Patricia Lanton proposes that Fairtrade wines have, at last, come of age over on the Guardian Word of Mouth Blog. She reviews a number of Fairtrade wines, including strong offerings from The Co-operative, M&S and Waitrose:

Recently I tasted around 50 wines which are currently available and found that the quality has improved enormously and the choice is becoming much more varied.

Sounds like the makings of a good headache! Read more here

UPDATE: The Independent have now released their Ten Best Fairtrade Wines, which you can read on The Independent Online.

(Photo: Mr T in DC)

Green and Blacks and Ben and Jerry’s have re-affirmed their commitment to ethical manufacturing, both announcing that their ranges will soon become 100% Fairtrade.

Green and Black’s have always had a commitment to Fairtrade. Their Maya Gold bar was the first official Fairtrade product to be sold in the UK, but this announcement demonstrates their continued commitment to good values.

After Ben and Jerry’s was sold to Unilever 10 years ago, the brand has been closely observed by those of us wondering “will corporate ownership change their activist priorities?”

These announcements come as refreshing news at a time when many manufacturers opt for a single Fairtrade product line to appease their “ethical consumer” target group, while leaving the rest of their range unchanged.

(Source: The Guardian, BBC News, Photos: Beattrapkit and Meaghan O’Malley)

As I’ve mentioned here before, the industry juggernauts are beginning to notice. They’re beginning to tap into the growing target group that is the Fairtrade consumer. It’s been creeping in for a long time, ever since the pioneer brands (Traidcraft, Cafédirect, Divine, etc.) created enough of a presence to force supermarkets to realize we exist: we who care who produces, and what goes into, the food we eat.

So in the UK we began to see Tesco and ASDA branded Fairtrade-certified goods. At the time these changes were seen as a breakthrough, a sign that at last consumers were having an influence. The idealists among us imagined that eventually we would visit a supermarket and not have a slave-produced alternative, that it would all be fairly traded and that we would even hear reports of fewer countries classified ‘developing’, as they gain economic power themselves. But the supermarkets continued to stock the other products and they continued to fly off the shelves.

This year we have seen a spate of the big players decide to accommodate the ethical consumer in their product ranges: Cadbury have committed their Dairy Milk line to certification, Mars have announced that by 2020 they will be more ethical, and Kraft Foods, who want to buy out Cadbury, are taking steps towards working with the Rainforest Alliance. Sadly, on Monday when Nestlé announced that their four finger Kit Kat will be Fairtrade certified we got another whiff of the target group mentality – “we’ll create a line which is Fairtrade, so that we can tap into that niche.”

When this fair trade journey began, the goal was to play the capitalist game in a way that would benefit the poor. It wasn’t about charity: for people to throw money at the poor while they pretended to be interested in the product. We actually wanted better products that would be desirable for more than just their sense of conscience. That’s how Cafédirect came to be, and why Nestlé (Nescafé) were forced to pay a little more for their coffee (because apparently the farmers were giving their best produce to the highest bidder).

With this in mind, why does it leave a nasty taste in our mouths when we hear of a Fairtrade version of the Kit Kat, or a Fairtrade line of Nescafé?

Maybe we were hoping that the soul-less superpowers would grow souls? Or perhaps there was an idea that we would be proven right and that the oppressors would repent of their wrong doings and confess to being modern-day slave barons?

Of course, there’s no reason why Nestle can’t take the profits from their Fairtrade line and invest them in another less-than-ethical enterprise. There’s nothing stopping Mars from back pedaling before 2020 (as they have before). But, as Stephanie Celt points out, there are 8,000 farmers who will be affected, for the better, by this (Kit Kat) decision.

We must celebrate this, but also recognize that there will always be people who face injustice, and it is always our responsibility to fight it. Wearing our “consumer” hats and fighting on an economic level is not our only option. As George Monbiot reminded us recently:

“We cannot change the world by changing [only] our buying habits…our power comes from acting as citizens – demanding political change – not acting as consumers.”

And so the fight goes on. Yes, we’ve won a tiny fraction of Nestlé’s overall output, and yes, we will continue to long for a day when their whole product line represents our consciences. But until then we must allow these small victories to fuel our steady movement forwards.

This post is part of a larger debate on the mainstreaming of Fairtrade curated by Shared Interest on their Blog. Click here to read more.

(photo by Ahron De Leeuw)

Rowan Williams, The Archbishop of Canterbury, has been directing attention recently to environmental issues and our responsibility to reduce our ‘footprint.’ One of his suggestions (in a recent interview with The Times) could take a serious toll on the livelihood of many African farmers:

He said that the carbon footprint of peas from Kenya and other airfreighted food was too high and families should not assume that all types of food would be available through the year.

