Don't buy Fair Trade its not Fair

Winty

Everywhere you look you now see “Fair Trade” coffee, chocolate, fruit they even sell Fair Trade in Leinster House as the only available coffee.

The liberal amongst us say that we should always look for the Fair Trade logo as it helps poor farmers in poor countries; well that’s wrong and I will prove why.

Picture the scene

Two small islands in the Caribbean ocean with one farmer on each island growing Bananas.

Each box of Bananas is sold to an agent for $100 a box.
The agent then sells to Tesco.

Each farmer has a small income but his children have food and can go to school, they are not rich but they survive.

Irish people start asking Tesco for Fair Trade Bananas, Tesco think great we can get a bit of extra cash for the 20% of people who want to pay a bit more.
Tesco calls fair trade and they put him in contact with the agent in the Caribbean.

The agent goes to 1 of the farmers and gets him signed up to the Fair Trade Scheme; he is over the moon because he now gets paid $110 per box. With the extra money he is not rich but only a tiny bit better off.

Meanwhile Tesco don’t need as many “normal” bananas in its shops in Ireland because 20% of the customers want the “Fair Trade” one.

Now farmer number 2 who is not in the “Fair Trade” scheme has seen his money fall to $80 per box. He is really in trouble and with the drop in money needs the kids to stay and home and work and not go to school.

So at the start both farmers were making a small amount of money but they were surviving. Now one is a tidy bit better of, where the other is now living on the edge.

Is “Fair Trade” Fair.

minidazzler

If it wasn't made by vietnamese children in sweatshops, I'm not gonna wear it, simple as.

ScumLord

Where is the man from Del Monte when you need him? I think Tescos killed him and evil rained over the land.

nucking futs

Are there any facts behind that or is it just a theory?

elgriff

Why is farmer one only earning 10% more, i presume its because you allowed a cut for the agent. You did however forget to mention that as well as farmer 1s prices going up, so is the amount of boxes he sells. so for farmer 1, he sells 20% more than before at 10% higher the price. I think that is worth mentioning. I also think you have simplified it way too much.

ToniTuddle

Fair Trade is too expensive for a young student like myself!

Aldi for meeeeeee

Helix

minidazzler wrote: »

If it wasn't made by vietnamese children in sweatshops, I'm not gonna wear it, simple as.

exactly

vietnamese children need work too

easyeason3

If all the worlds problems were fixed then you would have nothing to complain about.
So not only is Tesco allegedly making more profit but they are also providing you with a story to start a thread on for a whinge.

orourkeda

minidazzler wrote: »

If it wasn't made by vietnamese children in sweatshops, I'm not gonna wear it, simple as.

couldnt agree more. if its good enough for Tiger Woods its good enough for me

admiralofthefleet

the price of the stuff isnt 'fair'

Winty

nucking futs wrote: »

Are there any facts behind that or is it just a theory?

This is my simple theory, I will work more on the fine details but its based on facts I have read.

Alot of people in the industry see Fair Trade as a joke

Winty

easyeason3 wrote: »

a story to start a thread on for a whinge.

Not a whinge, an open forum

nucking futs

Winty wrote: »

This is my simple theory, I will work more on the fine details but its based on facts I have read.

Alot of people in the industry see Fair Trade as a joke

Does not compute. If it's based on facts then it isn't a theory.

Winty

nucking futs wrote: »

Does not compute. If it's based on facts then it isn't a theory.

The 2 islands may not be real, so some is theory, but the fact that some win and some loose is true, ask anyone

CreepingDeath

If we raise the third world countries out of poverty, they're only going to turn around and compete with us with the advantage of lower wage levels.

Look at India, how many call centres and software development jobs have been lost to there ?

easyeason3

Winty wrote: »

Not a whinge, an open forum

Ah go on you whingebag
It's a Friday evening, the sun is shining so go out & enjoy it & stop worrying about bananas.
Jaysus if we get the summer that's being predicted we could be able to grow our own bananas so don't worry about the farmer in the carribean, you could be looking to undercut him on price yet!

