only 25-30% of global production is actually traded on the world market, given the vast majority of sugar is consumed domestically within the country in which it is actually produced. Most exported sugar is also not freely traded around the world, as virtually every country that produces sugar imposes trade barriers and tariffs to protect their own domestic market and producers.

The situation is no different in the U.S. where significant trade barriers are in place to protect domestic cane and beet sugar production, which each account for about half of total domestic sugar production. The U.S. sugar market alone is over ten million metric tonnes, but it could be more than double

that size if half of the available demand were not met by high-fructose and other corn-derived sweeteners like glucose and dextrose. Additionally, all of the corn sweeteners and beet sugar produced in the U.S. come from crops that have now been genetically modified.

The U.S. does allow preferential imports of over one million tons of raw cane sugar for refining from a number of specified countries under a quota system. The only foreign country that has free access to the U.S. market is Mexico under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Some specialty sugars not domestically produced in commercial quantities in the U.S. are also given access under a restricted “first-come, first-served” specialty quota. That is how the vast majority of certified organic and fair trade sugar enters the U.S. market. Producing organic and fair trade sugar is the only way that small-scale farmers can compete in a global system dominated by large plantation growers in low-cost producing countries like Brazil and Thailand.

In contrast to this vast conventional market, the global availability of certified organic sugar is estimated by Wholesome Sweeteners to be in the range of 300,000 metric tonnes. Organic sugar is mainly grown and produced in South America. About 15-20% of that supply is also certified fair trade by Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International (FLO), the majority of which comes from small-scale farmer cooperatives in Paraguay who receive a social premium of $8.00 per metric tonne of sugar cane. That generally has meant a 20-30% premium over the local farm gate, non-organic, non-fair trade market prices. These fair trade premiums have funded social programs and the purchase of agricultural equipment for farmer cooperatives in Tebicuarymi, Paraguay, as well as water, school and health projects in sugar-producing communities in Kasinthula, Malawi.

However, the global availability of non-organic fair trade sugar with FLO certification has rapidly escalated to over 500,000 metric tonnes in the last three to five years. Unfortunately, the vast majority of this growth has been due to certifying conventional raw and white sugar production in countries like South Africa, Belize and Mauritius. This has been especially surprising, given the latter two origins are both government-controlled sugar industries. All these origins produce raw sugar that is shipped in bulk for refining in Europe or the U.S. These non-organic farmers have a potential fair trade social premium payment of about $5.00 per metric tonne of sugar cane. That premium is only realized if the sugar is sold as fair trade, however, and very little currently is.

Clearly, a low-cost competitive mentality has led to this explosion of conventional certified fair trade sugar projects. The larger purpose of social responsibility in fair trade, and how it requires a clear connection to long-term sustainability, is being lost. All the original fair trade sugar suppliers were also certified organic, and the value-added processing into crystalline sugar also occurred in the country of origin. This gave consumers a compelling reason to purchase a fair and sustainable product with meaningful impact for farmers, and it encouraged small-scale farmers to embrace sustainable organic and fair trade agriculture by rewarding them with a significant premium for doing so

Unfortunately, larger food manufacturers — accustomed to a conventional commodity sugar market operating at “rock-bottom” costs — were not prepared to pay for sugar certified as both organic and fair trade, and so they demanded non-organic fair trade sources. FLO capitulated and wrongly rationalized that new non-organic fair trade sugar sources were needed, as the available organic supply was not adequate. That clearly was not the case at the time, nor is it the case now.

Additionally, allowing large-scale sugar refiners into the fair trade system also necessitated the introduction of what is called “mass balance.” In simple terms, this is where the small proportion of certified fair trade raw sugar delivered to large refineries in the U.S. and Europe can be co-mingled with conventional raw sugar from a multiple of other origins. It is difficult to think of another certified fair trade product where it would be acceptable to go through intense chemical refining, involving all kinds of unnecessary processing, as part of the system.

The basic premise of mass balance is that if a refinery received 500,000 metric tonnes of raw sugar during a production run, and just 20,000 metric tonnes of that was from certified fair trade origin, then that proportion of the volume (4% of the total refined sugar output in this case) could potentially be sold as “fair trade,” even though it was actually composed of 96% conventional raw sugar. In effect, most of the value-added processing is taken from the third-world source and transferred to the final consumer market. Retro-certification then allows these large manufacturers to sell any of the sugar they produce in that period as certified fair trade, up to that maximum volume limit, over an extended future period.

This system divorces the connection between the actual final consumer product that is manufactured and the farmers who grew the crop, which clearly undermines the ethos and spirit of fair trade. Instead of making these refiners and food manufacturers use sustainably produced fair trade sugar in their existing products, FLO and other fair trade operators have certified unsustainable production methods just to bring sugar into the system at a cheaper cost.

Apparently, though, this still is not enough, and things are degenerating further. Despite having created this huge oversupply of cheap fair trade sugar in the market, both FLO and Fair Trade USA are considering, or have already put forward, proposals that would allow products containing sugar (such as chocolate, confectionaries and beverages, for example) to be certified under the fair trade system without being required to actually use fair trade sugar as an ingredient. This completely undermines the “All That Can Be, Should Be Fair Trade” model.

Indeed sugar is not a health product. It is a delicious indulgence that can be produced in a socially responsible, environmentally sustainable way and enjoyed in moderation. Producing it in vast quantities at the lowest cost possible for mass over-consumption destroys the small farming communities that fair trade is supposed to benefit. Obviously, allowing large-scale chemical refineries producing huge volumes to minimize costs of “fair trade” sugar would drastically impact thousands of small-scale cane sugar farmers across the world. Cheap, overly-refined, non-organic fair trade sugar has displaced sustainable organic and fair trade sugar, which has negatively impacted small-scale producers in Malawi and Paraguay, where sustainable and organic farming methods necessitate and justify higher costs.

The fair trade movement now has the opportunity to clearly differentiate itself by sticking to the principles upon which it was founded, and through focusing on small-scale farmer producers and local value-added processing, which makes a genuine impact on helping these producers maintain their traditional lifestyles and communities. If that is achieved, then organic and fair trade sugar produced in a sustainable way will continue to stand for something truly different — something that the consumer can understand and support.

The post Sugar – All That Can Be, Should Be Fair Trade appeared first on Fair World Project.

To kick off the 2014 International Year of Family Farming, the European Commission (EC) recently organized a conference in Brussels. La Via Campesina (LVC) sent male and female farmer leaders from India, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Argentina, United States, Mali, Morocco, Italy, France, Croatia, Romania, Spain and Norway. LVC leaders defended our vision of a peasant- based family farming model and highlighted its vital importance to the European and global economy, as well as its crucial social and environmental benefits.

LVC’s vision of family farming is based on agro-ecological principles and labor intensiveness — not capital. Our family farms are able to adapt to the infinite diversity of natural, social and economic conditions. Peasant-based, agro-ecological, small-scale family farms guarantee security and diversity of food for the majority of people across the globe. They are living examples of social, economic and ecological sustainability. Our model of agriculture provides chemical-free food for local consumption, not for export — to support life, not speculation.

LVC’s farmer leaders, with their African, Asian, Latin American and European faces, spoke out and showed courage, humility and steadfast commitment to family farming and peasant life. We encouraged re-localization of agricultural products and markets and presented model policies, based on the principles of food sovereignty, that can support, maintain and increase economic and social sustainability within the peasant-based agriculture model. The European government representatives present did not expect  the applause that followed every time an LVC peasant leader spoke from the floor. They witnessed the clear voice of the peasant “speaking truth to power” and giving hope through the vision of a better future for agriculture and food for all.

European government representatives gave us the old “fairytale” stories of the vast potential for public-private partnerships between large industrial-scale agribusiness corporations and small-scale family farmers in order to feed the world, and they spoke of a supposed “free market” where we can all compete on a level playing field.

Let’s look at some facts. With access to only 20–25% of the world’s arable land, small-scale family farmers across the globe feed 70% of the world’s people, while, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), more than 40% of the products that enter the agro-industrial food chain is lost to decomposition.

The corporate giants, who promote biotech “quick fixes” and chemically dependent agriculture, join with financial and investment firms to play with the markets, which impacts our access to food. They have now joined together to create an epidemic of speculative land grabbing, further restricting peasants’ access to land. These corporations are spending millions of dollars worldwide to lobby and pressure international institutions and national governments to pass agricultural laws and “free trade agreements” that create conditions favorable only to them. In the process, they actively undermine the rights of both peasants and consumers.

Family farmers will continue fighting to feed the world, while supporting life and freedom.

The post Small-Scale Family Farming Supports Life appeared first on Fair World Project.

Despite the narrow defeat of I-522 in Washington state last year, the momentum for GMO transparency is stronger than ever. At Whole Foods Market, we undoubtedly see that consumers want alternatives to GMOs, and they want clear and honest labeling from their food producers.

We drew our line in the sand on March 8, 2013, at Expo West in Anaheim, California, where our leadership team announced our commitment to full GMO transparency within five years. This huge undertaking encompasses all products that we sell — including plant-based processed foods, the feed for dairy, eggs and animal proteins, fresh produce, supplements and body care — and is the broadest such initiative in the world. We have set 2018 as our deadline, so we are working every day with our suppliers and will have many transparency milestones along the way.

Non-GMO and organic supply integrity is the foundation for this transparency. In order to be considered non-GMO, a product must be tested to the Non-GMO Project standards and/or be certified to USDA NOP standards. Whole Foods Market is the leading grocer for alternatives to genetically modified products, with over 5,000 products verified as non-GMO so far, and more than 10,000 such products in the pipeline. We have partnered with over 1,000 brands to date to go non-GMO, and our team members continue to prioritize these brands in our stores.

Non-GMO has been our top growth trend in the grocery department for the past three years, consistently growing between 25–30%. The non-GMO growth trend is reflected by sales increases for brands that support GMO labeling. Conversely, our customers are moving away from brands opposed to GMO labeling, with some of them down 30–40% in sales over the past year alone.

We are also pushing the envelope by developing non-GMO categories where they did not previously exist, including yogurt, eggs and fresh chicken. Our prepared foods team only sources non-GMO canola oil for products made in house and in our commissaries, while also offering many more organic options in our salad bars and hot bars. Our meat team is working with their farmers and ranchers to use non-GMO feed, creating huge demand for alternatives to GMO grains. Our produce team is working with national suppliers on sourcing non-GMO high-risk crops such as papaya, sweet corn and edamame, as well as many organic options.

An important development this year that will further fuel the need for transparency and non-GMO choices is the approval of 2,4-D (“Agent Orange”) corn and soy. Chemical companies engineer these crops to resist 2,4-D herbicide, the main ingredient in Agent Orange, because of widespread glyphosate-resistant weeds created by over-spraying. This development shows that engineering herbicide resistance increases dependence on the “chemical treadmill,” as opposed to finding farming techniques that build soil, protect human health and reduce dependency on chemical inputs. We expect that this development will further solidify our non-GMO supply chain development, as the demand for non-GMO raw materials and animal feed continues to skyrocket.

At Whole Foods Market, we are proud of the progress we have made so far on GMO transparency, and with the support of our customers, suppliers and many other stakeholders, we will continue to help positively transform our food system. We encourage other food retailers to make the same commitment.

GMO: Your Right to Know

The post The Non-GMO Supply Side at Whole Foods Market appeared first on Fair World Project.

After more than thirty-five years of focusing on the first of GEPA´s three mission statements, “to promote disadvantaged producers in the South,” GEPA is now paying attention to the growing social and economic imbalances in northern countries, the so-called “developed countries.”

There is growing awareness among consumers and the public in general about the brutal inequalities within the global marketplace. Not only in the Global South, but also in Europe, and thus in Germany, small producers are struggling for survival because of high production costs — due to the lack of economies of scale, difficult production conditions and extreme price pressure from big buyers (supermarkets and discounters). Supporting regional producers and initiatives has

become increasingly important. Consumers want to know the origins of their food, with producers being given a face and a personality, with shorter transport distances and reduced environmental impact, and with a clearer focus on regional and seasonal products.

Some years back, German milk farmers went on strike when their buyers offered less than 0.25 euro for one liter of milk, while their production costs were between 0.25 and 0.40 euro (for small-scale producers). To highlight their desperate situation, farmers decided to “throw away” their milk, so consumers were forced to see streams of milk pouring down the streets every night on the news. The scandal was given a visible face. As a result, there was a lot of public discussion about agriculture in Germany, EU agrarian policies in general, and the situation faced by small-scale farmers in Germany. But as often is the case, public interest and indignation lasted for only a short while.

When GEPA started thinking about fair trade in the Global North, we wanted to combine southern and northern ingredients, in order to have a direct link between disadvantaged producers across the globe. “Fair Milk” for us was the best example, as the difficult situation faced by milk farmers in Germany had already been the focus of public attention.

By using fair trade milk from German farmers in our chocolates, and thus combining fair trade ingredients from both the Global South and North in composite products, GEPA is looking to achieve the following:

• Make new consumer groups aware of trade, development and agrarian politics and policies;
• Combine ingredients with strategic and political importance, such as the German milk farmers example;
• Increase fair trade ingredients in composite products, meaning more producers can participate and benefit from fair trade;
• Network and find synergies with other movements and organizations, such as social movements and development groups;
• “Connect the dots” with topics that are linked to fair trade, like climate change, food sovereignty and land grabbing; and
• Increase the sales of fair trade products locally and regionally, promoting South–South trade.

Consumer response has been very positive; we have received a great deal of attention and positive feedback. Interestingly, many consumers were also surprised, as they thought the milk in GEPA chocolates had always been from fair trade producers. Currently GE

PA chocolates and sweets are distributed to several other countries, including Austria, Spain, Canada, the UK and Denmark. Some of our clients are fair trade organizations, while others are conventional buyers.

Managing to work on composite products, made with fair trade ingredients from both the Global South and North, was possible largely because of the cooperation between GEPA and Naturland e.V., one of the major global organic farming associations. Naturland, besides promoting and working with its high standards for organic agriculture, has recently developed standards for fair trade, which are applicable to all producer organizations.

GEPA´s first producer partner in Germany is a dairy cooperative made up of farmers in the south of the country, who process their own wide range of dairy products. In 2014, GEPA will launch its next line of Northern fair trade ingredients, cereals from small-scale Italian farmers, to be used in our wheat-quinoa pasta and later in our cookies.

Of course, there are also some risks and challenges associated with introducing fair trade ingredients and products from the Global North, including:

• Confusion about and dilution of the traditional fair trade concept;
• Lost opportunities and markets for Southern producers;
• Direct competition with other Northern products like sugar, wine and honey; and
• Keeping the different levels of disadvantage in the Global South and North in mind, and presenting them appropriately.

In the end, however, it all comes back to the same discussion we had when the fair trade movement started: fair trade is about changing the system and its inherently unfair structures. It is not only about increasing sales for some “lucky” producers, while working within a corrupt system. It is obvious that we have to leave our niche called “fair trade” and move on to the next level — a just and holistic economy. To follow this path, we need to strengthen our main activities: we must increase the awareness and participation of producers and consumers, and, more importantly, we must increase our lobbying and advocacy work with political decision-makers.

There are new and exiting models which look at the economy from a different angle, and they help us see that economic growth alone is not a viable option for creating and maximizing wealth and happiness. Instead, we are moving towards ideas proposed by movements like the “Economy for the Common Good” and “Degrowth.”

View More:
Naturland’s full standards can be found at: www.naturland.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/Richtlinien_englisch/Naturland-Standards_Fair-Trade-Standards.pdf

The post Fair Trade – A Global Challenge appeared first on Fair World Project.