As James MacGregor points out in The Guardian today:

Stopping this trade would make hardly any impact on climate change but would harm over one million people in sub-Saharan Africa who depend on it for their livelihoods, and to pay for healthcare and the education of their children, girls in particular.

He adds that:

Air-freighted fruit and vegetables contribute less than one-tenth of one percent of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions.

This is one of the great tensions between international development and environmental sustainability.

It’s no recent news, but the EU, China and the USA provide their farmers with subsidies which allow them to compete in a world market. These subsidies mean that the farmers can charge far less for their produce than they are actually worth. Any surpluses are then dumped on developing markets at a much lower price than local farmers can afford.

Are we to continue with these structural injustices and at the same time cut back on consumer spending on African produce?

(Source: The Guardian Online, The Times. Image: Steve Punter)

Here’s an amusing advert from Dutch Fairtrade brand Max Havelaar.

(via Treehugger)

British supermarket Sainsbury’s will begin stocking Fair Trade Coffee produced in the Congo, according to a recent article on The Guardian website. Coffee smuggling between the DRC and Rwanda is responsible for a huge number of deaths each year:

Most coffee from this part of DRC is smuggled across the lake to Rwanda at night. Official figures report that a thousand people drown each year in the process.

It is hoped that contracts like this will offer farmers from conflict zones a safer alternative.

(source: The Guardian, photo: hdptcar)

Apparently, since the financial crisis began, sales of organic produce have plummeted. At the same time, sales of Fair Trade products are on the rise. Michael Skapinker argues that it’s because consumers are becoming more discerning. While Fair Trade has tangible benefits, such as improving the conditions and pay of the farmers and their workers, the merits of Organic foods are not as clear:

The Soil Association’s research showed people would buy organic produce if they thought it was better for them, if it was less cruel to animals or if buying it would help tackle climate change. The problem for the organic movement is that none of these arguments is convincing.

(source: The Financial Times, photo: Simon Rawles)

Six weeks after Stop the Traffik organized their March on Mars, the chocolate giant has committed to make incremental changes towards producing chocolate without slave labour. According to a recent update, Mars’ global range will be free from human trafficking by 2020:

As a first step, one of Mars’ leading brands, Galaxy bars, in the UK and Ireland, will be certified ‘from early 2010, through the Rainforest Alliance as, ‘free from trafficked and exploited labour’.

2020 seems a long way off, but this is still great news. Lets hope that more of these chocolate giants (Nestle, Kraft Foods) will join in this tide of change…

An example of how luxury tourism and “fair trade” initiatives can work hand in hand:

Amy and Neal Carter-James built their luxury eco-resort, Guludo Beach Lodge, here on a white sand beach on the edge of the Quirimbas National Park, not far from the impoverished village of Guludo. Says Amy, “We wanted to find a place where fair-trade tourism could alleviate poverty and provide jobs.”

(via Conde Nast)

How important is it to be consistently ethical? What if a company is fair trade, but has other weak spots in their business dealings?

Once such example is American Apparel. They are well know for fashionable, “sweatshop-free” clothing, and pride themselves on having a strong relationship with their workers:

For us “sweatshop free” was never about criticizing other business models; it was about attempting something new. It comes down to this: not blindly outsourcing, but rather knowing the faces of our workers and providing them the opportunity to make a fair wage.

But there are two areas that wouldn’t fit within your average ethical business model:

1. The reputation of their CEO

While highly successful at growing and managing the company Dov Charney is known as something of a womanizing sex addict, who has faced a number of sexual harassment lawsuits. He apparently thinks nothing of propositioning his workers:

“I’ve got myself in trouble telling people what I like to do for 20 minutes off-site,” Charney says.

It could be argued that such a workplace isn’t as “fair” or ethical as “sweatshop-free” would suggest.

2. Soft Porn advertising

The company has come under criticism for using advertising which is shamelessly sexually provocative. Images are thought to mimic amateur soft-porn. In response Charney is defiant:

“It’s noise, it’s chatter, it’s bullshit, it’s perceptions, it’s stereotypes, it’s manipulation, it’s garbage…I never started making any proper money until I decided to make clothing that was geared towards young adults only …To meet their sensibility, sexy was job one. Fashion is all about sex and function.”

What do you think? Is it okay for a company to just be “sweatshop-free?”

Update: Influential web designer Cameron Moll has recently taken the decision to stop using American Apparel due to their advertising practices. Learn more about his reasoning here (06/12/2009)

(sources: The Guardian, American Apparel. photo: American Apparel)