There I go again...

Living up to my moniker by stirring up trouble once again.

So, today one of my classmates commented about how it was interesting that whereas fair labor practices for say ... tennis shoes have really taken off and it's now viewed that companies must practice fair labor practices or risk protest, fair trade is still a niche market, and companies aren't really called into question if their food isn't fair trade.

It's a weird double standard, isn't it? And yet, I think her comment is right on, considering a recent debate I've been having with a colleague: part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4.

Now, I appreciate enthusiastic debate, and this one was no exception. I thoroughly appreciated all of Jeff's comments. But I have to admit, I do think it's a little bit weird and also slightly depressing that calling a company out for claiming to be socially responsible while not practicing fair trade is enough to get you labeled as a "puritanical scold."

The funny thing is that in the past I've praised, among other things, Clorox Green Works, Starbucks, and In N Out here and on other blog sites. For heaven's sake, I just admitted my soda and junk food addiction. I'm hardly some sort of ethical purist.

But ... okay ... let's say a corporation, let's call them Shmike for the sake of this argument, let's say Shmike was producing I don't know ... shoes that made you fall down a lot. Now for me, that wouldn't be any different from any other shoes, but, let's imagine that these shoes made even vaguely graceful people fall down a lot. So these shoes cause people to fall which is not particularly healthy. Let's say these shoes are also made by children in sweatshop conditions.

Now let's say Shmike reacts to some of the bad press surrounding their shoes that make people fall down a lot. And even though there are plenty of people who still are buying the shoes (because even though they make you fall down, they are pretty cool) they decide to listen to the growing clamor of parents and podiatrists and decide to get out of the business of making shoes that cause people to fall down. So they make new shoes that don't make people fall down, but in fact cause people to walk normal ... you know ... like shoes are SUPPOSED to do. But they still use child labor.

Given this case, would you say that Shmike was really being socially responsible? Would you applaud Shmike for no longer making shoes that cause people to fall down? Or would you say, "Well, that's nice that your shoes no longer make people fall down, but uh, how about you stop with the sweatshops, mkay?"

The truth is that the real "Shmike" has enacted much better labor practices because of international advocacy. Again, look, I am all for kids eating more fruits and vegetables and all the other things that Michael Pollan loves. But if we can agree that sweatshops are bad, can't we also agree that sweatshop-shop like conditions for agricultural workers are also bad? Can't we agree that while no one wants to be a puritanical scold, we can't really call a company "socially responsible" if they are not engaging in fair labor practices?

Or are we really so desperate for kids in the North to eat a frickin apple, that we are willing to sell out poor laborers in the South?

Think Global, Act Local ... And It's All Local

You know that book Don't Sweat the Small Stuff ... And It's All Small Stuff? Yeah, I never read it either, but lately I've been applying that same logic to that ubiquitous phrase "Think Global, Act Local." Think global, act local ... and it's all local. If that hadn't been hammered home enough during the global financial crisis, it was certainly hammered home on Tuesday when people from all over the world rejoiced over the election of Barack Obama. Why? Because very simply, what happens in America affects the entire world.

Every act you make now has global consequences. As Bill McKibben pointed out in his book Deep Economy, American demand for plastic shower curtains produced in China is helping to pull many Chinese young men and women out of poverty. While I might not encourage people to buy new plastic shower curtains from an environmental point of view, I cannot deny that shower curtain factories produce jobs for people who desperately need them. In The End of Poverty Jeffrey Sachs talks to some Bangladeshi women who work in sweatshops producing clothes destined, most likely, for America. Although their work environments are poor, still, the women are grateful for the work, and for the opportunities they see arising from their paid labor.

I've always been a little wary about the idea of buying locally simply because I feel it ignores this component. And when locavores don't ignore the component, such as Bill McKibben, they often seem left with no ready answer. McKibben points out that globalization has increased the prosperity of many Chinese people, and I give him credit for that. But he never resolves the issue for himself. How do we deal with the legitimate environmental concerns related to shipping products around the world, and yet still ensure better lives and more opportunity for those workers in Chinese factories? If we, as environmentalists are telling people not to buy cheap plastic goods produced in China due to the hidden negative externalities of cheap plastic, what is the engine that produces equality?

Because here's the thing. The surest way to get less cheap plastic crap on the market? Is to make that cheap plastic crap more expensive to produce. And a great way to make that cheap plastic crap more expensive is if labor becomes more expensive. That is, if people have more opportunities, and better job possibilities, then working in a shower curtain factory is suddenly not so appealing. Why are there almost zero shower curtain factories in the United States? Because people don't want those jobs. Because labor is expensive. Because most people living in America can find better work that pays MORE.

So right now our global corporations send those jobs abroad where labor is cheaper. Essentially, in my opinion, the answer isn't to boycott goods made in China, but to reduce inequality. Because, frankly, when the whole world is making say, between $15,000 and $20,000 a year? Those plastic shower curtains are going to become veeeery expensive to produce. Why don't people fix their DVD players when they break? Because it's cheaper to buy new. But those $10 DVD players, rampant consumerism, and a need to buy new, new, new are built on the backs of cheap labor. Once labor starts getting expensive, so do the DVD players.

But besides all that, here's the truth. Those Chinese workers in the factory? They are part of my community. They are human beings, and thus, my people. And they have as much right to their dreams as does the person who lives next door.

