| Welcome to bcfcforum.co.uk. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Fairtrade Coffee; and why it hurts the poor | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 4 2007, 03:29 AM (574 Views) | |
| Aussiebrum | Feb 4 2007, 03:29 AM Post #1 |
![]()
Mikael Forssell
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You see the promotion of Fair Trade products everywhere, at first it sounds like a great idea. Coffee is a perfect example. The luxury of fair trade coffee is the satisfaction of guzzling down a preferred beverage and at the same time feeling you can contribute to sustainable economic development for those who need it most. But this lie marketed by Oxfam and their various NGO mates has quickly been exposed. Oxfam and their mates have built a massive bureaucracy which, rather than helping the poor, helps themselves, mostly educated middle class elitists from the more affluent countries. For example, to become a fair trade supplier, producers are required to pay a single registration fee of between US$22,000–$44,000, with massive ongoing annual fees. Even better the fees are higher again if you want to buy certification as a ‘fair trade organic producer. These fees are used to guarantee certification under the Fair Trade Labelling Organisation International and to support its inflated bureaucracy. And it destroys the environment. They place limitations on certain products (such as fertilisers) that can be used to increase the protection of crops and boost their yields, thereby decreasing the crops that farmers can sell. This results in more land being intensively farmed, in a most inefficient manner to generate the same yield. Worse again, under the ‘fair trade ’ collectives system, fair trade suppliers are restricted to small farms. Large productive farms that meet ‘fair trade’ requirements, even if they pay their employees good wages, are excluded. Why? It’s political. Oxfam hate any large business enterprise. They hate free trade even where the poor benefit. But not content wrecking the environment and hurting the poor, the ‘Fair Trade’ campaigners also argue that, with a fixed (artificially high) price, producers are able to invest more, comfortable in the knowledge that they will receive a return so that they can produce higher grade, quality coffee. Another lie. To suit their narrow political (socialist) agenda what these wackos hide is the fact under the collective regime, each producer’s coffee is blended with the coffee of other producers in the collective, effectively ensuring that no individual producer can claim product differentiation. Instead it works to discourage quality control as producers can invest less and still ensure a guaranteed return. Fair trade’ coffee remains a bourgeois luxury. Starbucks supplies fair trade coffee in only 17 countries internationally, despite operating stores in more than twice that number of countries. Not surprisingly, the 17 countries are almost entirely rich, developed economies. In 2004, Starbucks ’ total sales of Fair Trade coffee represented only 1.6 per cent of its total coffee sales. But the real harm comes from their hell-bent desire to maintain their collective socialism. If farmers in poor regions were taught to farm commodities that were in short global supply, that the world market would pay a premium for, the farmers could develop a sustainable revenue bases and escape their poverty. But Oxfam and their mates would loose their cushy jobs from where they can pursue their socialist agendas. Heavens, some of these poor people may even become wealthy over time. So the Fair Trade lobby overcomes this possibility through blending, through the control of certification, by providing an artificial pricing level (creating a false impression of the commodities economic sustainability). Australians are quite awake to the folly of the Oxfam public relations machine. Oxfams Fair Trade cafés closed in Melbourne soon after this selfish campaign began. (The Oxfam store in Chapel Street, Prahran and the YHA ‘Fair Trade’ café in Fitzroy Street, St Kilda have closed down in the first half of 2006.) To support the poor and the elimination of poverty you should support any of many sensible well run non political charities. The needless political posturing by Oxfam and friends really hurts the poorest in the world. But it ensures plenty of cushy jobs for their supporters in weathy Western countries. |
![]() |
|
| Forward62 | Feb 4 2007, 07:40 AM Post #2 |
![]()
Malcom Page
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Cue Gazza in 5, 4, 3 ...... |
![]() |
|
| doc nick | Feb 4 2007, 11:00 AM Post #3 |
|
Malcom Page
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
tubs wont like this one bit. can this be considered goading. :LMAO: |
![]() |
|
| proserpine | Feb 4 2007, 11:06 AM Post #4 |
|
Geoff Horsfield
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No. I think it borders on lunacy.I've read something like this from an american paper about two years ago, when the South American and Carribean producers were hammering similar Fair Trade organisations. (Links to communist cells etc). What I haven't seen is the assasination of an organisation like Oxfam, as part of an argument in favour of slave labour and polluting the planet. Aussiebum might have started a trend, but more like is following one. :D |
![]() |
|
| davekermito | Feb 4 2007, 11:46 AM Post #5 |
|
Paul Tait
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Very interesting read there Aussie. I'm not going to comment too much as I think you can prove anything with statistics - be it from your (and my) political stance or the more left-wing (Tubs). But it's certainly backs up some of my thoughts on the subject. Personally, and this is a real tin hat moment, I would like to see the big corporations pull all investment out of these countries. I would agree that labour is being exploited but if you couple the old economic maxim of supply and demand with a far lower cost of living - the workers would be much worse off without it. Just an opinion, like. |
![]() |
|
| The_Bear | Feb 4 2007, 12:07 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Gil Merrick
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I have forwarded Aussies post (not who wrote it tho) to Oxfam and asked for them to repond. |
![]() |
|
| Aussiebrum | Feb 5 2007, 02:33 AM Post #7 |
![]()
Mikael Forssell
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Bear, the reply they wrote was sent to me in error. Here it is. Dear Mr Bear, Thank you for referring this to us. Excuse the coffee cup ring on the page corner, I spilled some of my organic fair trade soy late while working in my luxary air conditioned office. Anyway, the allegations against Oxfam are outrageous. We have a monopoly on compassion for the poor. Gee, if there were no poor people I might have to get a real job and do real work. Goodness no. Anyway, we are politically correct in every way so anyone daring to question our motives is a capitalist pig. We were actually discussing those big business snobs at the Socialist Forum last night. It was a great night but Helen needs to ensure the Chardonnay is properly chilled next week. Poor form Helen! And let me tell you that Duck Liver pate was magnificent. You know there is this guy in Australia that believes donations to Oxfam should be regarded as political so subject to the political disclosure laws of the country of operation. Can you believe the cheek of this guy. Just cause most of what we do is political, just because we claim scientific “facts” that are dubious at best, just because we blow a big percentage of our revenue on administration (nice offices, lots of full time jobs, heaps of political propoganda .....), just because we operate a commercial arm that often looses money (but employs our socialist mates so they don’t have to get real jobs)…….. how dare he. Anyway, the PR team at Oxfam is highly educated, really articulate so we can churn out media releases and letters at a rapid rate to discredit anyone not politically correct enough to agree with us. And under no circumstances can I justify the fee for licensing coffee as Fair Trade USD $20,000 to USD$40,000+. So what if the tiny African and Pacific companies can’t afford to pay it – it keeps them poor so I keep my cushy job. Anyway none of us want to see businesses develop, let alone make profits. Profits are filthy, so what if they creat jobs for the poor, so what if they train the poor with skills, so what if they pay taxes. Without photos of starving children those in the West won't give us donations to fund our political activities. Mr Bear, if you are anywhere near Soho do come by for a soy chai late. |
![]() |
|
| Tubs2 | Feb 5 2007, 08:30 PM Post #8 |
|
Paul Tait
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Where do you dig this stuff up from? Please tell m this isn't from the dark corners of your disturbed mind? You make an outrageous lie. NGO's create the Fair trade co-operatives at no cost at all to the producer. In fact, their is investment rather than charge when a co-operative is created. I can speak first hand as someone who has visited a fair trade co-operative in Kenya and spoken to the producers. There are no ongoing fees, only fair prices paid for produce. This is the point of a co-operative, it's a co-operation. I have also visited workshops that employ the disabled, deaf and blind that make jewelery and crafts for Oxfam shops. Without these jobs the employees would have no income at all. And with no benefits system in Kenya, they would starve. Oh yes, those evil b@5tards at Oxfam have a lot to answer for.
Only on chemicals that can be hazardous to a workers health. For instance banana producers use pesticides on the fruit that has rendered those who handle them sterile. In any developed country these chemicals would be controlled very tightly and certainly not allowed to be handled by an unprotected workforce. Fair trade simply demands that workers are treated with the same respect that we enjoy.
Rubbish again. The NGO's do tend to work with communities, often in more remote parts of the world that have seen great devastation to quality of life due to unfair trade. However to say that bigger producers are overlooked is ludicrous. The larger Fair Trade brands such as Cafe Direct wouldn't be able to meet demand if they limited themselves to small farms.
Oh good grief. I thought even you would see through such obvious propaganda invented by large corporations who see their rich shareholders lose a small amount of money to the worlds most impoverished people. Blimey, when a couple of families earn enough to feed their children some poor shareholder might have to downgrade his Ferrari. That would be terrible. There is simply no evidence for this Aussie. You sound rather paranoid. Oxfam do have an agenda, to reduce world poverty. To this end, they are not proud. They will work with any organisation and any political alliance that will further this goal.
Dear oh dear. Fair means just that. Far from artificially high, what we are truly seeing is a sustainable price. For years the corporations have operated as a cartel forcing down the price of 3rd world produce to the extent that the producers families are unable to provide healthcare and education for their families. This is artificially low. However, some co-operatives do receive a premium which is spent on community projects such as building schools and is overseen by the NGO's to ensure that there money is spent on the community. .
This is because Starbucks pay only lip service to Fair Trade. Try buying a Fair Trade Latte in Starbucks and see how far you get. Nope, only filter coffee is available. And then if they hav it in stock. I gave up on Starbucks years ago. They talk the talk . . . To find they now blame the customer for not buying their Fair Trade stock when they as good as refuse to sell it is contemptible. Costa's on the other hand offer a genuine alternative and may Costas are 100% Fair Trade. AMT went 100% fair trade following customer demand. It's a different story when the whole picture and not just a (carefully selected?) narrow snapshot is taken, eh? Fair Trade as a market sector is small. But it is also the fastest growing market sector. Luckily for the poor of the world, most people can see past this evil scaremongering, the likes of which you post here.
Oh tosh! It isn't the coffee producers fault that they have been bullied by a cartel. It isn't that the producers are unable to sell their produce because of market saturaation, far from it. As long ago as 15 years back there were news reports on coffee shortages and things have got worse since then, unsurprising when as many as 8 million people in developing countries who rely on coffee for their income go to bed without having eaten that day. Their goods are snapped up by a cartel. As good as stolen.
Aussie, you have made accusations of lies here. I would like to point out your lies in past posts that have included: - Oxfam using up to half their income (including charitable donations) for administration. The truth is that their submitted accounts are available on line and show that just 2% of their income is used on admin. That's quite impressive for any organisation. You once claimed that a Primary school in Australia had abandoned Christmas celebrations but continued to teach Islam to it's mainly Christian pupils. After I contacted them it seemed that was far from the truth and the lies you were sucked into by the lying papers of your good Mr Murdoch were easily exposed. It took nothing but a little time. So having seen first hand the good work of Oxfam, and how you have been sucked in by lying propoganda in the past, I know that your rantings are to be ignored. I think anybody reading this shouldn't take my word for it. They should look around. As they say on the x-files, the truth is out there and these wild and naive facts are easily disputed. Some of them (such as talk of Fair Trade being unsupported by the public using Starbucks as example) are a misrepresentation of the whole picture and others (such as fees charged to co-operatives) are out and out lies. Aussie, I'm not sure what it is about Oxfam that scares you, but this kind of grossly inaccurate post that could damage the essential work of Oxfam and Fair Trade charities borders insanity. Yup, you must harbor some odd, irrational fear. Or you really are evil. Gazza |
![]() |
|
| vicar in a tutu | Feb 5 2007, 08:56 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Kenny Burns
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
An excellent retort Tubs. Although it wasn't hard given the drivel of the first post (and second) by the antipodean (and antioxfam too it would seem?) |
![]() |
|
| mr penguin | Feb 5 2007, 08:58 PM Post #10 |
|
Sponsored by Flybe.com
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
gingerbread lattes are nice though **thumbup |
![]() |
|
| Aussiebrum | Feb 5 2007, 10:14 PM Post #11 |
![]()
Mikael Forssell
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Would you like to correct this "fact" or should I show people the truth ? |
![]() |
|
| Tubs2 | Feb 5 2007, 10:16 PM Post #12 |
|
Paul Tait
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Knock yourself out. Bear in mind your position as an official representative of BCFC before making any libelous posts. I know what's coming Aussie, you will back track. You may tell me that only 93 pence in every pound goes into projects helping the poor of the developing world. This is true. But it is still only 2p in every pound that goes into administration. The rest goes into investing in fundraising, such as buying the articles from workshops like those I mentioned in Kenya Still, 93% going directly into projects to help the poor is a far cry from the 50% you lied in this other anti oxfam thread you created (Another ilogical Aussie Rant) , and I quote: -
When in fact, the figures spent on administration for the Tsunami appeal by Oxfam was just 3.9% So Aussie, it is fairly plain to see that yuo have an unbiased and entirely balanced view of Oxfam. No agenda for you, huh? Gary. |
![]() |
|
| brumjaep | Feb 6 2007, 03:20 AM Post #13 |
|
Peter Enckelman
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You ever think the guy might just be wrong as opposed to biased Tubs?? Also, you ever think your leftist views might be wrong?? To be honest, i dont know the figures exactly, but to start sayin each other is wrong or biased is simply childish and indeed incorrect in itself as stats can manipulated very easily. It wouldn't surprise me if you are both quoting official figures tbh!!! |
![]() |
|
| The_Bear | Feb 6 2007, 08:45 AM Post #14 |
![]()
Gil Merrick
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Or perhaps Aussies right wing view have coloured his opinion? Spot on Tubs! |
![]() |
|
| Tubs2 | Feb 6 2007, 08:48 AM Post #15 |
|
Paul Tait
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There is only one set of official figures, and those are the correct ones. Let me explain something about stats. Yes, some figures can be massaged. Take averages for instance. We can claim the average based on a either mode, mean or median and come to a conclusion that might better fit what we are trying to say. For instance the government publish average earnings using mean average. This suits them because the high earners of the country pull the average up. However, the modal average (the wage most people earn) falls somewhat below this. Perhaps another way to lie with figures is to only include stats that fit your argument. Aussie did this in his Starbucks analogy. When a company isn't committed to Fair Trade, it's sales of Fair Trade goods are likely to be low. Include the whole picture and things look different. I concede that Fair trade is still a niche market, but as I said, it's the fastest growing retail market. It seems the good people of the world care after all. However, it isn't possible to massage a percentage. When we say that 93% of Oxfam's income is spent on project work for the worlds poor, that means 93% of Oxfam's income is spent on project work. You can't adjust it to fit. To say (as Aussie has) that more than half of charitable donations go on admin and politics is a lie. It is a lie to say that producers must pay to join a Fair Trade Co-op. The truth is that co-ops are created with charitable donations, investment and loans (for equipment and often interest free) which are re-invested into helping other producers join co-operatives. Aussie may not have invented these lies himself, but in spite of the submitted accounts, he is all too willing to believe it. He is quick to take note of the evidence that supports what he want to believe and ignores any evidence that might not. This shows his bias. I'm sure Aussie believes that the open market (which the west protect in their favour and is far from open or fair) is the answer to the worlds poverty problem, and therefore his intentions are good. I feel that after 30 years of globalisation we see the problems getting worse for the producers of the developing world and not better. Even Adam Smith added the caveat of regulation against exploitation in his view of the Wealth of Nations. However, modern greed and deregulation has put money before people. This cannot continue. The people of the developed world do not want favours. They just want to be treated fairly. They want to be treated as we treat other developed nations. Why anybody would argue against this is beyond me. I am happy to be shown I'm wrong. But these misrepresentations and lies will only strengthen the points I have made, they won’t refute them. Gazza |
![]() |
|
| djmmusic | Feb 7 2007, 01:29 AM Post #16 |
|
Alex Govan
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm still waiting for Fair Trade to produce an instant coffee that tastes nice. |
![]() |
|
| garrybaldy | Feb 7 2007, 01:40 AM Post #17 |
|
foley okenla, richie moran
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
True :LMAO: |
![]() |
|
| davekermito | Feb 7 2007, 09:29 AM Post #18 |
|
Paul Tait
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Knowing that you are helping developing nations makes you sleep better at night. Surely the last thing you want from a coffee. |
![]() |
|
| Tubs2 | Feb 7 2007, 12:10 PM Post #19 |
|
Paul Tait
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Percol, Clipper and Cafe Direct are my favourites. Taste very good indeed! But there are over 50 different brands of Fair Trade coffee. There should be one in there you'd like. Fair trade coffee consistantly wins awards for its taste. In 2004 a fair trade coffee from Nicaragua came 3rd out of all coffee submitted, and we know how bad Nicaraguan coffee can taste so it ain't all that bad. Gazza |
![]() |
|
| brumjaep | Feb 7 2007, 04:09 PM Post #20 |
|
Peter Enckelman
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Percentages based on stats cannot be 'massaged' Tubs no. But if the source stats are massaged, the percentages follow. I do agree with you about Fair trade companies helping the poor in many poorer nations and though i don't look for their goods on purpose, as i don't follow the great 'evil West' theory, if that particular product was the best for me then of course i would. Personally i think the whole Fair Trade goods thing is a good idea. If people like Aussie don't agree with it, fair play, dont buy it. If Tubs does agree with it, fair play also, buy it. Oh and The Bear, like i say, i quite agree with Tubs view on Fair Trade goods but even so....why should Aussie's right wings views have clouded his judgment yet Tubs left wing views not cloud his?? Works both ways. |
![]() |
|
| davekermito | Feb 7 2007, 04:24 PM Post #21 |
|
Paul Tait
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Brumjaep - could you sit any more on the fence!! :LOL: |
![]() |
|
| Fishermans Blues | Feb 7 2007, 06:18 PM Post #22 |
|
Martin Grainger
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Just don't drink coffee it is bad for you, drink water instead and keep the Welsh in a job, afterall, where else would they go to the toilet. :whistle: |
![]() |
|
| Aussiebrum | Feb 7 2007, 09:21 PM Post #23 |
![]()
Mikael Forssell
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Tubs, why do you always have to get personal? Not a nice trait. Onto you assertion that only 2% of Oxfams revenue is wasted on administration. Not even you could really stand by such an extreme allegation. Oxfam's accounts in the UK alone showed an income of £190m, of which roughly £40m came from government, EU and United Nations grants, £74m from donations, and £65m from the charity's shops and trading. Closer inspection of the figures shows that the government money is even more significant than it appears. "Fundraising costs" swallow up about £20m of income from donations while "trading costs" take away £55m from the shops. This leaves £115m for charitable work, though this includes a further £30m in "support costs" and for management. So excluding governement grants, seventy five million of one hundred and fifty million dollars of revenue is consumed by fundraising and support costs. 75 million out of 150 million - fifty percent Tubs. Fifty percent does not go to charity. That's a wee bit more than two percent Tubs! On top of this over thirty million pounds is blown is SUPPORT COSTS, which are the jobs for the middle class politicians enjoying cushy overpaid roles within the organization. And why does Oxfams UK accounts (as they do in Australia) only show the “net revenue from trading”. Why don’t they show the fat, the political costs they hide as “management costs.” Why not detail the full turnover and costs associated with this – so we can see what really happens to each dollar contributed to Oxfam. By publishing only the net revenue it masks the true financial performance which is the clear intention. Lets look further at the published accounts on Oxfams own USA web site. Under US law, tax-exempt community and charitable organisations have to lodge annual "Form 990" returns with the internal revenue department that lists total income, including what they receive from direct public donations and how much from government sources, and shows the amounts spent on administrative costs compared to direct service delivery. So Oxfam invent a wonder category to mask their political activities – they list them as “advocacy costs” with offices naturally in the worlds most desirable locations such as New York and London. Some people (who you call right wingers) have real trouble with the Oxfam political bureaucracy that Oxfam so delightfully term “advocacy costs”. A lovely example was the 2003 WTO meeting at Cancurn. The UK Department of Trade and Industry always sends one of the largest official delegations to WTO conferences as you would expect. But Oxfams delegation dwarfed the UK Governments. Yep, this charity saw the need to send a massive 37 delegates to the WTO – thirty seven delegates from a body that claims to be a charity rather than a political organization. Ofcourse Oxfam won’t release any details on the cost of this – but one only wonders how many poor could have been assisted had this massive waste not occurred. The most important point I want to make is the stated intentions of Oxfam are honorable and right, no one can argue against the need to help the poor, the sick and the displaced. Those of us in the affluent west, in my opinion have a considerable obligation to do so. What infuriates me is the Oxfams of the world politicizing Charity – their sneaky way of taking advantage of the poor for political reasons. They do some excellent work, no doubt, but they could do more if they canned the politics. |
![]() |
|
| bornblues64 | Feb 7 2007, 10:00 PM Post #24 |
|
Mikael Forssell
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Do i live in a different world? Never heard of Fairtrade Coffee in my life, who makes it Nescafe? |
![]() |
|
| Tubs2 | Feb 7 2007, 10:12 PM Post #25 |
|
Paul Tait
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I haven't got personal Aussie. I feel you're abusing your position as moderator and said so. Take the numerous threads I have had no part of until you piped up "No doubt Tubs2 will tell us . . ." usually followed by some outragous insult that I support terrorism or other equally personal accusation. This is tantamount to bullying. Does this not break board rules? That isn't a nice trait. And now you continue to try and damage a huge force for good. It's nothing short of a smear campaign. It's underhand. That isn't a nice trait. Aussie. Please check the online accounts. The same accounts (albiet adifferent format) submitted to the tax man. If you have proof these are incorrect please contact the authorities with your accusation of false accounting. What's that, no hard evidence? You'll find that in fact, £220Million of £238Million is spent on charitable work. Or over 92%. This includes all income and expenditure. Perhaps we can end this now? I'm not going to argue the toss with you and your wicked agenda. Oxfam will support any political alliance that will further their aim of reducing global poverty. They try to influence government figures to this aim. They would like to see governments end the protection of their markets and play on a level playing field. Of course they try to influence government. It's interesting you mention the WTO. One of the most undemocratic organisations on the world that have bullied governments of the devloping world into opening up their infrastructure to the "Open Market". Of course Oxfam went there, they have done more damage to the poor of the world than natural cause ever could. I thought, as an open market man you'd approve. Oxfam want a true open market. One that the poor of the world can share, not e subjegated by. They're not trying to turn us into a "Commie State" . Give it up Aussie, you're begining to look a bit of a paraniod chump over this. Gazza |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Chat · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2





![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)







2:06 PM Jul 11