October, 19 2010, 03:43pm EDT
Is There Child Slave Labor in Your Child's Halloween Candy?
New Chocolate Candy Scorecard Rates All the Major Chocolate Makers; Hershey is Dead Last for its Failure to Take Action on Child Labor
WASHINGTON
Good news for parents this Halloween: It's
easier than ever to avoid buying chocolate from Hershey, the largest
U.S. chocolate company. Hershey fails to ensure that child labor is not
part of its chocolate. Two major reports this September called out
Hershey's failure and the prevalence of egregious child labor, forced
labor and trafficking abuses in the cocoa sector in Cote d'Ivoire and
Ghana where Hershey's sources much of its cocoa.
Just in time for Halloween, Thanksgiving
and the December holidays, the independent, non-profit Green America has
outlined seven ways to find and give Fair Trade chocolate people can
feel good about, and take constructive actions to get Hershey's to go
Fair Trade.
1 . Use the new "Get Child Labor Out of Your Chocolates Scorecard"
to shop online. Among the "A" ranked alternatives to Hershey chocolate
are Alter Eco, Coco-Zen, Divine, Equal Exchange, Shama, Sjaak's, Sweet
Earth Organic and Theo Chocolate, all of which are Fair Trade. All of
Hershey's competitors have some form of labor certification for their
chocolate, leaving Hershey as the only company on the list without one.
Confused by what all of those certification symbols mean? The Scorecard
includes a short overview of the most widely used labels and explains
what they mean.
2 . Shop for Fair Trade chocolate locally. You can find dozens of locations around the US.
3 . Fair Trade Your Halloween.
You can hand out bite-sized Fair Trade chocolates and let parents of
Trick-or-Treaters know why Fair Trade matters. In addition, thousands of
families across the US are taking part in local "reverse
trick-or-treating" to educate other families about the abuse of children
in the cocoa production.
4 . Help raise awareness by holding a screening in your home of "The Dark Side of Chocolate."
Filmmakers Miki Mistrati and U. Robin Romano traveled to cocoa farms in
Cote d'Ivoire and what they found was dark. Few improvements have been
made on the ground and egregious labor rights abuses continue, years
after major chocolate companies committed to ending this exploitation.
5 . Take Green America's new action targeting Hershey. Don't just avoid Hershey chocolates; let this company know what you think. Send your message to a Hershey's executive now.
6 . Take action on Facebook. You can start by "liking" Green America's latest posts about Hershey, so your friends can see them. You can also go to Hershey's Facebook page
and leave yourown comments for them and their customers to see. Every
few days, Hershey's posts a new question designed to keep up the
chatter on their page, constantly exposing their brand to more eyeballs.
That's where you can add your comments about expecting Hershey to be
more responsible.
7 . Send a letter to the editor
of your local newspaper. You'll find all the background information
that you need for your letter to the editor by downloading the "Time to Raise the Bar" report.
Green America Corporate Social
Responsibility Director, Todd Larsen, said: "We understand that parents
who may become aware of the concerns regarding Hershey chocolate and
abusive child labor may feel powerless to do anything about it. That's
why we want them to know that there are constructive actions they can
take to make a difference. While Hershey pays its CEO $8 million
annually, the company is doing little to end the practice of forced
child labor in cocoa-growing regions, where many children are not paid
for their labor and are abused. This corporate giant is hoping that
parents will throw up their hands and just go along as they always have
in the past. Our message is simple: You can be sure that you are not
putting child slave labor in your child's Halloween bag or those of
other children."
BACKGROUND
On September 30, 2010, The Payson Center
for International Development at Tulane University released its fourth
annual report on Oversight of Public and Private Initiatives to
Eliminate the Worst Forms of Child Labor in the Cocoa Sector in Cote
d'Ivoire and Ghana. The report underscores the lack of progress that is
being made by voluntary programs adopted by the cocoa industry to
address the problems of child and forced labor in West Africa.
In response, national non-profits Global
Exchange, Green America, International Labor Rights Forum, and Oasis USA
called on Hershey, the largest US chocolate company, to take action to
end child and forced labor in its supply chain and to adopt Fair Trade
Certified cocoa.
Available online at https://childlabor-payson.org,
the report identifies the ongoing exploitation of labor rights in the
cocoa sector including the worst forms of child labor, forced labor and
trafficking. New research related to the trafficking of young workers
from Burkina Faso and Mali found that:
- Cote d'Ivoire is the predominant destination for trafficked and migrant cocoa workers;
- The overwhelming majority of respondents moved to cocoa farms without their natural parents or guardians;
- Virtually all respondents experienced
the worst forms of child labor including: verbal, physical and sexual
harassment and restrictions of their freedom of movement; and - Virtually all respondents performed
hazardous work including land clearing and burning, carrying heavy
loads, spraying pesticides, and using machetes, among other dangerous
activities.
Also released in September, the report
"Time to Raise the Bar: the Real CSR Report for the Hershey Company"
(issued by Global Exchange, Green America, International Labor Rights
Forum, and Oasis USA) found that the Hershey corporation was the laggard
in the cocoa industry regarding monitoring its supply chain.
The report also found that Hershey lacked
transparency and traceability when it came to its cocoa sourcing, as
well as meaningful programs to address labor violations in the
cocoa-growing communities of West Africa, from where it sources. As the
dominant chocolate company in the US, the report calls on Hershey to
"Raise the Bar" and adopt Fair Trade Certification for its best selling
bar by 2012, and all of its top selling chocolate products by 2022."
"Time to Raise the Bar: The Real CSR Report for the Hershey Company"
Green America is a not-for-profit membership organization founded in 1982 and known until January 1, 2009 as "Co-op America." Green America's mission is to harness economic power--the strength of consumers, investors, businesses, and the marketplace--to create a socially just and environmentally sustainable society.
LATEST NEWS
Experts Warn of Toxins in GM Corn Amid US-Mexico Trade Dispute
"The Mexican government is both wise and on solid ground in refusing to allow its people to participate in the experiment that the U.S. government is seeking to impose."
Mar 26, 2024
Friends of the Earth U.S. on Monday released a brief backing Mexico's ban on genetically modified corn for human consumption, which the green group recently submitted to a dispute settlement panel charged with considering the U.S. government's challenge to the policy.
Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador announced plans to phase out the herbicide glyphosate as well as genetically modified (GM) or genetically engineered (GE) corn in 2020. Last year he issued an updated decree making clear the ban does not apply to corn imports for livestock feed and industrial use. Still, the Biden administration objected and, after fruitless formal negotiations, requested the panel under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).
"The U.S. government has not presented an 'appropriate' risk assessment to the tribunal as called for in the USMCA dispute because such an assessment has never been done in the U.S. or anywhere in the world," said agricultural economist Charles Benbrook, who wrote the brief with Kendra Klein, director of science at Friends of the Earth U.S.
"The U.S. is, in effect, asking Mexico to trust the completeness and accuracy of the initial GE corn safety assessments carried out 15 to 30 years ago by the companies working to bring GE corn events to market."
The group's 13-page brief lays out health concerns related to GM corn and glyphosate, and the shortcomings of U.S. analyses and policies. It also stresses the stakes of the panel's decision, highlighting that "corn is the caloric backbone of the Mexican food supply, accounting, on average, for 50% of the calories and protein in the Mexican diet."
Blasting the Biden administration's case statement to the panel as "seriously deficient," Klein said Monday that "it lacks basic information about the toxins expressed in contemporary GMO corn varieties and their levels. The U.S. submission also ignores dozens of studies linking the insecticidal toxins and glyphosate residues found in GMO corn to adverse impacts on public health."
The brief explains that "since the commercial introduction of GE corn in 1996 and event-specific approvals in the 1990s and 2000s, dramatic changes have occurred in corn production systems. There has been an approximate four-fold increase in the number of toxins and pesticides applied on the average hectare of contemporary GE industrial corn compared to the early 1990s. Unfortunately, this upward trend is bound to continue, and may accelerate."
The U.S. statement's assurances about risks from Bacillus thuringiensis or vegetative insecticidal protein (Bt/VIP) residues "are not based on data and science," the brief warns.
"The U.S. is, in effect, asking Mexico to trust the completeness and accuracy of the initial GE corn safety assessments carried out 15 to 30 years ago by the companies working to bring GE corn events to market," the document says. "The Mexican government is both wise and on solid ground in refusing to allow its people to participate in the experiment that the U.S. government is seeking to impose on Mexico."
"The absence of any systematic monitoring of human exposure levels to Bt/VIP toxins and herbicides from consumption of corn-based foods is regrettable," the brief adds. "It is also unfortunate that the U.S. government rejected the Mexican proposal to jointly design and carry out a modern battery of studies able to overcome gaps in knowledge regarding GE corn impacts."
"The U.S. government's case against Mexico has no more scientific merit than its sham GMO regulatory regime, and should be rejected by the USMCA dispute resolution panel."
Friends of the Earth isn't the only U.S.-based group formally supporting the Mexican government in the USMCA process. The Center for Food Safety sent a 10-page submission by science director Bill Freese, an expert on biotech regulation, to the panel on March 15. His analysis addresses U.S. regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMO) along with the risks of GM corn and glyphosate.
"GMO regulation in the U.S. was crafted by Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, and is a critical part of our government's promotion of the biotechnology industry," Freese said last week, referring to the company known for the glyphosate-based weedkiller Roundup. "The aim is to quell concerns and promote acceptance of GMOs, domestically and abroad, rather than critically evaluate potential toxicity or allergenicity."
His submission notes that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration "does not require a GE plant developer to do anything prior to marketing its GE crop or food derived from it. Instead, FDA operates what it calls a voluntary consultation program that is designed to enhance consumer confidence and speed GE crops to market."
"When governmental review is optional; and even when it's conducted, starts and ends with the regulated company's safety assurance—what's the point?" Freese asked. "Clearly, it's the PR value of a governmental rubber stamp."
"The Mexican government's prohibition of GM corn for tortillas and other masa corn products is fully justified," he asserted. "The U.S. government's case against Mexico has no more scientific merit than its sham GMO regulatory regime, and should be rejected by the USMCA dispute resolution panel."
In a Common Dreams opinion piece last week, Ernesto Hernández-López, a law professor at Chapman University in California, pointed out that Mexico's recent submission to the panel also "offers scientific proof and lots of it," including "over 150 scientific studies, referred to in peer-review journals, systemic research reviews, and more."
"Mexico incorporates perspectives from toxicology, pediatrics, plant biology, hematology, epidemiology, public health, and data mining, to name a few," he wrote. "This clearly and loudly responds to American persistence. The practical result: American leaders cannot claim there is no science supporting the decree. They may disagree with or dislike the findings, but there is proof."
The Biden administration's effort to quash the Mexican policy notably comes despite the lack of impact on trade. While implementing its ban last year, "Mexico also made its largest corn purchase from the U.S., 15.3 million metric tons," National Geographicreported last month.
Kenneth Smith Ramos, former Mexican chief negotiator for the USMCA, told the outlet that "right now, it may not have a big economic impact because what Mexico is using to produce flour, cornmeal, and tortillas is a very small percentage of their overall imports; but that does not mean the U.S. is not concerned with this being the tip of the iceberg."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Collapse of Political Ambition': EU Shelves Nature Restoration Law
"To let this go now means we go into European elections saying the European system is not working, we do not protect nature, we do not take climate seriously," said Ireland's environmental minister. "That would be an absolute shame."
Mar 26, 2024
Environmental ministers in the European Union on Monday warned that the bloc's credibility on heading off the global biodiversity and climate emergencies is in peril following the European Council's decision to remove the historic Nature Restoration Law from its agenda after the proposal lost key support.
"We inspired others, yet now we risk arriving empty handed at COP16 [the 2024 UN Biodiversity Conference]," Virginijus Sinkevičius, E.U. commissioner for environment, oceans, and fisheries, said in a statement. "Backtracking now is... very difficult for me to accept."
The law, first introduced in 2022 and approved by European Parliament last month, faced one final hurdle to passage with the planned Council vote, but recent protests by farmers over the new nature restoration requirements helped push some previous supporters to reverse their positions on Monday.
The Nature Restoration Law, which supporters said they still intend to try to pass before E.U. elections in June, would require member states to adopt measures to restore at least 30% of habitats by 2030, working up to 90% by 2050. Member states would be required to take action to reverse pollinator populations, restore organic soils in agricultural use, increase development of urban green areas, and take other steps to protect biodiversity.
Since the farmer protests began in France and started spreading to other countries including Spain, Belgium, and Italy, policymakers have offered concessions including delayed implementation of another set of biodiversity rules calling for the agriculture industry to keep 4% of farming land free of crop production to regenerate healthy soil. The European Commission also shelved an anti-pesticide law in February in response to the protests.
As countries announced their new opposition to the Nature Restoration Law in recent days, some ministers suggested the demonstrations contributed to their decision.
Anikó Raisz, Hungary's minister of state for environmental affairs, said the law would "overburden the economy" and cited concerns about the "sensitive situation" in the agriculture sector. Italy also said it was concerned about the biodiversity rules' impact on farmers.
The World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF) accused far-right Hungarian President Viktor Orbán, who has dismissed European climate policies, of being behind the "unexpected and clearly politically motivated change in Hungary's position."
Hungary's opposition "was left unchallenged by Sweden, Poland, Finland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, and Italy—who continue to either abstain or oppose," and "has now put the [Nature Restoration Law] in jeopardy again, giving Hungary's President Viktor Orbán the green light to further his own agenda and hold E.U. decision-making hostage," said WWF.
Eamon Ryan, Irish minister for the environment, accused other policymakers in the bloc of "buckling" before the farmer protests, which continued Tuesday, ahead of June elections.
"The biggest risk is the collapse of political ambition and will," Ryan said. "To let this go now means we go into European elections saying the European system is not working, we do not protect nature, we do not take climate seriously. That would be an absolute shame."
BirdLife Europe called on the E.U. the continue its efforts to pass the Nature Restoration Law before the session ends this summer.
"The E.U.'s reputation hangs in the balance in this critical year of E.U. elections," said the group. "Failure to make the law a reality also undermines the E.U.'s credibility and leadership on its international commitments to tackle the biodiversity and climate crises."
"This is definitely not the end of the story," Alain Maron, Belgium's minister for climate change, environment, energy, and participative democracy, told reporters at a press conference Monday. He added that the Belgian presidency of the European Council "will work hard in the next few weeks to find possible ways out of this deadlock, and get the file back on the agenda for adoption in another council."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Under Fire for Downplaying Security Council Resolution as 'Nonbinding'
One expert accused the U.S. of working to "undermine and sabotage the U.N. Security Council, the 'rules-based order,' and international law."
Mar 26, 2024
Biden administration officials attempted Monday to downplay the significance of a newly passed United Nations Security Council resolution, drawing ire from human rights advocates who said the U.S. is undercutting international law and stonewalling attempts to bring Israel's devastating military assault on Gaza to an end.
The resolution "demands an immediate cease-fire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties, leading to a lasting sustainable cease-fire." The U.S., which previously vetoed several cease-fire resolutions, opted to abstain on Monday, allowing the measure to pass.
Shortly after the resolution's approval, several administration officials—including State Department spokesman Matthew Miller, White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby, and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield—falsely characterized the measure as "nonbinding."
"It's a nonbinding resolution," Kirby told reporters. "So, there's no impact at all on Israel and Israel's ability to continue to go after Hamas."
Watch Matt Lee ask StateSpox about the passing of the UN ceasefire resolution. Basically the US position is it makes no difference and Miller calls 🇷🇺/🇨🇳 veto cynical.
Lee: Do you expect Israel is going to announce a ceasefire?
Miller: I do not
Lee: What’s the point of the UN? pic.twitter.com/FibaSKWjuh
— Assal Rad (@AssalRad) March 25, 2024
Josh Ruebner, an adjunct lecturer at Georgetown University and former policy director of the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights, wrote in response that "there is no such thing as a 'nonbinding' Security Council resolution."
"Israel's failure to abide by this resolution must open the door to the immediate imposition of Chapter VII sanctions," Ruebner wrote.
Beatrice Fihn, the director of Lex International and former executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, condemned what she called the Biden administration's "appalling behavior" in the wake of the resolution's passage. Fihn said the administration's downplaying of the resolution shows how the U.S. works to "openly undermine and sabotage the U.N. Security Council, the 'rules-based order,' and international law."
In a Monday op-ed for Common Dreams, Phyllis Bennis, a senior fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, warned that administration officials' claim that the resolution was "nonbinding" should be seen as "setting the stage for the U.S. government to violate the U.N. Charter by refusing to be bound by the resolution's terms."
While all U.N. Security Council resolutions are legally binding, they're difficult to enforce and regularly ignored by the Israeli government, which responded with outrage to the latest resolution and canceled an Israeli delegation's planned visit to the U.S.
Israel Katz, Israel's foreign minister,
wrote on social media Monday that "Israel will not cease fire."
The resolution passed amid growing global alarm over the humanitarian crisis that Israel has inflicted on the Gaza Strip, where most of the population of around 2.2 million is displaced and at increasingly dire risk of starvation.
Amnesty International secretary-general Agnes Callamard said Monday that it was "just plain irresponsible" of U.S. officials to "suggest that a resolution meant to save lives and address massive devastation and suffering can be disregarded."
In addition to demanding an immediate cease-fire, the Security Council resolution calls for the unconditional release of all remaining hostages and "emphasizes the urgent need to expand the flow of humanitarian assistance."
Israel has systematically obstructed aid deliveries to Gaza, including
U.S.-funded flour shipments.
Farhan Haq, deputy spokesman for the U.N. secretary-general, stressed during a briefing Monday that "all the resolutions of the Security Council are international law."
"They are as binding as international laws," Haq said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular