At this point, the open comment period on the draft policy is closed and we are awaiting word on the final policy.  However, the dialogue continues. And Fair Trade USA is publicly changing their arguments to justify their draft policy. For example, earlier this week, Fair Trade USA stated in an article that the reason for eliminating commercial availability is that in the US most sugar is sourced domestically, meanwhile not giving a reason for not requiring threshold disclosures. We submitted a response to these misleading statements:

Fair Trade USA has yet to provide a credible argument for their refusal to implement a basic level of transparency in its labeling policy.

The problem with a 20% threshold of certified ingredients with no accompanying disclosure of actual threshold or requirement that all ingredients commonly associated with fair trade be certified is not that composite products include domestic ingredients, it is that there is no standards or auditing for the other 80% and therefore no guarantee that a major ingredient, like sugar, is not purchased under exploitative conditions (either domestically or internationally).

This argument that companies are buying domestic sugar and that is why their policy is changing is both new and misleading. As stated in the article, Fair World Project was consulted as Fair Trade USA worked on this new policy. The exact wording of the option that was proposed was, “Businesses determine which ingredients will be Fair Trade except for commodities that are high profile, coffee/cocoa/tea, which must always be Fair Trade. After they determine which ingredients will be Fair Trade, they receive a label based on labeling policy.”

This was a question about business choice, not domestic sourcing. If Fair Trade USA would like to have a conversation about whether in the context of the United States specifically sugar may be considered an ingredient that is typically sourced domestically rather than one that is commonly associated with fair trade, we should have that discussion with broad stakeholder input. It should not be unilaterally decided as a justification for an otherwise deceptive and detrimental labeling policy that ultimately misleads consumers and undermines brands that are sourcing all or most ingredients from marginalized smallholder farmers under fair trade terms.

We will continue to call on Fair Trade USA to be transparent about their decision-making and to implement a policy that is clear to consumers and accountable to small-holder producers, workers, and movement-oriented brands and will update our website in the case of new developments.

Posted on May 10th, 2013

Ask most ethically-minded shoppers whether a chocolate bar bearing a fair trade label on the front contains mostly fair trade ingredients and they would probably say yes. Chocolate bars have ingredients like cocoa and sugar and vanilla and one would expect that if a company cared to have one ingredient fair trade, they would of course want them all fair trade. Take for example Equal Exchange’s milk chocolate mini with 71% fair trade ingredients.  And that is the milk chocolate bar, the dark chocolate mini is 100% fair trade. Alter Eco makes a dark chocolate quinoa crunch bar that is also 100% fair trade.

But unfortunately this is not always the case. Under Fair Trade USA’s new labeling policy, they will allow their fair trade seal to appear in a prominent position on the front packaging of chocolate bars that have fair trade cocoa and no other fair trade ingredients. Currently brands are required to purchase as fair trade all ingredients available as such to use the seal in this way. Some milk chocolate bars are mostly milk and sugar, with cocoa as little as 32% of the total ingredients. Under the changed policy, the total percentage of fair trade ingredients may be just that same 32%. That means that a brand that buys cheap sugar through an exploitative supply chain, uses artificial vanilla flavor bought through a chemical company rather than a fair trade agricultural supply chain, and conventional milk powder will get to use the same fair trade seal as brands like Equal Exchange and Alter Eco who use 70-100% fair trade ingredients.

And although this policy change is still listed as being in draft form and open for feedback, it appears Fair Trade USA has always had this policy, at least unofficially, as in these chocolate chips with fair trade cocoa but not fair trade sugar or vanilla, and using the older Fair Trade USA logo.

It is not just chocolate. In this iced tea example, tea is the very last ingredient, even though there is a fair trade label on the front.

Fair Trade USA argues that their new policy of allowing companies to use only certified cocoa, tea, or coffee allows brands who currently use no fair trade to have an entry point and to benefit farmers by opening up new markets. In our most recent publication, Nasser Abufarha writes that there is room in the movement for companies that are not fully committed to fair trade, but they should not be allowed to dictate the movement. Though Nasser is an independent contributor, his articulation in this case does reflect the view of Fair World Project also. Opening up markets for fair trade producers is important, as they are the core of the movement and the most important recipients of the benefits of fair trade. However, multinational companies who open new markets for a limited segment of producers should not be allowed to dictate the terms, especially at the expense of those committed brands like Equal Exchange and Alter Eco cited above who have made a full commitment to transforming trade and are leaders in the movement. If they need to compete against less expensive “fair trade” products, they face unfair competition. And if too many unknowing consumers choose the bars with fewer fair trade ingredients, that could in turn impact the farmers who supply them, including farmers of ingredients like fair trade quinoa and vanilla that are not included in the bars with only fair trade cocoa.

