Great ‘Cheapest Way to Go Fairtrade’ Hunt

@valiant

sorry but the price of coffee collapsed after international agreements on coffee prices collapsed. When Vietnam started producing coffee they oversupplied the global market and prices collapsed even more. And who can blame them wanting a slice of the pie? It is not the presence of fairtrade that pushes prices down it is oversupply.

Your argument against fair trade is unfounded as farmers receive a fair price and continue to receive a fair price. It is farmers that are not involved in fair trade that are trying to increase supply that causes the price to decline further. Indeed many are forced to sell their produce at below market price leading to bankruptcy and poverty.

Here's cafedirects prices:

http://www.cafedirect.co.uk/our_business/values/pricing_coffee.cfm

Better that those in the free market restrict supply and increase prices rather than continue trying to achieve economies of scale. Should coffee producing countries help their farmers restrict supply through international agreements and increasing resource rents they would see the global market price of coffee increase. This would improve developing countries lot in more ways than one. Reduction in water consumption, increased land area for food production and resource rents collected by their governments to cushion their domestic markets somewhat from international shocks.

To highlight a mug of coffee contains around 150 litres of embedded water in its lifecycle. Tea in contrast contains around 30 litres of embedded water in its lifecycle.

See below and scroll down to the bath tub:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7785479.stm

Reinstating international price agreements on coffee would restrict supply, give a fairer price and increase the amount of water available in coffee growing countries and downstream. Stopping buying fair trade coffee does not change this fact. Indeed supporting fairtrade means farmers can make a profit using less land and water, provide social benefits and increase food sovereignty.

From a consumer perspective better to support fairly traded goods and / or decrease consumption of non fairly traded goods. Treat it as the unsustainable luxury good that it is. Less tea and coffee consumption would mean western people would literally be able to sleep better.

The very magazine that you point to will expound the importance of 'economies of scale' and problems of over supply impacting market prices in other articles. Shame they try to justify fair trade as being the cause of farmer's woes. I'd suggest checking the letters section of the next issue: there will almost certainly be a few angry comments.

Charging a premium on fair trade:

http://timharford.com/2008/04/business-life-fair-trade-or-foul/

@bargainbabe16a

Yes! Thanks! Your right it is in danger of becoming a huge debate. I'll keep my eyes peeled.:o:)

Cane sugar = imported

hope that helps
DG

valiant wrote: »

In the big bad world, some arguments are based on facts; some on reason; some on just emotions. Most are a combination. In this case the argument is primarily based on reason.....albeit pretty compelling reason. And it's not presenting a maverick view. The media is littered with similar views. Just Google.

My not agreeing with you isn't a sign of ignorance about the topic. This is not the first time I've encountered these claims. I am well aware of the debate, and I know all too well how the fairtrade concept steps on the toes of many big business. They are struggling with the reality that the market is turning towards products they can't produce without a major shift in their business concept, which would, to put it frankly, involve a diversion from pure unhindered greed.

I suggest you google and have a browse and consider some of the sources you find. One big name you'll find is the Adam Smith Institute, who published a large article called "unfair trade", which set the tone for most all the criticisms I've since found. The paper itself is to me very suspect. Some information is very selectively picked and represented, alluding to untrue things.

As an organisation they don't gain any favour from me, they're unrelentingly pro-big business and their interests. Their other claims to fame are the large scale privatisation of the UK's public services and reducing the income tax of the very wealthy.

The Adam Smith article is all over the place too. One minute they claim that fairtrade is depressing prices and harming poor farmers, then the next page they claim that fairtrade is, to use their word 'irrelevant' and represents a tiny amount of the coffee market.

Another supplier of mixed messages in this debate is Nestle. They too publish a report called "what can be done" that is economical with the truth. They strongly allude to fairtrade being ineffective and how they're already buying ethically and making a difference, and yet Nestle have since launched a fairtrade coffee. One single type that represents a tiny proportion of their products/market share, but is heavily advertised to gain them good PR as a whole.

The big companies are fighting this with PR and disinformation, even openly contradicting themselves on many issues if you look a bit closer, and using all their planted 'impartial' 3rd parties to support the claims.

Don't believe big business would be this cynical and devious? I do! After the tobacco lobby I don't put much past them.

Why should MSE have to make " any deference to the opposing arguments?" My understanding of this website was that it would provide information to help people save money- surely if people want to buy Fairtrade (irrespective of their motives-of which there can be many) then MSE is entitled to start a thread to encourage people to highlight these bargains!!!
And as for MSE having a political agenda...... words fail me!
Please can we just use this to post Fairtrade bargains and those who wish to have debates about the pros/cons of Fairtrade PLEASE take them somewhere else!!!!! Thanks!