What started as an alternative trade movement in the 1980s has morphed into a multi-faceted catchphrase that stands misunderstood, scribbled on hands, and drastically different from its roots.

Shawn Wozniak

Now, this article can go one of two ways. In one way, I could add myself to the legion of activists and supporters of Fair Trade principals, both of the certification system and of the attempt to rectify unjust trade policies, in the frustration that Fair Trade has not yet become the bottom line for commodity sales. In another, I can point out the imperfections of these systems. I’m going to opt for the latter, as constructive criticism of Fair Trade is rarely seen from its supporters.

What is Fair Trade? With its roots in the alternative trade movement of the 1980s, it’s a system of certification of goods to ensure that both producers and consumers get the best possible deal – a just wage in return for a quality product. The producers have to meet certain standards, set forth by the Fair Trade Labeling Organization in Bonn, Germany. These include environmental standards specific to the product being produced, labor standards, and organizational standards. Universities like Michigan State University and the University of California at Santa Cruz are using Fair Trade as a model of economic development, to much success. It has, as claimed, improved the lives of producers around the world. In return, the consumer gets a product that is produced to higher standards, in order to be competitive on the world market, in spite of the increase in price (you’re paying for social and environmental justice) with similar goods that are not Fair Trade certified.

Fair Trade is also the set of criticisms against free trade agreements today. As the United States (among others) tries to push new free trade agreements (like the Free Trade Area of the Americas, or FTAA, and the Central America Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA) onto developing countries, thus allowing American goods and jobs to be exported to those countries more easily while damaging their environments, communities and economies, a host of civil society and environmental groups have joined voices in protest – to much success. The recently passed CAFTA actually only passed by 2 votes – and those two votes were hard to come by, with reports of backroom deals being made to secure the passing votes. The discontent with free trade agreements seems to be growing as our labor force and social/environmental justice movements are adding members to their ranks.

So what’s wrong with all of this? Purists who have a vision for a better world cite that the alternative trade movement has been co-opted. What once was a system that was being set up to rival, and hopefully, replace capitalism has now become, “Market-Driven Ethical Consumption.” The idea was to set up something that wasn’t market-driven at all, and would ensure that everybody wins. But now that idea has been taken, branded behind the ‘bucket-man’

Criticism of the labeling has not been taken. Transnational corporations such as Proctor and Gamble (Folger’s) and Starbuck’s now sell Fair Trade coffee, using their monopsony power. Customers can go to a McDonald’s in New England can also purchase a cup, and Wal-Mart – stalwarts for the anti-justice movement. Fair Trade activists are now mumbling, “Where is my better world?” Where is the dream of a growing system of economic morality that benefits all involved and benefits justice as an ideal? If Wal-Mart can sell Fair Trade and fair-wash itself and green-wash itself behind Fair Trade coffee and green energy (purely an economic decision), where is their justice while they refuse to pay their workers living wages and put local business owners out of work? Do we really want charity from the corporate mafia? Some smaller sellers of Fair Trade coffee, who are mission-based, would like TransfairUSA to come up with a tiered labeling system so as to show that these small business owners aren’t making a token effort, and are truly committed to Fair Trade (something like a black label for Folger’s fair-washing itself, and gold for the companies like those under Cooperative Coffees that have gone 100%).

Another criticism is that the per-pound price for Fair Trade coffee is that of the 1990 International Coffee Organization price, which is only moderately above the cost of production. A farmer only actually makes $0.20-$0.30 per pound of coffee. So while consumers are able to go about their lives with their vacations and sometimes extreme luxuries, the producing families aren’t sharing in the possibility for that same life, should they desire it.

Critics of free trade policies, like Oxfam America, are seemingly supporting Keynesian New Deal economics for small producers, and Adam Smith classical economics for corporate producers. Much of their criticism has been directed toward agricultural subsidies to large corporate agribusiness farms in the US, which they say varies from the original intention of those subsidies to support smaller family farms. This is not in keeping with the intention of the alternative trade movement to set up an alternative economy to the free market. The plan still seems to be to have a world trade market, and not to support local economics and grow local economies. How does this affect people in developing countries? Think about this – how much of their food is locally grown? Shouldn’t we be encouraging them not to be beholden to industrial countries’ desires, and to supporting them as they learn to support themselves?

Lastly, there’s a level of education that needs to go on about justice, so that consumers know what justice really is. Fair Trade is just that – fair. It’s a step in the right direction toward justice, and is definitely a huge, and rapidly-growing improvement over free market commodity sales, but it’s not perfect. Consumers must force themselves to look at the supply to chain to support local businesses, and support values that coincide with theirs. It often only takes a little time, and can be a one-time effort. Where a consumer will buy Fair Trade sugar instead of locally-grown sugar from farming cooperatives, there’s a problem, because it’s a responsibility for consumers to take into account things like food miles and to shop at farmer’s markets and food co-ops. But in a society that’s talking more and more about morality, as the US has been in recent years, I think it’s time we throw poverty and economics into the fray as moral issues, and bring this kind of education to our dinner tables. But for now, it’s important for us to continue to support Fair Trade goods and to educate ourselves about what we consume, especially given the news of E.Coli in our spinach.

Other Posts

• The Wrong to Bear Arms?
• Hollywood and the Plight of Millions
• Prostitution and Morality
• Beware the Day Before the Day Before the Day
• This Land is Who’s Land?