What is Food Sovereignty?

“Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems. It puts the aspirations and needs of those who produce, distribute and consume food at the heart of food systems and policies rather than the demands of markets and corporations.”

– Declaration of Nyéléni, the first global forum on food sovereignty, Mali, 2007

Storytelling of the Food Sovereignty Colloquium

Explore more infographics like this one on the web’s largest information design community – Visually.


Leave Your Response

* Name, Email, Comment are Required

A ‘Naked’ Fair Wash?

So, Naked Juice is getting into the fair trade game, marketing a new fair trade coconut water drink. Great news, right? Not so fast. Naked Juice recently launched a fair trade coconut water drink, certified by Fair Trade USA (FTUSA), raising major concerns for fair trade consumers and advocates. For Fair World Project’s take on FTUSA’ certification, and other fair trade certifiers, please see FWP’s Fair Trade Certifiers & Membership Orgs and FWP’s Certifier Analysis for multi-ingredient products.

Naked Juice is fully owned by Pepsico, one of the world’s largest junk food corporations.  Pepsico and Naked have been in the news of late, and not for corporate social responsibility accolades.  Pepsico was a major contributor to the No on Proposition 37 campaign, contributing 2.5 million dollars in 2012 to defeat the California citizen proposition to label genetically modified foods. Naked Juice recently settled a $9 million dollar class action lawsuit for misleading consumers, claiming their products were: “100% Juice,” “100% Fruit,” “From Concentrate,” “All Natural,” “All Natural Fruit,” “All Natural Fruit + Boosts” and “Non-GMO.” The lawsuit claimed that Naked Juice continued to use marketing slogans, like “All Natural” even though its products contain GMOs.

Prop 37: Your Right to Know

So, is Naked sincere in their first foray into fair trade? Naked’s fair washing is not unlike the fair washing dilemmas in the banana market. Do companies with terrible human rights records, like Dole and Chiquita, have a place in the fair trade movement, certifying a very small percentage of their total products, while continuing their deplorable practices? Should Naked Juice be allowed to market a fair trade product, representing a small fraction of their product line, without fundamentally altering their business practices? With transparency as a core fair trade value, can you trust a company that deliberately used false advertising?

Leave Your Response

* Name, Email, Comment are Required

Exploring Fair Trade Apparel Part 4

The Apparel Industry in a Nutshell

The tragic events in Bangladesh underscore that the apparel industry remains one of the most dangerous and abusive industries on the planet. From child labor on cotton plantations and impoverished cotton producers in West Africa, to dangerous working conditions and poverty wages throughout the Global South, including the Global North, the apparel industry is dangerous and unjust.

The apparel industry supply chain is a complex web involving many countries, long supply changes and razor thin margins. From field to t-shirt, it takes many steps, including:

  • Farming;
  • Ginning;
  • Spinning;
  • Knitting;
  • Dying:
  • Cutting & sewing:
  • screening.

Globally, most of the apparel industry, throughout the supply chain, is operated under sweatshop conditions. According to the Maquila Solidarity Network, “Sweatshop conditions include excessive working hours, forced overtime, poverty wages, child labour, unsafe working conditions, discrimination, verbal and physical abuse. When workers try to organize a union, they are often fired.”

FTUSA’s standard is only auditing one step of the supply chain, “cut and sew” and ignoring the many other stages of apparel production. FTUSA is not even guaranteeing a “living wage” for the cut and sew stage.As the Clean Clothes Campaign (CCC) states, “The payment of a living wage [should be] a minimum standard, not an aspirational standard.” According to the CCC, “The right to a living wage: A living wage should be earned in a standard working week (no more than 48 hours) and allow a garment worker to be able to buy food for herself and her family, pay the rent, pay for healthcare, clothing, transportation and education and have a small amount of savings for when something unexpected happens.” For an apparel worker to earn a living wage in core apparel producing countries, like China, Mexico, India and Bangladesh, workers would need to earn several minimum wages a day to reach a living wage.

For an informative introduction at living wage, please see:


Create your free online surveys with SurveyMonkey , the world’s leading questionnaire tool.

Any hope?

The apparel industry is complex. Even the best designed fair trade program will have challenges. Certification and marketplace mechanisms alone will not improve the lot for farmers and workers in the textile industry. Strengthening institutions, advocating for “living wage” laws and policies, and advancing industry minimum health and safety standards support marketplace solutions, like 3rd party certification.

At a basic level, apparel workers need simple workplace safety requirement.

The Accord for Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh (also known as the “Bangladesh Fire and Safety Accord”, the “Bangladesh Accord” or the “Accord”) was formally signed by more than 40 apparel companies, two global unions and four Bangladeshi union federations – with four labor rights NGOs signing as witnesses – on May 23, 2013. However, several major apparel companies, including Patagonia, have yet to sign. For more information, visit (

Ultimately, the end goal must be to ensure that cotton and other fiber producers trade on fair terms, while workers throughout the supply chain receive a living wage in a dignified workplace. Top down, social auditing schemes miss the mark and do not meet farmer, worker or consumer expectations for a fair and truly sustainable supply chain.

4 Responses


It is Victorian that we have to discuss something such as this, its 2014, how can these corporate giants get away with exploitation theft and slave conditions its not 1840 for Christ’s sake, how can this be, its immoral, there must be justice somewhere?


Three choices of answers is of course not enough, the issue too complex. I do believe more small steps are needed, are more realistic, with my chosen answer being the final goal.


@ Bob – They get away with it because the corporations are controlling our government now; They bribe the politicians with campaign contributions of hefty sums that were illegal in years past; They have lobbying groups that spend millions to shift the political stance to their profits and their desired result.

In other words, The US is a Fascist country being controlled and manipulated by corporations, for corporate profit of a value-less currency that isn’t even backed by hard value like gold.

That is just how dumb everything is now, so of course we’re still talking about human slavery in 2014 because everyone has turned a blind eye because they want their product and they want it now, as cheap as it can be and they don’t care who has to make it or if they die while doing it.

The world has being a cess pit full of nothing but subhuman scum and at this rate, the US will poison the entire earths populous simply because the pesticide corporations that are controlling the govt want more profits for their POISON.

We are in really dire straights and the future is looking like a deserted wasteland.

The truth is hard to handle.


fair trade is the only way to make products.

Leave Your Response

* Name, Email, Comment are Required