Winty

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Look at India, how many call centres and software development jobs have been lost to there ?

We need people to be poor or we wont be rich

Winty

easyeason3 wrote: »

Ah go on you whingebag
It's a Friday evening, the sun is shining so go out & enjoy it & stop worrying about bananas.
Jaysus if we get the summer that's being predicted we could be able to grow our own bananas so don't worry about the farmer in the carribean, you could be looking to undercut him on price yet!

Fair enough but not Fair trade

landsleaving

Why would one farmer suddenly make enough to satisfy tesco's demands if he became the 'fair trade' farmer, when before both of them produced for tesco previously, which means demand required 2 farmers? Surely in that situation tesco would pay the extra to both, continue sourcing from both and charge the excess to the consumer.

Your argument is flawed.

minidazzler

CreepingDeath wrote: »

If we raise the third world countries out of poverty, they're only going to turn around and compete with us with the advantage of lower wage levels.

Look at India, how many call centres and software development jobs have been lost to there ?

47?

opinion guy

Winty wrote: »

This is my simple theory, I will work more on the fine details but its based on facts I have read.

Alot of people in the industry see Fair Trade as a joke

Where did you get your figures? Why does farmer 2's price drop to 80%? You just pulled that out of your ass along with the rest of your theory.

seanybiker

Sure me man selling his for 80 will be selling to 80% of people and his family will be happy cos they can spend more time together while the 110 fella is only selling to 20% of people and spending his extra tenner in the pub because there is nobody to talk to at home.

Winty

landsleaving wrote: »

Why would one farmer suddenly make enough to satisfy tesco's demands if he became the 'fair trade' farmer, when before both of them produced for tesco previously, which means demand required 2 farmers? Surely in that situation tesco would pay the extra to both, continue sourcing from both and charge the excess to the consumer.

Your argument is flawed.

No its not, read it again, Tesco only need 20% fair trade, my argument is perfect

Winty

opinion guy wrote: »

Where did you get your figures? Why does farmer 2's price drop to 80%? You just pulled that out of your ass along with the rest of your theory.

The UN Bananna Office

opinion guy

Winty wrote: »

The UN Bananna Office

Oh so you're confirming you pulled the figures out of your ass then ?

landsleaving

Winty wrote: »

No its not, read it again, Tesco only need 20% fair trade, my argument is perfect

The amount of banans needed remains the same. It's irrelevant the exact amount, but lets assume a 50/50 split in prouction. Farmer 1, who is now selling fairtrade, continues making 50% of the banans, of which 20% (of the 100) are fairtrade, so he makes x amount more. The other farmer continues selling 50% of his 'normal' banana. But why would his price need to drop? There are no less bananas being prouduced, so no price drop per box is necessary. One farmer is simply lucky enough to make a little more on some of his bananas.

And now the word banana has lost all meaning.

But your argument remains flawed.

Winty

landsleaving wrote: »

The other farmer continues selling 50% of his 'normal' banana. But why would his price need to drop? There are no less bananas being prouduced, so no price drop per box is necessary.
But your argument remains flawed.

If 20% of people want a Fair Trade banana then normal banana sales will fall 20% so the farmer of normal banana will sell 20% less and because demand has fallen Tesco will pay a lower price

Supply and Demand

simple

BizzyC

Yes it is fair. Your example is completely speculative and shows very little understanding of the fair trade system.

Fair trade do not source the goods themselves, the award the mark to companies who provide a fair deal to the producer. So in your example above, Tesco would have to provide both farmers with your $110 figure in order for them to put a fair trade logo on their bananas.

Ruu_Old

ScumLord wrote: »

Where is the man from Del Monte when you need him? I think Tescos killed him and evil rained over the land.

He was offered a big bag of money from Tesco and said "Yes".

Winty

BizzyC wrote: »

Yes it is fair. Your example is completely speculative and shows very little understanding of the fair trade system.

Fair trade do not source the goods themselves, the award the mark to companies who provide a fair deal to the producer. So in your example above, Tesco would have to provide both farmers with your $110 figure in order for them to put a fair trade logo on their bananas.

No you missed the point, Tesco would not want all the bananas to be Fair Trade as its not in a big demand, so only one farmer is needed to produce Fair Trade so the other one looses out as Tesco will reduce his price because as it will be selling less

landsleaving

Winty wrote: »

If 20% of people want a Fair Trade banana then normal banana sales will fall 20% so the farmer of normal banana will sell 20% less and because demand has fallen Tesco will pay a lower price

Supply and Demand

simple

The demand is the same. The farmer of the normal bananas will sell the same amount... at the same price because the bananas are the same. It's just a different sticker. They're not magic or anything.

If tesco bought 100 banana boxes, they'd just stick a sticker on 20%. There is no reduction in demand whatsoever. The farmers will produce the same amount, one farmer will just make a little more money. How does demand fall. 80 + 20% is still 100% of bananas, which is what was being produced previously.

star.chaser

Winty wrote: »

Everywhere you look you now see “Fair Trade” coffee, chocolate, fruit they even sell Fair Trade in Leinster House as the only available coffee.

The liberal amongst us say that we should always look for the Fair Trade logo as it helps poor farmers in poor countries; well that’s wrong and I will prove why.

Picture the scene

Two small islands in the Caribbean ocean with one farmer on each island growing Bananas.

Each box of Bananas is sold to an agent for $100 a box.
The agent then sells to Tesco.

Each farmer has a small income but his children have food and can go to school, they are not rich but they survive.

Irish people start asking Tesco for Fair Trade Bananas, Tesco think great we can get a bit of extra cash for the 20% of people who want to pay a bit more.
Tesco calls fair trade and they put him in contact with the agent in the Caribbean.

The agent goes to 1 of the farmers and gets him signed up to the Fair Trade Scheme; he is over the moon because he now gets paid $110 per box. With the extra money he is not rich but only a tiny bit better off.

Meanwhile Tesco don’t need as many “normal” bananas in its shops in Ireland because 20% of the customers want the “Fair Trade” one.

Now farmer number 2 who is not in the “Fair Trade” scheme has seen his money fall to $80 per box. He is really in trouble and with the drop in money needs the kids to stay and home and work and not go to school.

So at the start both farmers were making a small amount of money but they were surviving. Now one is a tidy bit better of, where the other is now living on the edge.

Is “Fair Trade” Fair.

is that a true story?


picture this. farmer 1 and farmer 2 are not in the fair trade program. they can't afford to send their kids to school as they need them to work on the farm just to make ends meet. farmer 1 enters the program and now he can send his kids to school with the extra money.

BizzyC

Winty wrote: »

No you missed the point, Tesco would not want all the bananas to be Fair Trade as its not in a big demand, so only one farmer is needed to produce Fair Trade so the other one looses out as Tesco will reduce his price because as it will be selling less

You missed my point....
If Tesco do that, they will no longer be a "Fair Trade company" and wont be allowed to label any Tesco brands as Fair Trade. It's a company wide label, it doesn't depend on their treatment of a single farmer, it's how they treat all of the farmers...

Winty

BizzyC wrote: »

You missed my point....
If Tesco do that, they will no longer be a "Fair Trade company" and wont be allowed to label any Tesco brands as Fair Trade. It's a company wide label, it doesn't depend on their treatment of a single farmer, it's how they treat all of the farmers...

No that can be, so you are saying Tesco must treat every farmer across the world to be able to sell Fair Trade

They pick a handful of farmers to sell the pricer product and Fu*k the rest

ScumLord

landsleaving wrote: »

The demand is the same. The farmer of the normal bananas will sell the same amount... at the same price because the bananas are the same. It's just a different sticker. They're not magic or anything.

If tesco bought 100 banana boxes, they'd just stick a sticker on 20%. There is no reduction in demand whatsoever. The farmers will produce the same amount, one farmer will just make a little more. How does demand fall. 80 + 20% is still 100% of bananas, which is what was being produced previously.

If one farmer was making 10% more than everyone else on the poverty line because he was in a special international scheme (possible government backed) you can be guaranteed it would be a major issue if it happened here.

I can see Wintys point it's not exactly fair trade. Some farmers win a lottery to earn slightly more money so that Tescos can pretend to be a kinder caring company that isn't destroying the quality of food, sustainable farming and taking advantage of everyone they can for profit. It's not fair for the other farmers and the ones that do benefit are just getting paid to smile for the camera.

ejmaztec

opinion guy wrote: »

Oh so you're confirming you pulled the figures out of your ass then ?

No sh1t.

Nevermind_

There was a panorama programme a few nights ago that dealt with some of the issues youre talking about here, only it was cocoa not bananas.

It shows exactly how fair trade works and exposes some off its shortcomings using the microcosm of just the cocoa/chocolate industry.

After watching it I felt Fair Trade while not perfect is still a good thing.

Well worth a look if you have the time...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/default.stm

biko

I never buy Made in China, the clothes never last. Children has no sense of quality.

landsleaving

ScumLord wrote: »

If one farmer was making 10% more than everyone else on the poverty line because he was in a special international scheme (possible government backed) you can be guaranteed it would be a major issue if it happened here.

I can see Wintys point it's not exactly fair trade. Some farmers win a lottery to earn slightly more money so that Tescos can pretend to be a kinder caring company that isn't destroying the quality of food, sustainable farming and taking advantage of everyone they can for profit. It's not fair for the other farmers and the ones that do benefit are just getting paid to smile for the camera.

I'm not arguing that one farmer earning more is fair, nor am I disputing that one farmer will earn more, but the other farmer won't earn less,and he was doing ok in the story. Some people make more for the same job here as well. His argument is based on a fallacy. I expect it revised and on my desk by Monday.

billybigunz

Fair trade is a distortion of the free market which is inherently fair.

It only exists as a form of price discrimination. Middle class guilt is a marketers dream.

Sheeps

The second banana farmer probably didn't make the fair trade requirements because he's got children that he bought working 12 hours a day and doing a little bit of prostitution on the side. All is fair.

landsleaving

billybigunz wrote: »

Fair trade is a distortion of the free market which is inherently fair.

Only only exists as a form of price discrimination. Middle class guilt is a marketers dream.

So is communism. Doesn't mean it works out that way in reality.

Midnight_EG

If one of the farmers only uses Fair Trade, then his share of the market for normal bananas goes to the other farmer, so in essence the other farmer wins.

biko

Free market is inherently unfair, it will inevitably create cartels and protectionism.
But that's another discussion.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Why doesn't farmer two just join the scheme?

Midnight_EG

Eliza Sticky Loop wrote: »

Why doesn't farmer two just join the scheme?

Because then he's competing with Farmer 1 again, losing money yet again.

Sprouts

The 2nd farmer should grow something thats not banannas, sorted.

star.chaser

they should scrap the bananas and start growing hash plants.

surdah

I have seen Fair Trade products from some countries where I know for a fact that the money does not go directly to the farmers but goes to the corrupt government who pay the farmer a pittance. I know this because I was friends with lots of people from these countries who told me this. So I am very dubious about the whole thing it is just another marketing strategy which tries to appeal to the "save the planet" "down with globalisation" hippy part of us a bit like the whole global warming crap!

brianthebard

Winty wrote: »

The 2 islands may not be real, so some is theory, but the fact that some win and some loose is true, ask anyone

Its called capitalism.

opinion guy

star.chaser wrote: »

they should scrap the bananas and start growing hash plants.

Is there Fair Trade hash now too ?