October, 19 2011, 04:43pm EDT
Fair Trade USA Goes Rogue: New "Standards" Undermine Fair Trade Commitment to Farmers and Consumers
Fair Trade Advocates Reject Certifier Scheme to Allow “Fair Trade” Chocolate Bars to Contain No Actual Fair Trade Cocoa, Among Other Examples
PORTLAND, OR
Fair World Project (FWP), a campaign of the Organic Consumers Association, the nation's largest network of green and ethical consumers, rejects leading certifier Fair Trade USA's (formerly Transfair USA) new "Fair Trade for All" initiative and standards revisions. As of January 1, 2012, FWP will not recognize FTUSA as a reputable fair trade certifier unless it reverses its proposed labeling and commercial availability standards. This week, FWP sent a letter to FTUSA to convey their position on the proposed changes. To view the letter, go to: https://www.fairworldproject.org/fairtradeusa.
FTUSA has publicized key elements of the new standards, including labeling policies and multi-ingredient product requirements. The publicized policy revisions drastically diminish the standing of FTUSA as a reputable organization. To carry the FTUSA "Fair Trade Certified (Ingredients)" mark, now a product need contain only 10% certified fair trade ingredients, and to carry the "Fair Trade Certified" mark, a product must contain only 25% certified fair trade ingredients. But even more egregious, is that once those content thresholds are met, FTUSA will not require that fair trade ingredients be sourced and used even if they are commercially available in fair trade form, a key requirement of any fair trade certification scheme such as FTUSA's former parent organization, the Fairtrade Labelling Organization. Consequently, companies that have been known for shirking corporate responsibility and fair trade, such as Hershey's (https://www.raisethebarhershey.org), could place the FTUSA mark on their chocolate bars by sourcing fair trade sugar but not certified fair trade cocoa. What's more, under the new FTUSA labeling standards, a "fair trade" chocolate bar could in fact contain sugar, vanilla or cocoa produced using child or forced labor, even though all these ingredients are commercially available in fair trade form.
Paul Rice, FTUSA CEO, made explicitly clear in a recent webinar FTUSA will not require fair trade companies to source fair trade ingredients when commercially available. Without a transparent, enforceable and strict commercial availability standard, there will be little incentive to spur market development of fair trade sources of ingredients, while denying impoverished producers with much needed markets. What's more, 100% fair trade companies and producers will be unable to distinguish their products in the marketplace from companies that simply source a minor amount of fair trade ingredients to fly the Fair Trade for All seal at just 25% or even 10% fair trade content.
"Fair Trade USA's new labeling requirements undermine the ability of consumers to make informed choices," said Dana Geffner, Executive Director of Fair World Project. "To expand and develop the fair trade market, consumers need to trust that 'fair trade' labels reflect their values by being true to the content of the product. Fair Trade is a global movement built upon a foundation of transparency, accountability and integrity. FTUSA's unilateral decisions have failed to uphold these principles."
On September 15th, Fairtrade International (FLO) and Fair Trade USA (FTUSA) jointly announced that FTUSA is resigning from its membership in FLO (https://tinyurl.com/3tz4qm9), effective December 31, 2011. FTUSA's resignation from the FLO system is partially due to its new initiative, "Fair Trade For All" (https://fairtradeforall.com/) which it claims will "double the impact" of fair trade by 2015.
FTUSA's labeling and commercial availability standards are simply the most recent example of a long line of disreputable actions and policies that have undermined the fair trade movement and market. FTUSA's recent decision to certify coffee plantations has drawn the widespread condemnation of fair trade producer networks (https://tinyurl.com/3h4hzkx), including the Network of Asian Producers (NAP), Latin American and Caribbean Network of Small Fair Trade Producers (CLAC), Fairtrade Africa and the World Fair Trade Organization. It is inconceivable that an organization whose values include striving to "always act ethically" and "value relationships built on honesty, mutual respect and trust" would advance a program without the knowledge or consent of the very producers it aims to support.
"For years Transfair has eroded the values of fair trade with its courting of corporate players demanding an ever-lower bar for entry," said Rob Everts, Co-Executive Director of Equal Exchange. "Now, their fig leaf seal on products containing few-to-zero ingredients from small farmers, combined with the full embrace of the world's largest landholders, will hoodwink consumers into believing they are supporting social change while the system returns small farmers to their marginalized market status of thirty years ago."
Fair World Project recognizes Fairtrade International (FLO) and IMO's Fair For Life fair trade products. And will continue to evaluate fair trade standards in the marketplace.
Fair trade is a social movement and market model that aims to empower small-scale farmers and workers in underdeveloped countries to create an alternative trading system that supports equitable trading, sustainable development and long-term trading relationships. Fair trade supports fair prices and wages for producers, safe working conditions, investment in community development projects, and the elimination of child labor, workplace discrimination and exploitation.
Certified fair trade products now represent a multi-billion dollar industry with over 10,000 products in the marketplace. Consumer demand for fair trade products has steadily risen over the course of the last decade thanks to the tireless work of dedicated advocates, fully committed companies, and students.
The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is an online and grassroots 501(c)3 nonprofit public interest organization, and the only organization in the U.S. focused exclusively on promoting the views and interests of the nation's estimated 50 million consumers of organically and socially responsibly produced food and other products. OCA educates and advocates on behalf of organic consumers, engages consumers in marketplace pressure campaigns, and works to advance sound food and farming policy through grassroots lobbying. We address crucial issues around food safety, industrial agriculture, genetic engineering, children's health, corporate accountability, Fair Trade, environmental sustainability, including pesticide use, and other food- and agriculture-related topics.
LATEST NEWS
'Incomprehensible': Liberal Justices Blast SCOTUS Decision Allowing Trump to Resume Third Country Deportations
"The government has made clear in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone anywhere without notice or an opportunity to be heard," wrote Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Jun 24, 2025
The Supreme Court on Monday temporarily lifted a lower court order that had required the Trump administration to give migrants the chance to challenge their deportation to a country other than their nation of origin, clearing the way for resumption of such removals and prompting a strongly worded dissent from the three liberal justices.
The conservative majority behind the ruling did not offer a rationale for the order, but said that the preliminary injunction handed down by a district court judge in April is stayed, pending appeal.
"Totally unexplained Supreme Court ruling on 3rd-country deportations will produce widespread confusion in lower courts. Did the court object to nationwide aspect? Think judges lacked jurisdiction? Something else? Who knows?" wrotePolitico's senior legal affairs reporter Josh Gerstein, offering a prediction of what's to come.
Trump administration efforts to deport immigrants to countries they are not from has become one of the most contentious aspects of U.S. President Donald Trump's crackdown on immigration.
In May, the Trump administration put eight men, most of whom are not from South Sudan, on a flight said to be headed to South Sudan, though the flight instead landed in Djibouti. The men have been held in Djibouti since. U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy told Trump administration officials that they "unquestionably" violated a court order he issued in April when it attempted to carry out those third-country deportations to South Sudan.
The Supreme Court's order stays that ruling from Murphy issued in April, which directed the Trump administration not to deport immigrants to countries other than their home countries without giving them adequate notice to raise concerns that they might face danger if sent there.
However, "in an order Monday, Murphy said the eight men in Djibouti remain protected from immediate removal despite the Supreme Court's ruling, referencing another order he had issued last month—separate from the one put on hold by the Supreme Court," according to ABC News.
In a blistering dissent, Sotomayor wrote that the ruling exposes "thousands to the risk of torture or death" and comes down on the side of the Trump administration even though it had violated the lower court's order. Sotomayor was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson
"The government has made clear in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone anywhere without notice or an opportunity to be heard," she wrote in her dissent.
"Apparently," she continued, "the court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a District Court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled. That use of discretion is as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable."
Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the ruling a victory on Monday. "DHS can now execute its lawful authority and remove illegal aliens to a country willing to accept them," she said in a statement. "Fire up the deportation planes."
"When you think it can't get worse, it does!" said Jill Wine-Banks, an MSNBC legal analyst, in response to the ruling.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Says Iran and Israel Agree to Cease-Fire
"Let's hope it's real," said CodePink's Medea Benjamin. "But let's also stay clear-eyed. And let's demand a cease-fire where it's urgently needed: Gaza."
Jun 23, 2025
President Donald Trump said Monday that Israel and Iran have agreed to a "complete and total cease-fire" following 12 days of escalating attacks, including unprovoked U.S. attacks on multiple Iranian civilian nuclear facilities meant to be under international protection.
"It has been fully agreed by and between Israel and Iran that there will be a Complete and Total CEASEFIRE (in approximately 6 hours from now, when Israel and Iran have wound down and completed their in progress, final missions!), for 12 hours, at which point the War will be considered, ENDED!" Trump wrote on his Truth Social network.
"Officially, Iran will start the CEASEFIRE and, upon the 12th Hour, Israel will start the CEASEFIRE and, upon the 24th Hour, an Official END to THE 12 DAY WAR will be saluted by the World," Trump added. "During each CEASEFIRE, the other side will remain PEACEFUL and RESPECTFUL."
A senior Iranian official toldReuters that Tehran has agreed to a cease-fire following persuasion from Qatar, which hours earlier was the site of a symbolic Iranian missile attack on a base housing thousands of U.S. troops.
"Trump says there's a cease-fire between Israel and Iran. Is it true? We don't know but if it is, it's great news," Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the peace group CodePink, said on social media following the president's post. "Because Iran has been under attack. The world has been on edge. And while a cease-fire would be a tremendous relief, let's not forget: Trump lies."
Trump says there’s a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. Is it true? We don’t know but if it is, it’s great news.
Because Iran has been under attack. The world has been on edge. And while a ceasefire would be a tremendous relief, let’s not forget:
Trump lies.
Israel violates… pic.twitter.com/MZbxAc0nEu
— Medea Benjamin (@medeabenjamin) June 23, 2025
"Israel violates cease-fires all the time in Gaza, in Lebanon," Benjamin continued. "Israel has nuclear weapons. Iran does not. The U.S. and Israel have attacked Iran illegally. So yes, let's hope it's real. But let's also stay clear-eyed. And let's demand a cease-fire where it's urgently needed: Gaza."
"No more starvation. No more bombings," she added. "No more fake 'humanitarian corridors.'"
Keep ReadingShow Less
'There Was No Imminent Threat,' Says Sen. Chris Murphy After Iran Intelligence Briefing
The Connecticut Democrat blasted Donald Trump as "a weak and dangerously reckless president."
Jun 23, 2025
In addition to pushing back against U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson's claim that President Donald Trump "made the right call" attacking Iran's nuclear sites, U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy on Monday spelled out "ideas that should guide Americans' thinking as they digest the hourly news updates during the early days of what may become yet another American war of choice in the Middle East."
Johnson (R-La.) claimed in a Saturday night post on the social media site X that "leaders in Congress were aware of the urgency of this situation and the commander-in-chief evaluated that the imminent danger outweighed the time it would take for Congress to act."
Responding early Monday, Murphy (D-Conn.) said that "there was no imminent threat. I got briefed on the same intelligence as the speaker."
"This is also a moment for the American people to stand up and say we do not want another war in the Middle East."
That echoed a statement the senator put out on Sunday, in which he said that "I've been briefed on the intelligence—there is no evidence Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States. That makes this attack illegal."
"Only Congress can declare preemptive war, and we should vote as soon as possible on legislation to explicitly deny President Trump the authorization to drag us into a conflict in Middle East that could get countless Americans killed and waste trillions of dollars," he added, calling Trump "a weak and dangerously reckless president."
Murphy—a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations—also published a long piece on his Senate website on Monday, stressing eight key points:
- There is an industry in Washington that profits from war, and so it's no surprise that the merits of conflict are dangerously overhyped and the risks are regularly underestimated.
- Almost every war plan our military has devised for the Middle East and North Africa in the last two decades has been a failure.
- The strikes are illegal, and a major setback for the international rule of law that has undergirded American security for 75 years.
- You cannot bomb knowledge out of existence. Iran knows how to make a nuclear bomb.
- We didn't need to start a war with Iran because we know—for sure—that diplomacy can work.
- Even opponents of this strike need to admit Iran is weak, and we cannot know for sure what the future holds.
- There are many very, very bad potential consequences of Trump's attack. The worst consequence, of course, is a full-blown war in the region that draws in the United States.
- Israel is our ally and Iran IS a threat to their people, but we should never allow Israeli domestic politics to draw us into a war.
"This is a moment where Congress needs to step in," Murphy argued. "This week, we are likely to take a vote that makes it crystal clear President Trump does not have the authorization for these strikes or a broader war with Iran."
"This is also a moment for the American people to stand up and say we do not want another war in the Middle East," he added, recalling the U.S. invasion of Iraq. "In the last 20 years, we have seen the untold damage done—the lives lost, the billions of dollars wasted, and our reputation squandered—and we won't allow Trump to take us down that path again."
After Tehran on Monday responded to Trump's attack by firing missiles at a base in Qatar that houses American forces and, reportedly, a site in Iraq, the U.S. president announced on his Truth Social network a cease-fire between Iran and Israel—which was bombing its Middle East opponent before the United States started also doing so.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular