| |
Main
Date: 23 Jun 2006 20:33:27
From: Marshall
Subject: The most eloquent explanation of relationship coffee I have ever read
|
Geoff Watts does it again. It is also a wonderful response to Fair
Trade zealots.
http://greenlagirl.com/2006/06/19/an-intelligentsia-email
Marshall
|
|
| |
Date: 23 Jun 2006 18:22:11
From: Heat + Beans
Subject: Re: The most eloquent explanation of relationship coffee I have ever read
|
Marshall,
I'm certainly not in a position to dispute anything that Watts says, or
your views, or Jim's. I think that zealots of any stripe are likely to
be a problem, and it sounds like fair trade coffee is embraced both by
zealots on the one hand and by mega-business on the other--a nasty
alliance, indeed. So, in spite of my knee-jerk affinity for most things
environmental, I'm willing to withhold from the coffee free-traders my
considerable international influence.
But I have to say that your post on the greenlagirl site sounds about
as hopelessly magical as Adam Smith's "invisible hand of the
marketplace." So perhaps you can elaborate on how Intelligencia and a
few others will ever be more than outliers, and how we cam arrive at .
. . .
"an emphasis on quality at every step of the chain of coffee production
will do as much or more to promote the well being of coffee farmers as
any certification program."
Martin (who favors trade that is free, well-regulated, and subject to
coercion that is balanced equally between enviro-wackos and ruthless
business interests unless Marshall comes up with a more pragmatic plan
than that which he has offered)
Marshall wrote:
> Geoff Watts does it again. It is also a wonderful response to Fair
> Trade zealots.
> http://greenlagirl.com/2006/06/19/an-intelligentsia-email
>
> Marshall
|
| | |
Date: 24 Jun 2006 03:11:08
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: The most eloquent explanation of relationship coffee I have ever read
|
On 23 Jun 2006 18:22:11 -0700, "Heat + Beans" <heatgunroast@gmail.com >
wrote:
>Marshall,
>I'm certainly not in a position to dispute anything that Watts says, or
>your views, or Jim's. I think that zealots of any stripe are likely to
>be a problem, and it sounds like fair trade coffee is embraced both by
>zealots on the one hand and by mega-business on the other--a nasty
>alliance, indeed. So, in spite of my knee-jerk affinity for most things
>environmental, I'm willing to withhold from the coffee free-traders my
>considerable international influence.
>
>But I have to say that your post on the greenlagirl site sounds about
>as hopelessly magical as Adam Smith's "invisible hand of the
>marketplace." So perhaps you can elaborate on how Intelligencia and a
>few others will ever be more than outliers, and how we cam arrive at .
>. . .
>
>"an emphasis on quality at every step of the chain of coffee production
>will do as much or more to promote the well being of coffee farmers as
>any certification program."
>
>Martin (who favors trade that is free, well-regulated, and subject to
>coercion that is balanced equally between enviro-wackos and ruthless
>business interests unless Marshall comes up with a more pragmatic plan
>than that which he has offered)
Without the intervention of an actively involved roaster or importer
such as Green Mountain, Fair Trade provides no incentive to produce
anything substantially better than commodity grade coffee. For growers
at that level of quality, the only way out of subsistence level
farming is mechanization, which they can't afford to do, and their
geography usually will not allow, even if the money magicaly appeared.
Without an incentive to quality, farmers will continue in poverty and
bequeath a life of poverty to their children. Tim Castle said it much
better at the SCAA Homecoming two years ago.
Marshall
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Jun 2006 21:23:53
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: The most eloquent explanation of relationship coffee I have ever read
|
" >
> Without the intervention of an actively involved roaster or importer
> such as Green Mountain, Fair Trade provides no incentive to produce
> anything substantially better than commodity grade coffee. For growers
> at that level of quality, the only way out of subsistence level
> farming is mechanization, which they can't afford to do, and their
> geography usually will not allow, even if the money magicaly appeared.
> Without an incentive to quality, farmers will continue in poverty and
> bequeath a life of poverty to their children. Tim Castle said it much
> better at the SCAA Homecoming two years ago.
