I Have an Opinion.
Do non-Irish/British people have the Fairtrade mark? It's an organisation that champions farmers' rights in the Third World. Various companies are part of it, or sell products that are part of it - participating products have the little logo put somewhere discreetly (but no so discreetly no-one'd notice) on their packaging. It's great; when you buy the stuff you feel like you're doing your bit to make people's lives that much easier, and giving Nestlé that little bit less money.
All well and good, but I have a query. If a product is made that does not involve mistreatmeant of the coffee/cocoa growers in third world countries not because it's ethical, but because it's got nothing to do with them, does it deserve the Fairtrade label? If the cocoa is grown in Italy, say (shut up)?
I think it should. If the product is produced entirely in Industrialised countries, with all of our labour unions and free press and so on, it's more or less a given that it'll be produced in accordance with Fairtrade principles, which is why it doesn't get the sticker. It's seen as pointless, I suppose.
But if I, an ethically-aware consumer, want to buy a product which has not systematically maltreated anyone, then all I want to know is that no-one has been maltreated. I don't care whether these people were Italians or Ugandans, they're people all the same.
Now you could say that things that are made in Industrialised countries don't need the Fairtrade mark because different products are grown in First and Third World countries. Computers obviously aren't made from Third World resources, maybe. I've heard this argument (made by a certain someone...), but it doesn't work. Oranges are made in California, and also in Uganda. If I see oranges without a Fairtrade sticker, am I buying Californian oranges - which are probably grown by well-paid people - or am I raping the Ugandan workers?
So that's why any product that doesn't involve systematic mistreatment of people should be able to bear a Fairtrade sticker if it so wants, be it bananas or Donegal bog-oak.
-James
All well and good, but I have a query. If a product is made that does not involve mistreatmeant of the coffee/cocoa growers in third world countries not because it's ethical, but because it's got nothing to do with them, does it deserve the Fairtrade label? If the cocoa is grown in Italy, say (shut up)?
I think it should. If the product is produced entirely in Industrialised countries, with all of our labour unions and free press and so on, it's more or less a given that it'll be produced in accordance with Fairtrade principles, which is why it doesn't get the sticker. It's seen as pointless, I suppose.
But if I, an ethically-aware consumer, want to buy a product which has not systematically maltreated anyone, then all I want to know is that no-one has been maltreated. I don't care whether these people were Italians or Ugandans, they're people all the same.
Now you could say that things that are made in Industrialised countries don't need the Fairtrade mark because different products are grown in First and Third World countries. Computers obviously aren't made from Third World resources, maybe. I've heard this argument (made by a certain someone...), but it doesn't work. Oranges are made in California, and also in Uganda. If I see oranges without a Fairtrade sticker, am I buying Californian oranges - which are probably grown by well-paid people - or am I raping the Ugandan workers?
So that's why any product that doesn't involve systematic mistreatment of people should be able to bear a Fairtrade sticker if it so wants, be it bananas or Donegal bog-oak.
-James