So what am I saying? Am I saying that we should all start buying produce from South Africa because it enhances South Africa economy, that we should all start buying plastic shower curtains by the dozen from China?

No. But what I'm saying, is we need to start framing things differently. Buy local food, by all means, but buy your sugar fair trade, and your chocolate fair or equitrade. And next time you're dying for a banana, then get yourself a damn banana, just get it fair trade. Buy goods at your local mom and pop green store, but if the shoes you buy happen to be ethically and sustainably produced in China, treat that as a WIN, as opposed to a loss. Take the money you save by forgoing the plastic shower curtain, and lend it to someone in the developing world at Kiva.org. And the next time you have to talk to IT support in India, instead of griping about how you can't understand the accent, take a moment to remember that these IT jobs have enormously benefitted India, have pulled thousands and thousands into the middle class, and that the environmental negatives for phone support are fairly small.

We must stop viewing the world in terms of us versus them. There's only us. Think global, act local, but remember it's all local. So by all means, buy products from your farmers' markets, support the seamstress who lives next door. But remember, that the choices we make directly impact people all over the world, and not just our neighborhood. Remember, we are all human beings. We are all entitled to dignity, to food, to health care, to work, to education. We are all entitled to dream big.

*This is my post for the November APLS carnival. There is STILL time to get your submissions in. Write your post about buying local and email it to aplscarnival (at) gmail (dot) com.*

Reason Number 5,452 of Why I Love The Internets

On Friday, I asked how fair is fair trade. Since I don't know the answer myself, I asked mostly for the sake of sparking conversation. There were some really great dialogue created, and I really appreciate how much thought people put into their answers. This is how I, and hopefully some of you, learn.

And one of the awesome things that I learned, courtesy of Neelofer, was the presence of another type of designation: Equitrade. Whereas fair trade provides a fair wage to farmers for cash crops, equitrade attempts to take this one crucial step forward, and empower local people to turn their crops into finished goods. Why is this crucial? Because as I learnt in The End of Food (review coming next week to a Bookworm near you) cash crops earn a relatively low amount of money. The "value adding" comes when the food is processed. Consequently, a breakfast cereal has a much higher value than oat, and chocolate has a much higher value than cacao beans. Futhermore, while cacao beans garner a standard, across the board, market rate, chocolate bars can vary in price depending on a number of factors. 

Generally speaking, even with fair trade products, the cash crop comes from the developing world, but the all important "value adding" happens in the developed world. Cacao beans are imported to Switzerland where they are turned into chocolate. I recently saw the documentary The End of Poverty? in which a Kenyan farmer was complaining bitterly that Westerners buy coffee beans from Kenya, but that the roasting, or the value adding process, is done in the developed world, instead of in Kenya. As the farmer points out, if the roasting of coffee continues to be done in the developed world, Kenya can never hope to see much of the immense profits garnered from coffee. Simply put, fair trade, while important, is just not enough. 

Now as far as I can tell, equitrade hasn't been around for very long, and in fact, I could only find one company, Malagasy, using the equitrade symbol. (In fact the founders of Malagasy also founded equitrade.) And equitrade isn't likely to become widespread in the future. Because fair trade involves cash crops, it can fit nicely into our current agricultural economy. Nestle can simply buy fair trade coffee beans, and still be Nestle. But since equitrade demands processing to happen in the countries where the crops are harvested, Nestle can't just "become" equitrade. As a result, equitrade is likely to remain a very, very tiny, niche market.

Still, if equitrade is able to make any advances in the niche, "foodie" market, this might have a very real impact on the economies of the developing world. So for now, I'll adopting the buying principle of giving preference to equitrade, and buying fair trade when equitrade is not available. Thanks for the tip, Neelofer!

How Fair Is Fair Trade?

I've always been a huge believer in fair trade.

Partly for selfish reasons: I don't want to give up tea or chocolate.

Partly for humanitarian reasons: I believe that when done right, fair trade really can empower local communities. This isn't a theoretical assumption either. I've physically seen a few communities that have benefited from fair-trade production.

But it's becoming more and more clear to me, that within the feel-good sticker of "fair-trade certified!" there are some huge disparities among philosophies.

Yesterday, I went into my local coffee shop (big mugs of tea, and a discount for students!!) and saw a little sign proudly proclaiming their coffee to be fair-trade certified. It further noted that a share of the money from the coffee went to buying acres of land in the rain forest.

You see it all the time. On chocolate. On coffee. When you purchase carbon offsets. This money will go to buy land in the rain forest!

Now I admit, that until now, I'd never stopped to consider the implications. But suddenly, I was very, very uncomfortable.

That rain forest? It's part of a sovereign nation. You know? The one they call Brazil?

Yup. It's not ours. And Brazilians are understandably very defensive of people who try to say otherwise.

How is this helpful? How is it helpful if Americans and Western Europeans keep buying up land in the Amazon? How is this empowering local communities? How is this helping Brazilians build a better life? How is this fair or just?

Look, I'm worried about deforestation in the Amazon, too. But the ugly truth is, America and Western Europe completely deforested their land years ago. Why should we appropriate Brazil's land simply because they had the "misfortune" to be last in the major deforestation game?

What's the better solution here?