>
> Marshall
This is oh-so-much better than the fair trade model. I think Geoff Watts
hits the nail on the head. I'm far less charitably inclined towards FT than
is expressed in his careful wording. I see it as a way to keep enough
growers in business but nearly impoverished, so that we rich people in
developed countries will have some coffee supply in the future. They can
make enough that they don't come up with some other sort of work that would
give them a better life. We do, afterall, want a continued supply of
coffee. That's the reality of FT coffee when one looks beyond the
platitudes.
Kudos to Intelligentsia for taking this approach.
ken
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Jun 2006 07:45:22
From: Ian Smith
Subject: Re: The most eloquent explanation of relationship coffee I have ever read
|
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Ken Fox <morceaudemerdeThisMerdeGoes@hotmail.com > wrote:
Marshall wrote the first bit, but the attribution was broken:
> > Without the intervention of an actively involved roaster or importer
> > such as Green Mountain, Fair Trade provides no incentive to produce
> > anything substantially better than commodity grade coffee.
As a criticism of faor trade, that's pretty lame. You seem to be
saying fair trade is bad (worse than non-fair-trade) because it's not
perfect - it's only addresses some of teh failings of the 'normal'
coffee market, not all of them. If you're never going to approach
anything until you have a complete, final and faultless solution, you
wouldn't do anything.
> > Without an incentive to quality, farmers will continue in poverty and
> > bequeath a life of poverty to their children. Tim Castle said it much
> > better at the SCAA Homecoming two years ago.
Fair trade inherently has no less incentive to quality than
non-fair-trade. You can have a fair trade purchasing model, _and_
have incentive for quality. You seem to be saying that people that
produce merely 'ordinary' coffee deserve to suffer?
> This is oh-so-much better than the fair trade model. I think Geoff Watts
> hits the nail on the head. I'm far less charitably inclined towards FT than
> is expressed in his careful wording. I see it as a way to keep enough
> growers in business but nearly impoverished, so that we rich people in
> developed countries will have some coffee supply in the future.
So fair trade is bad because it lets the growers earn a living - it
would be better if they starved?
regards, Ian SMith
--
|
| | | | | |
Date: 24 Jun 2006 16:10:53
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: The most eloquent explanation of relationship coffee I have ever read
|
On 24 Jun 2006 07:45:22 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk > wrote:
>So fair trade is bad because it lets the growers earn a living - it
>would be better if they starved?
>
>regards, Ian SMith
I see three pounds of roasted coffee on a shop's shelf. I've never
tried any of them before, but I'm out of coffee and have to buy one.
Pound #1 is a generic bag of "Colombian." The bag contains no
information about the farm(s) where it was grown, and I know nothing
about the roaster or importer's relationship, if any, with the
grower(s).
Pound #2 is the same as #1, but it also has a Fair Trade seal.
Pound #3 has no Fair Trade seal, but it's from a roaster that I know
has a relationship with the growers which is teaching them about
quality and putting more money in their pockets than Fair Trade would.
I buy #3. If they run out of #3, I buy #2. If they run out of #2, I'll
buy #1.
Marshall
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 24 Jun 2006 16:36:09
From: Ian Smith
Subject: Re: The most eloquent explanation of relationship coffee I have ever read
|
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006, Marshall <mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net > wrote:
>
> I buy #3. If they run out of #3, I buy #2. If they run out of #2, I'll
> buy #1.
I think, yet again, 'fair trade' and 'Transfair approved' are being
conflated.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Jun 2006 17:47:09
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: The most eloquent explanation of relationship coffee I have ever read
|
On 24 Jun 2006 16:36:09 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk > wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Jun 2006, Marshall <mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> I buy #3. If they run out of #3, I buy #2. If they run out of #2, I'll
>> buy #1.
>
>I think, yet again, 'fair trade' and 'Transfair approved' are being
>conflated.
>
>regards, Ian SMith
That's why I capitalized "Fair Trade." All Fair Trade coffee in the
U.S.A. is certified by Transfair, which owns the trademark "Fair
Trade Certified" (R). Transfair, in turn is regulated by the
international organization, FLO.
Marshall
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Jun 2006 19:51:16
From: Ian Smith
Subject: Re: The most eloquent explanation of relationship coffee I have ever read
|
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006, Marshall <mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net > wrote:
> On 24 Jun 2006 16:36:09 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 24 Jun 2006, Marshall <mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> I buy #3. If they run out of #3, I buy #2. If they run out of #2, I'll
> >> buy #1.
> >
> >I think, yet again, 'fair trade' and 'Transfair approved' are being
> >conflated.
>
> That's why I capitalized "Fair Trade." All Fair Trade coffee in the
> U.S.A. is certified by Transfair, which owns the trademark "Fair
> Trade Certified" (R). Transfair, in turn is regulated by the
> international organization, FLO.
But your post didn't critise Transfair, it criticised "Fair Trade"
coffee. Merely capitalising the words while complaining about fair
trade, when what you really complain about is Transfair, looks like
deliberately trying to say more than you can justify, but then trying
to weasel from it when challenged. There is plenty of Fair Trade (TM)
coffee in the world that has nothing to do with Transfair.
If it's Transfair policies you don't like, by all means criticise
Transfair. Criticising all of fair trade (with or without
capitalisation or trade marks) because you don't like how one
particular company implements it in one particular country is bogus.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Jun 2006 19:55:34
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: The most eloquent explanation of relationship coffee I have ever read
|
On 24 Jun 2006 19:51:16 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk > wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Jun 2006, Marshall <mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net> wrote:
>> On 24 Jun 2006 16:36:09 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 24 Jun 2006, Marshall <mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I buy #3. If they run out of #3, I buy #2. If they run out of #2, I'll
>> >> buy #1.
>> >
>> >I think, yet again, 'fair trade' and 'Transfair approved' are being
>> >conflated.
>>
>> That's why I capitalized "Fair Trade." All Fair Trade coffee in the
>> U.S.A. is certified by Transfair, which owns the trademark "Fair
>> Trade Certified" (R). Transfair, in turn is regulated by the
>> international organization, FLO.
>
>But your post didn't critise Transfair, it criticised "Fair Trade"
>coffee. Merely capitalising the words while complaining about fair
>trade, when what you really complain about is Transfair, looks like
>deliberately trying to say more than you can justify, but then trying
>to weasel from it when challenged. There is plenty of Fair Trade (TM)
>coffee in the world that has nothing to do with Transfair.
>
>If it's Transfair policies you don't like, by all means criticise
>Transfair. Criticising all of fair trade (with or without
>capitalisation or trade marks) because you don't like how one
>particular company implements it in one particular country is bogus.
>
>regards, Ian SMith
Please expand. How do the policies of non-U.S. FLO organizations
differ from Transfair's and avoid the shortcomings described in this
thread?
Marshall
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Jun 2006 20:48:05
From: Ian Smith
Subject: Re: The most eloquent explanation of relationship coffee I have ever read
|
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006, Marshall <mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net > wrote:
> On 24 Jun 2006 19:51:16 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >But your post didn't critise Transfair, it criticised "Fair Trade"
> >coffee. Merely capitalising the words while complaining about fair
> >trade, when what you really complain about is Transfair, looks like
> >deliberately trying to say more than you can justify, but then trying
> >to weasel from it when challenged. There is plenty of Fair Trade (TM)
> >coffee in the world that has nothing to do with Transfair.
> >
> >If it's Transfair policies you don't like, by all means criticise
> >Transfair. Criticising all of fair trade (with or without
> >capitalisation or trade marks) because you don't like how one
> >particular company implements it in one particular country is bogus.
>
> Please expand. How do the policies of non-U.S. FLO organizations
> differ from Transfair's and avoid the shortcomings described in this
> thread?
The mechanism of paying for the branding (labels at a premium) appears
to be Transfair-specific (I don't think I've ever seen a fair trade
mark that's not part of the packaging design, but I've seen complaints
that Transfair requires the purchase of Transfair-produced labels).
The inspection and certification of fair trade outlets appears to be
Transfair-specific.
It appears easier to use the Fair Trade mark in the UK - you can
download it from the website of the Fair Trade Foundation and use it
without explicit permission for limited-circulation materials (subject
to certain restrictions - you can't put it on non-fair-trade goods,
for example, or change it). My guess is that Transfair has its own
logo (not similar to FLO) in order to impose more controls. (It's
interesting to note that Transafir USA and Canada are the only FLO
members who have their own logo rather than a variant of the FLO
logo.)
