Fairtrade future

Claire McGowan questions our incentives for buying Fairtrade.

''In the almost twenty years since the Fairtrade mark has been in use, it has become a status brand, slung on the sides of wine bottles, chic chocolates, and posh bananas.'' ''When we pick up a packet of coffee or a chocolate bar with that distinctive blue and green logo, is it really any different than the pride you feel when stepping out in a new pair of brand-plastered trainers?'' ''Another recent branding innovation is the addition of ‘food wheels’ to products telling us levels of salt, fat, and sugar. It led me to wonder if one day we might use similar ‘wheels’ to reflect other aspects of the food.''

We have just come to the end of Fairtrade Fortnight; the time set aside each year to promote the purchase of fairly traded goods in the UK. No longer limited to tea, coffee, or sugar; we can now have fairly traded fruit, vegetables, wine, cotton, and even footballs.

The first fairly traded product - a brand of coffee from Mexico - was launched in the Netherlands in 1988. In the almost twenty years since the Fairtrade mark has been in use, it has become a status brand, slung on the sides of wine bottles, chic chocolates, and posh bananas. As a brand, it has a weight of meaning behind it. There are rigorous criteria for earning the right to certification.

However, I wonder if on the other end, as consumers, we are really choosing these products for altruistic reasons. When we pick up a packet of coffee or a chocolate bar with that distinctive blue and green logo, is it really any different than the pride you feel when stepping out in a new pair of brand-plastered trainers? It’s as if Fairtrade has become the latest must-have.

The word ‘trade’ has an inbuilt assumption of a deal. You give me yours, I’ll give you mine - we’re both happy. This is what would happen on a level playing-field. Instead dark rumours persist: child slaves carrying sacks of cocoa in Mali; women in China sewing trainers for a few pence a day, beaten and sacked for becoming pregnant or ill. Even Starbucks has been accused of ruthlessly undercutting Ethiopian coffee growers.

So, rather than absent-mindedly picking up Fairtrade tea instead of the supermarket own brand, we should think seriously about the purpose of fair trade. Instead of celebrating the success of another lifestyle brand, there are deeper questions to be asked.

At this point, should we actually have to advertise that something is fairly traded? Should it not be assumed that our food and products arrive on our shelves without the misery and exploitation of others? Why isn’t the phrase ‘fair trade’ unnecessary, because all trade is fair? Should we really be congratulating ourselves for paying poor people a fair wage for their food?

Another recent branding innovation is the addition of ‘food wheels’ to products telling us levels of salt, fat, and sugar. It led me to wonder if one day we might use similar ‘wheels’ to reflect other aspects of the food. The food miles involved, for example. The damage to the environment incurred in production. The wages paid to the workers. Whether the product has reached us via the back-breaking labour of child workers or indentured slaves. The government’s adamant that we should not be able to close our eyes to the fat and sugar in our food. Why should we then be able to close our eyes if we are eating something produced with intolerable cruelty to animals, the environment, or fellow human beings?

Perhaps in years to come we won’t be celebrating Fairtrade fortnight, we’ll be naming and shaming during ‘Corporate irresponsibility month’, ‘Toxic spill week’, and ‘underage labour day’. Our shoes and fruit and chocolate will bear clear marks that show if its production adds to the poverty and misery of other human beings. We won’t be able to close our eyes to unfair trade anymore.