It's easy to argue against Fair Trade.

In a recent article in The Economist the author does a fair job of casting doubt on the benefits of fair trade, organic produce and buying local.

As always with The Economist, the article is well written and researched. The figures are there to support the author’s arguments, as are quotes from reputable experts.

In the concluding paragraph, the author writes:

“Food is central to the debates on the environment, development, trade and globalization — but the potential for food choices to change the world should not be overestimated.”

That’s a reasonable conclusion, based on the figures in the article.

However, I came away feeling like I had read a particular good high school essay on the topic of, “Find a popular movement and debunk it using statistics and quotations from experts.”

It’s easy to find figures and experts to debunk just about any topic you can imagine. Essentially, it’s a cheap trick, journalistic legerdemain.

When using “food miles” data to undermine the benefits of buying local, there are a few things that remain unsaid in this article.

There is no mention of the human benefits of reaching across a wooden table in an outdoor market, with the wind in your hair, and no fluorescent lighting, and taking a bag of produce from the man or woman who actually grew it.

There is no mention of taking your children and explaining that the person behind the table actually grew all the food on sale, and got up at 4 o’clock that morning to pick the vegetables and drive them to the market.

There is no mention of the underlying social and human benefits of supporting small, local farmers in your own community.

And when it comes to fair trade, while heavy with the expected economic arguments, the article fails to talk about the coffee farmer who has had the opportunity to buy school books for his children for the first time.

In the West we are addicted to the rational and the measurable. It comforts us to use figures and experts to support our views.

But our compassion, our human spirit and our ability to see what is actually in front of our own eyes withers and dies.

You want to know what fair trade, organic growing and buying local are really about?

Take your child to a farm market and watch his or her eyes as he or she reaches out to take a bag of fresh vegetables from the person who actually grew them.

Comments

[David Karlsson]

But what about the rest of the Economist article? If you buy fair trade coffee you might help one farmer, but are you encouraging more oversupply and therefore hurting every other farmer out there? How am I supposed to feel good about that? Am I supposed to feel good that most of my hard-earned money that I spent for fair trade coffee went to the retailer or some Fair Trade organization and not the farmer?

[Nick Usborne]

David, hi

Thanks for the comment. As you can imagine, I don't agree. : )

If, for example, there is an oversupply of vegetables in the world, should we discourage or penalize farmers who grow their produce organically? Or should we, instead, discourage factory farmers and the use of massive quantities of agrochemicals?

If there is an oversupply of coffee, then let’s reduce production from the huge coffee farms which also depend on the use of herbicides, pesticides and chemical fertilizers.

I support the small farmer, and his or her community.

As for the issue of how much “fair trade” money actually reaches individual coffee farmers, your concern is valid. But your concern is also known to a lot of people who work with fair trade coffee, and is being addressed. The whole system is far from perfect right now. And that is not so surprising when you think of the logistics of getting the fair trade money from a pound of coffee purchased in New York City to a farmer living somewhere in Ethiopia.

But I would prefer to use the evident imperfections in the system as an encouragement to improve that system, not as a reason to undermine it.

Best wishes,

Nick

[David J DuBois]

First of all, let me just thank you for giving a counter-argument to the Economist article that was just brought to my attention. Second, let me say that I half disagree with you. Let me list the slightly distorted reasoning in your arguments:

1) The Human Benefit- Yes, there is something wonderful about going to the farmers market and buying from the actual farmer. However, they didn't produce the food as efficiently as the big farming companies, and it does take more energy to move the produce from the farm to everyone's home as opposed to one 18 wheeler to the supermarket which is closer to the house and then being distributed. ALSO, the "human benefit" is actually something that an economist would take into account when determining how much a product is worth to you, it adds value for you, so you are willing to spend more energy and/or money to get it. So its not stupid to buy the local food, infact, its probably a great deal for you seeing as your added benefit far outweighs the added costs. The economist would probably say you made a good purchase.

2) But what about the farmers that did get helped?- That isn't a good counter argument because, well, just because one farmer got to send his kid to school, doesn't make up for the fact that another farmer just got screwed worse than before and watches his kids starve. That sucks more.

3) The corporations should change what they produce, not the farmer!- See, the corporation won't change what its producing when too much is being produced because they can produce it really efficiently and cheaply so even when the price is really low, they make a profit and have no reason to change what they make. Plus, even if they did, it wouldn't prevent another corporation to step in and do the same thing. If its profitable, it will be produced. So the small farmer is the only one who must change, because he can't produce it as well. Unfair? Yes. True? Yes.

4) While heavy on economic arguments, it doesn't mention the human factor...- Well, yes, but when you decide where money should go and what and how things should be produced, its definitely a matter that lands in the field of economics and so should be dealt with by, well, economists.

Please let me know what you think of my arguments, I'm curious to see what you think of them.