The pricing model (frequently criticised by US objectors to Transfair)
does not seem to operate elsewhere in the same way - the idea that by
being fair trade there is no incentive to produce quality beans, since
you won't get a better price. Or was that criticism of fair trade
bogus?
Some of the objections to fair trade (eg, cultural imperialism
implicit in defining acceptable structures for the growers
organisations) are derived from the parent organization rules, and you
could then validly use your phrasing - but it would be better to then
explicitly admit you're actually criticising FLO, not fair trade.
Also, those issues are rarely the subject of the complaints in this
newsgroup.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Jun 2006 23:48:24
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: The most eloquent explanation of relationship coffee I have ever read
|
On 24 Jun 2006 20:48:05 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk > wrote:
>> Please expand. How do the policies of non-U.S. FLO organizations
>> differ from Transfair's and avoid the shortcomings described in this
>> thread?
>
>The mechanism of paying for the branding (labels at a premium) appears
>to be Transfair-specific (I don't think I've ever seen a fair trade
>mark that's not part of the packaging design, but I've seen complaints
>that Transfair requires the purchase of Transfair-produced labels).
Unfounded rumor. Transfair expressly directs licensees to reproduce
the mark from master copies provided by Transfair.
http://www.transfairusa.org/pdfs/usagerequirements_ftc.pdf
>The inspection and certification of fair trade outlets appears to be
>Transfair-specific.
Where did you learn this? Transfair itself only discusses
certification of producers and importers.
http://www.transfairusa.org/content/about/certification.php I have
never heard of them certifying a shop, but then, of course, I haven't
heard everything. :-)
>It appears easier to use the Fair Trade mark in the UK - you can
>download it from the website of the Fair Trade Foundation and use it
>without explicit permission for limited-circulation materials (subject
>to certain restrictions - you can't put it on non-fair-trade goods,
>for example, or change it).
Transfair considers applications to use the mark in this way only on a
case-by-case basis. I think this is the only true difference from
Fairtrade UK of all the differences you listed.
> My guess is that Transfair has its own
>logo (not similar to FLO) in order to impose more controls. (It's
>interesting to note that Transafir USA and Canada are the only FLO
>members who have their own logo rather than a variant of the FLO
>logo.)
Or it might infringe other U.S. logos or be more difficult to police,
either of which is a more likely speculation to be true. Yin-and-yang
logos are extremely commonplace and tend to make a relatively weak
trademark. The Transfair mark is much more distinctive and, therefore,
protectible.
>The pricing model (frequently criticised by US objectors to Transfair)
>does not seem to operate elsewhere in the same way - the idea that by
>being fair trade there is no incentive to produce quality beans, since
>you won't get a better price. Or was that criticism of fair trade
>bogus?
Fairtrade UK sets the same $1.26US/lb price as Transfair in the U.S.
http://www.cafedirect.co.uk/fairtrade/gold_prices.php . As in the
U.S., roasters are free to pay more, which CafeDirect, does.
Marshall "thanking you for the opportunity to update my fair trade
knowledge"
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Jun 2006 13:31:56
From: Ian Smith
Subject: Re: The most eloquent explanation of relationship coffee I have ever read
|
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006, Marshall <mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net > wrote:
> On 24 Jun 2006 20:48:05 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >The inspection and certification of fair trade outlets appears to be
> >Transfair-specific.
>
> Where did you learn this? Transfair itself only discusses
> certification of producers and importers.
> http://www.transfairusa.org/content/about/certification.php I have
> never heard of them certifying a shop, but then, of course, I haven't
> heard everything. :-)
I was thinking of roasters - it is a complaint that has cropped up
here (as, I thought, had the issue of sticky labels). If it's an
unfounded complaint, I'm entirely happy to learn so.
> >The pricing model (frequently criticised by US objectors to Transfair)
> >does not seem to operate elsewhere in the same way - the idea that by
> >being fair trade there is no incentive to produce quality beans, since
> >you won't get a better price. Or was that criticism of fair trade
> >bogus?
>
> Fairtrade UK sets the same $1.26US/lb price as Transfair in the U.S.
> http://www.cafedirect.co.uk/fairtrade/gold_prices.php . As in the
> U.S., roasters are free to pay more, which CafeDirect, does.
The price is one of the things FLO sets internationally. As you note,
the price is a minimum - but fair trade is regularly denigrated here
for preventing farmers getting what their coffee is worth, if it's
better than minimum quality. As above, I'm pleased for your agreement
that this objection is spurious.
> Marshall "thanking you for the opportunity to update my fair trade
> knowledge"
So what are the remaining objections to fair trade? Only that it
doesn't make farmers starve to death?
regards, Ian SMith
--
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Jun 2006 08:31:48
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: The most eloquent explanation of relationship coffee I have ever read
|
"Ian Smith" <ian@astounding.org.uk > wrote in message
news:slrne9t42g.45t.ian@phlegethon.smithnet...
> >
> So what are the remaining objections to fair trade? Only that it
> doesn't make farmers starve to death?
>
> regards, Ian SMith
> --
>
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 24 Jun 2006 11:32:37
From: notbob
Subject: Re: The most eloquent explanation of relationship coffee I have ever read
|
On 2006-06-24, Marshall <mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net > wrote:
> I buy.....
How long they been on that shelf?
nb
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 24 Jun 2006 10:10:54
From: Danny O'K
Subject: Re: The most eloquent explanation of relationship coffee I have ever read
|
I recall a pivotal moment in the specialty coffee business at the SCAA
conference in Denver in 1998 (can it be only eight years ago?). It was a
pivotal moment for me, as well. There was a sustainable coffee conference
the Friday before the conference formally started and after several rounds
of speakers from all sectors of the specialty coffee business and the strong
encouragement from many speakers on the dais for the growers to begin
protecting the environment more, grow more organic coffee to eliminate the
use of toxic chemicals, etc., one of the growers or representatives of the
growers went to the mike to ask what the coffee buyers (primarily Americans)
would be willing to pay for these "sustainably grown coffees" (the term was
barely in use then)? Would they pay 50 cents more a pound? Nah. 25 cents,
probably not. 10 cents more a pound? The "C" was still the dictator of the
market.
It must be remembered that Mexico wasn't considered a prime source of
quality coffee then, nor was Peru and other countries that have risen to
specialty prominence in the last several years, that organic coffee was not
highly regarded, there was no Fair Trade (or barely, Max Havelaar was
working in Europe but largely unknown here Transfair USA hadn't been
started), and the reports on the environmental damage being caused by the
wholesale cutting of Latin American coffee forests to replant with higher
yielding, chemically dependent hybrids had only been out a short time.
By the time of the SCAA conferences in Philadelphia and then San Francisco
there was a dawning recognition that the whole change had to be involved in
sustainability because ultimately sustainability was tied to the quality of
coffee. Higher yields of arguably inferior coffees didn't provide anyone but
the "cans" with sustainable profit.
It has been said countless times before, but "cheap", and the appeal to the
lowest common denominator, is very expensive in the long run. Educating the
coffee farmer, as well as the coffee drinker has begun to create a climate
of previously unknown quality and differentiation, the true goal of
production. That "quality" is tied to price is the exemplar of the market.
The coffee drinker knows more about coffee than even just a few years ago
because people who cared: cared for the environment, cared for the lives of
the farmers, cared for the subtleties and nuances of flavors in the largest
commodity food product in the world, all contributed to this sea change in
the world of coffee.
Models are languages we use to communicate idea and need. The Fair Trade
model is one of those. It wasn't conceived as the perfect model, only one
that could perhaps create a better world for the majority of farmers who
grow our coffee and who are the ones who gain the least benefit from its
sale. As these coops have worked together to educate themselves and develop
better "relationships" (the term wasn't in use when the "coyotes" still
ruled the business and there weren't direct relationships such as those
fostered by Fair Trade) everyone in the chain has benefited, even the
"cans".
It would be better for everyone it we had "relationships" with those who
grow our commodities. The relationship model is based on trust. In the
absence of personal knowledge of the individuals in the "relationship" we
ask, as did President Ronald Reagan, for verification. If "quality" is
produced by disadvantage, disadvantage to the workers, the growers, to the
environment, to the nation from which it is exported, then I would argue
that it isn't truly quality. In the same way I would argue that if the cost
of something produced that doesn't take into consideration the ancillary
damage for which a great expense will be born by the population somewhere
down the line then that cost has been deceptively valued.
Marshall's point is well made here: We purchase based on our knowledge. The
more we know, the greater the overall quality of a product will be because
of the demands we make of the providers in exchange for payment. Assuming of
course, that we are willing to pay the price for real quality. That we have
the three choices he refers to is testament to the hard work, good work,
that has been and is being done throughout the whole coffee chain.
Pacem In Terris,
O'K
"Marshall" <mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net > wrote in message
news:67oq92laind5qmbjmud6ndgghf5ivmlupu@4ax.com...
> On 24 Jun 2006 07:45:22 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>So fair trade is bad because it lets the growers earn a living - it
>>would be better if they starved?
>>
>>regards, Ian SMith
>
> I see three pounds of roasted coffee on a shop's shelf. I've never
> tried any of them before, but I'm out of coffee and have to buy one.
>
> Pound #1 is a generic bag of "Colombian." The bag contains no
> information about the farm(s) where it was grown, and I know nothing
> about the roaster or importer's relationship, if any, with the
> grower(s).
>
> Pound #2 is the same as #1, but it also has a Fair Trade seal.
>
> Pound #3 has no Fair Trade seal, but it's from a roaster that I know
> has a relationship with the growers which is teaching them about
> quality and putting more money in their pockets than Fair Trade would.
>
> I buy #3. If they run out of #3, I buy #2. If they run out of #2, I'll
> buy #1.
>
> Marshall
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Jun 2006 13:55:36
From: ensenadajim
Subject: Re: The most eloquent explanation of relationship coffee I have ever read
|
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 10:10:54 -0700, "Danny O'K"
<oksongbird@tcenturytel.net > wrote:
>I recall a pivotal moment in the specialty coffee business at the SCAA
>conference in Denver in 1998 (can it be only eight years ago?). It was a
>pivotal moment for me, as well. There was a sustainable coffee conference
>the Friday before the conference formally started and after several rounds
>of speakers from all sectors of the specialty coffee business and the strong
>encouragement from many speakers on the dais for the growers to begin
>protecting the environment more, grow more organic coffee to eliminate the
>use of toxic chemicals, etc., one of the growers or representatives of the
>growers went to the mike to ask what the coffee buyers (primarily Americans)
>would be willing to pay for these "sustainably grown coffees" (the term was
>barely in use then)? Would they pay 50 cents more a pound? Nah. 25 cents,
>probably not. 10 cents more a pound? The "C" was still the dictator of the
>market.
Thank you for this nice wrap-up.
jim
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Jun 2006 15:48:28
From: jim schulman
Subject: Re: The most eloquent explanation of relationship coffee I have ever read
|
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 10:10:54 -0700, "Danny O'K"
<oksongbird@tcenturytel.net > wrote:
>The Fair Trade
>model is one of those. It wasn't conceived as the perfect model, only one
>that could perhaps create a better world for the majority of farmers who
>grow our coffee and who are the ones who gain the least benefit from its
>sale
This is the crux of the matter. The Fair Trade model may **not** hold
much promise for growers of high altitude, forest grown, labor
intensive coffee:
1: Even with best practice, 70% to 80% of their crop will be C-grade.
2: Industrial style, capital intensive, low grown coffee from Brazil
is getting as good as the low end Centrals or Africans, so the C-grade
market will never again offer a dignified living to high grown coffee
farmers.
3. If they can get top dollar for the top 30% of their crop, they can
thrive.
I think Geoff about nailed it -- Fair Trade did save some potentially
great coffee growing areas, but it's time for these coops to get
selective about their best coffees and market them as specialty.
Most coffee growers cannot roast and cup their coffee, and if they
could, they wouldn't know what to look for. Apparently, top coffee
growers can also asess each tree's potential by tasting the cherry
pulp. These are skills all high grown farmers need to acquire; and
they only place they'll get them is by dealing directly with roasters.
The Slow Food movement accepts the reality that artisanal farming must
produce, in essence, luxury foods, in order to survive, since picking
crops by hand in competition with harvesters is no life, even if
protected by fair trade or other conscience based organizations.
This is of course, a very uncomfortable insight. It's unlikely that in
a world with an egalitarian income distribution at current western
living standards, any sort of artisanal production would survive
(perhaps we could all splurge a few times each year!). If you want the
guy who's picking the coffee to go home to a nice suburban home, you
may need rich people paying through the nose for fancy coffee.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 24 Jun 2006 08:31:15
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: The most eloquent explanation of relationship coffee I have ever read
|
Ian Smith" <ian@astounding.org.uk > wrote in message
news:slrne9prci.pn3.ian@acheron.smithnet...
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Ken Fox <morceaudemerdeThisMerdeGoes@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Marshall wrote the first bit, but the attribution was broken:
>> > Without the intervention of an actively involved roaster or importer
>> > such as Green Mountain, Fair Trade provides no incentive to produce
>> > anything substantially better than commodity grade coffee.
>
> As a criticism of faor trade, that's pretty lame. You seem to be
> saying fair trade is bad (worse than non-fair-trade) because it's not
> perfect - it's only addresses some of teh failings of the 'normal'
> coffee market, not all of them. If you're never going to approach
> anything until you have a complete, final and faultless solution, you
> wouldn't do anything.
>
>> > Without an incentive to quality, farmers will continue in poverty and
>> > bequeath a life of poverty to their children. Tim Castle said it much
>> > better at the SCAA Homecoming two years ago.
>
> Fair trade inherently has no less incentive to quality than
> non-fair-trade. You can have a fair trade purchasing model, _and_
> have incentive for quality. You seem to be saying that people that
> produce merely 'ordinary' coffee deserve to suffer?
>
>> This is oh-so-much better than the fair trade model. I think Geoff
>> Watts
>> hits the nail on the head. I'm far less charitably inclined towards FT
>> than
>> is expressed in his careful wording. I see it as a way to keep enough
>> growers in business but nearly impoverished, so that we rich people in
>> developed countries will have some coffee supply in the future.
>
> So fair trade is bad because it lets the growers earn a living - it
> would be better if they starved?
>
> regards, Ian SMith
> --
>
|
| |
Date: 23 Jun 2006 16:52:42
From: jim schulman
Subject: Re: The most eloquent explanation of relationship coffee I have ever read
|
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:33:27 GMT, Marshall
<mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net > wrote:
>Geoff Watts does it again. It is also a wonderful response to Fair
>Trade zealots.
>http://greenlagirl.com/2006/06/19/an-intelligentsia-email
>
A great piece. It might even set off a thought or two in the "me more
moral" crowd; although the notion that foods should taste good
probably strikes them as reactionary.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Jun 2006 05:47:53
From: Donn Cave
Subject: Re: The most eloquent explanation of relationship coffee I have ever read
|
Quoth jim schulman <jim_schulman@ameritech.net >:
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Jun 2006 06:08:47
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: The most eloquent explanation of relationship coffee I have ever read
|
On 24 Jun 2006 05:47:53 GMT, "Donn Cave" <donn@drizzle.com > wrote:
>Quoth jim schulman <jim_schulman@ameritech.net>:
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Jun 2006 16:40:23
From: Donn Cave
Subject: Re: The most eloquent explanation of relationship coffee I have ever read
|
Quoth Marshall <mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net >:
...
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 Jun 2006 11:20:07
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: The most eloquent explanation of relationship coffee I have ever read
|
"Donn Cave" <donn@drizzle.com > wrote in message
news:1151253622.882358@bubbleator.drizzle.com...
> Quoth Marshall <mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net>:
> ...
>
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Jun 2006 15:19:23
From: jim schulman
Subject: Re: The most eloquent explanation of relationship coffee I have ever read
|
On 24 Jun 2006 05:47:53 GMT, "Donn Cave" <donn@drizzle.com > wrote:
>you Young Republican types
You caught me, I'm the third from the right in the Watergate line-up,
hiding my face in a cloth coat.
|
| |
Date: 24 Jun 2006 01:09:38
From: nimbus
Subject: Re: The most eloquent explanation of relationship coffee I have ever read
|
Marshall wrote:
> Geoff Watts does it again. It is also a wonderful response to Fair
> Trade zealots.
> http://greenlagirl.com/2006/06/19/an-intelligentsia-email
>
> Marshall
MORE kudos to Geoff Watts. He really explained well many of the issues
we roasters and coffee-industry folks must deal with when discussing
Fair Trade coffee.
I'm all for social justice, and seriously, working as directly as
possible with the farmers is the way to go, although certainly
impossible for most roasters. But Fair Trade will someday lead into
something else, hopefully far superior and more progressive.
People like Geoff leading the way will be helpful.
I don't get the Republican comment. Democrats and Republicans are both
factions of the Business party anyway. Neither support social justice.
Lets go for some quality coffee in conjunction with social justice. I
think that is what Geoff is looking for also.
-nimbus
|
| |
Date: 26 Jun 2006 09:23:09
From: DavidMLewis
Subject: Re: The most eloquent explanation of relationship coffee I have ever read
|
Marshall wrote:
> Without the intervention of an actively involved roaster or importer
> such as Green Mountain, Fair Trade provides no incentive to produce
> anything substantially better than commodity grade coffee. For growers
> at that level of quality, the only way out of subsistence level
> farming is mechanization, which they can't afford to do, and their
> geography usually will not allow, even if the money magicaly appeared.
> Without an incentive to quality, farmers will continue in poverty and
> bequeath a life of poverty to their children. Tim Castle said it much
> better at the SCAA Homecoming two years ago.
>
Hi Marshall,
First let me say that I admire and support the work of people like
Geoff Watts a lot, as I'm fairly sure you know. I also think, though,
that we should mention the perspective of Bill Fishbein at CoffeeKids.
His work is focused on the idea that as long as coffee farmers and the
surrounding communities have no alternative to coffee for their
livelihood, we have systemic exploitation built in to the framework: as
the price drops, they will grow more and more coffee because it's the
only way they have of staying alive, which drops the price further,
etc. The work of people like Geoff is likely to remain low-volume by
its nature, because building the kind of relationships he's talking
about, as anyone with decent friends can attest, takes time and isn't
especially scalable. It's essential, especially for those of us who
want to see extraordinary coffee, but needs to be complemented with
things that address other parts of the problem.
Best,
David
|
| | |
Date: 26 Jun 2006 18:53:46
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: The most eloquent explanation of relationship coffee I have ever read
|
On 26 Jun 2006 09:23:09 -0700, "DavidMLewis" <DavidMLewis@mac.com >
wrote:
>
>Marshall wrote:
>
>> Without the intervention of an actively involved roaster or importer
>> such as Green Mountain, Fair Trade provides no incentive to produce
>> anything substantially better than commodity grade coffee. For growers
>> at that level of quality, the only way out of subsistence level
>> farming is mechanization, which they can't afford to do, and their
>> geography usually will not allow, even if the money magicaly appeared.
>> Without an incentive to quality, farmers will continue in poverty and
>> bequeath a life of poverty to their children. Tim Castle said it much
>> better at the SCAA Homecoming two years ago.
>>
>Hi Marshall,
>
>First let me say that I admire and support the work of people like
>Geoff Watts a lot, as I'm fairly sure you know. I also think, though,
>that we should mention the perspective of Bill Fishbein at CoffeeKids.
>His work is focused on the idea that as long as coffee farmers and the
>surrounding communities have no alternative to coffee for their
>livelihood, we have systemic exploitation built in to the framework: as
>the price drops, they will grow more and more coffee because it's the
>only way they have of staying alive, which drops the price further,
>etc. The work of people like Geoff is likely to remain low-volume by
>its nature, because building the kind of relationships he's talking
>about, as anyone with decent friends can attest, takes time and isn't
>especially scalable. It's essential, especially for those of us who
>want to see extraordinary coffee, but needs to be complemented with
>things that address other parts of the problem.
>
>Best,
> David
Agreed. There are also certification programs that provide quality
incentives without a specific social/political agenda, such as Cup of
Excellence and Q Auction/Q Market.
Marshall
|
| |
Date: 26 Jun 2006 06:20:31
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: The most eloquent explanation of relationship coffee I have ever read
|
Donn Cave wrote:
As soon as the
> topic comes up, out come the moralistic, rock throwing leftists on one side,
> and on the other the free market true believer running dogs of exploitive
> world capitalism, to help us frame the issues in a constructive way.
As a card-carrying moralistic, rock-throwing leftist, it is good to
know that my humble contributions assist you in framing your issues.
Give me a call anytime and I'll heave a rock.
Will
|
|