Fair World Project has made several recommendations for how Fair Trade USA can change its labeling policy to allow for the entry of new companies without creating unfair competition and consumer confusion in the market.

One is to disclose the percentage of total fair trade ingredients on the packaging in a place where a consumer would see it at the same time as they see the fair trade logo. This is the most clear way to communicate quickly and effectively to consumers the difference between products that contain a small percentage of fair trade ingredients and those that are majority or fully fair trade. The percentage disclosure should be required especially as information accompanying a front-panel seal, but should also apply to multi-ingredient products containing minimal fair trade ingredients such that a front-panel seal is not used. This should be an industry standard.

Another recommendation is to increase the threshold from 20% to 50% total fair trade ingredients before the fair trade seal can appear on the front panel. If they did this, fair trade cocoa in a chocolate bar such as in the example above would be designated as fair trade in the ingredient list, giving credit to brands who use fair trade cocoa, but the seal would not appear on the front of the packaging where it is likely to confuse or even deceive consumers and create a disadvantage for truly committed brands. Ideally the total percentage of fair trade ingredients would still be disclosed, but raising the threshold requirement even alone would go a long way to improving clarity while allowing an entry point for brands new to fair trade, and would be more in line with the policy requirements of IMO’s Fair for Life.

So far Fair Trade USA has not taken these recommendations. The current proposed change would drop the requirement that all ingredients that are available as fair trade be certified as fair trade in a multi-ingredient product. The proposal does not include mitigating changes like raising the threshold to at least 50% for the use of a fair trade seal on the front panel and requiring disclosure of the percentage of total fair trade ingredients. Therefore this change undermines the movement for transformative trade and caters to companies who want to receive an advantage in the marketplace while making a minimum investment in fair trade supply chains and in producers.

Fair World Project Believes that Diluted Labeling Policy Hurts Farmers, Misleads Consumers, and Creates Market Disadvantage for Truly Committed Fair Trade Brands

PORTLAND, OR – Fair World Project (FWP), a project of the Organic Consumers Association, the nation’s largest network of green and ethical consumers, opposes Fair Trade USA’s recent changes to its labeling policy, which undermine fair trade farmers, consumers and committed fair trade brands.

The policy change closely follows an announcement that Hershey would tap Fair Trade USA (FTUSA) as one of three certifiers to help implement the chocolate empire’s new “sustainability” plan. Though FTUSA’s policy change is labeled “draft” through the end of the month, it is clear they will need to make these changes if they plan to work with large multinational corporations interested in limited fair trade engagement, such as Hershey.

FTUSA will permit the use of their fair trade seal on products such as chocolate that identify the specific fair trade ingredient in small text under the seal, without requiring that any other ingredients be used in fair trade form, such as sugar which is often the major ingredient in chocolate bars, bottled teas and ice cream. FTUSA will not require a minority percentage disclosure that could inform consumers and remedy the deception that the seal otherwise conveys that the product is majority fair trade.

The proposed labeling policy falls below the standards upheld by the larger fair trade movement, and are detrimental to the very concept of fair trade. Fair Trade USA is electing to maintain its subpar threshold of just 20% fair trade contents to use a front panel label on a product with no requirement to list the percentage of fair trade ingredients. Other fair trade certifiers such as IMO’s Fair for Life have a threshold of at least 50% or a requirement to list the percentage of fair trade ingredients. Fair Trade USA will not require brands to list the actual percentage of content that is fair trade. They are also eliminating their previous policy on commercial availability which required brands to use all fair trade ingredients that are available from a fair trade certified source. In addition, Fair Trade USA will exclude dairy from its calculations, instead of just water which is more typical.

Together these policies mean that a milk chocolate bar that contains more of both sugar and milk than chocolate, with chocolate as little as a third of total dry weight, could still have a fair trade label on the front of the bar. Hershey has made no commitment for other ingredients in the supply chain, even though sugar is the main ingredient in many of their products, such as Hershey’s Kisses. Therefore a milk chocolate bar with as little as 30% fair trade content, and which contains more sugar than cocoa, will compete in the market with chocolate bars that are mostly or entirely fair trade—including important fair trade ingredients like fair trade sugar. Because Hershey spends less on cheap sugar produced under exploitive labor conditions, the Hershey’s 30% fair trade chocolate bar will be less expensive than a chocolate bar made with fair trade vanilla, sugar, and other fair trade ingredients in addition to fair trade cocoa. This fair trade hoax takes advantage of consumers’ intentions to buy fair trade products, creates unfair competition for the fully committed fair trade brands who use a maximum of fair trade ingredients in order to have a fair trade seal, and most importantly harms the farmers and farmer co-ops that supply truly fair trade brands with fair trade ingredients.

A certification program’s labeling policy impacts consumer understanding, the ability of fully committed fair trade brands with higher fair trade ingredient costs to compete in the marketplace, and opportunities for farmers to benefit from fair trade markets—both farmers already working with committed fair trade brands and farmers who would wish to contribute fair trade ingredients such as sugar to chocolate bars. Calling a product ‘fair trade’ when the main ingredient is not fair trade is misleading to consumers, greenwashes the fair trade market, and ostracizes fair trade farmers, in this case fair trade sugar farmers, who supply fair trade ingredients to committed brands that can no longer compete in the market.

To address these issues, Fair Trade USA is ethically obligated to adjust all aspects of these diluted, special-interest policies. Increasing the threshold to 50% for a front-panel seal or requiring brands to prominently display the minor percentage of a product that is fair trade if they use a seal, would not mislead consumers and eliminate unfair competition. Either of these changes would also create opportunities for farmers, as brands seek out more fair trade ingredients to provide a competitive advantage by increasing overall fair trade content that fair trade consumers are looking for. Also requiring all ingredients that can be fair trade to be fair trade is crucial to provide fair trade markets for farmers.

Disclosure of the percentage should apply also to those products where the threshold for a fair trade seal is not met, so that when a product mentions a fair trade ingredient, it is clear what percentage of the total that ingredient is in the final product.

Download this press-release: 4-24-13 Fair World Project: FTUSA Undermines Fair Trade Principles and Producers to Accommodate Products Such as Hershey’s “Greenwashed” Chocolate  (PDF File: 214 KB) 

###

Fair World Project is a non-profit organization whose mission is to promote organic and fair trade practices and transparent third-party certification of producers, manufacturers and products, domestically and abroad. Through consumer education and advocacy, FWP supports dedicated fair trade producers and brands, and insists on integrity in use of the term “fair trade” in certification, labeling and marketing. FWP publishes a bi-annual publication entitled For a Better World. For more information, visit: http://www.fairworldproject.org. 

Hershey has committed to “sustainable cocoa and improving the lives of cocoa communities,” through an announcement in October 2012 to “certify” all cocoa by 2020 and more recently in March 2013 by announcing that it has developed a roadmap for how to do this that includes working with three certifiers, UTZ, Rainforest Alliance, and Fair Trade USA.

To those already working daily to improve the lives of all farmers, workers, and agricultural communities, good intentions or long-term goals are not satisfying. Fair World Project calls on Hershey to do more and do it more quickly.

Immediate Steps

Though Hershey’s commitment to open their cocoa supply chains to third party scrutiny is surely a welcome step toward eliminating the worst forms of labor abuse including child labor and poverty, a series of press releases outlining an 8-year timeline does not make Hershey’s chocolates more fair today.  The estimated 1.8 million child workers and hundreds of thousands of impoverished farmers in West Africa need real change immediately.  As a $6 billion company and the holder of the largest market share of chocolate in the US, Hershey is well-positioned to improve the conditions of workers and farmers quickly and dramatically. Though certification of supply chains may be a lengthy process, there are many steps Hershey can implement right now if they are serious about their commitment to farming communities and sustainability.

• Empower farmers who supply chocolate to negotiate prices, collectively if they wish, that enable them to take care of their families, workers on the farm, and farm sustainably.
• Purchase cocoa on fair trade terms from farmers already on the FLO-Cert registry as fair trade producers who are unable to currently sell all cocoa as fair trade.
• Provide regular, public, and transparent updates on progress made toward goals, not just on future plans.

  Increase commitment to the Child Labor Cocoa Coordinating Group for approved programs. This coalition is coordinating programs to end child labor with funding from major chocolate companies, of which Hershey is among the lowest contributors.

Commitment to Fair Trade and Third-Party Certification

It is vitally important to improve the lives of all farmers and workers, not just those undergoing auditing for third-party certification. However, when third-party certification is involved, the marketing message should be clear and consistent.

• Be clear about what a given certification label means and do not make false marketing claims. For example, Rainforest Alliance, a stated labeling program working with Hershey, is not a fair trade certification. Though this may be a suitable option to ensure that the worst labor abuses are eliminated and some environmental standards are upheld, Hershey needs to clearly acknowledge that this is not the same as fair trade. There are no standards or policies ensuring fair payment to small producers or other key fair trade principles.
• Hershey has the ability to positively impact the lives of thousands of farmers and workers by changing its business practices. If Hershey would like to claim some or all products as fair trade, it is not enough to only eliminate the worst abuses. It is essential to work with legitimate fair trade programs that address all principles of fair trade and meet the approval of the network of farmer and worker organizations, consumer advocacy organizations, and fair trade watchdogs working to ensure a high bar for fair trade. Fair World Project maintains our own list of recognized fair trade labels and constantly re-evaluate this based on changes in standards and practices of all programs.
• Consumers and advocates who wish to ensure their chocolate is produced and purchased under fair trade terms already have many options from brands fully committed to fair trade and farmer communities. If Hershey chooses to label and market any brands or products as fair trade, they should choose legitimate, high-bar labels, and also report the percentage of total company revenue that fair trade products represent.

Full Company Commitment

The cocoa industry is notorious for problems throughout the supply chain including poverty wages for farmers, child labor and child trafficking, and other labor rights abuses. Chocolate is also the identity ingredient in many of Hershey’s signature products such as Hershey’s kisses, Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups, and Kit Kat bars. Therefore, it is a good and logical place to begin its commitment to social responsibility. However, to be taken seriously as a company committed to social responsibility, farming communities, and the environment, a single-ingredient focus is not enough. There are social and environmental problems associated with many of the ingredients in Hershey products as well as in product production, and a holistic approach is needed both to ensure the well-being of farmers and workers through the total supply chain.  This eliminates the possibility of unfair competition with those brands that are in fact ensuring fair prices, working conditions, and sustainability for all ingredients and production practices. In some Hershey products, Hershey’s kisses for example, chocolate is not the top ingredient. Therefore, to establish itself as a company committed to social and environmental justice, Hershey needs to:

• Display a label denoting social or environmental sustainability on the front panel only if at least 50% of the dry weight meets the label standards, even if the labeling program would otherwise allow such use of the label, or clearly list the percentage of total product that is fair trade on label
• Commit to public transparency of wages and practices throughout the supply chains for all ingredients.
• Partner with consumer, worker, and farmer advocates to implement best practices in production, payment, wages, transparency and accountability.

We applaud efforts that pressure Hershey to uphold principles of justice and transparency that will benefit farmers, workers, and consumers without creating unfair competition for companies already implementing such beneficial business practices.

We also support and promote those brands that are already fully committed to farmers and workers through fair trade.

If you have ever thought Rainforest Alliance Certified is equivalent to fair trade, you are not alone…

In previous blogs about confusing labels we have highlighted the concerning labeling misrepresentations on specific products including chocolate bars, iced tea, and coffee.  In this case, we are concerned about the misrepresentation of an entire labeling program.

Though officially Rainforest Alliance does not call itself a fair trade label, the message has reached consumers that it is a fair trade label. Sometimes this is due to blatant mis-labeling as in this example of chocolates from this past Valentine’s Day. Other times it is due to the way Rainforest Alliance is positioned in association with fair trade labels in retail settings, most notably with Whole Food’s Whole Trade guarantee program, which gives equal recognition to Rainforest Alliance as legitimate fair trade labels when awarding use of its Whole Trade Guarantee seal.

However, Rainforest Alliance Certified is not a fair trade label. It is lacking several key components of fair trade programs including trade standards. There are no requirements for buyers to pay minimum or fairly negotiated prices, develop long-term relationships, or offer financing. Participating farmers are not organized democratically and are not offered a fair trade premium for community development projects. It is a program focused solely on management of on-farm environmental resources with some social standards for workers on farms. Because of its on-farm focus and lack of trade standards, it is more naturally suited for larger farms rather than the small producers that are at the core of the fair trade movement.

Even though labor standards are included in the Rainforest Alliance program, there are questions about their effectiveness. Even on paper, key components such as limits on working hours, voluntary overtime, and time off are included but not deemed “critical,” which means a farm on which workers are, for example, forced to work overtime may in theory be certified.

But it is not just that this could happen that concerns us, it is that it is happening.  Tres Hermanas is a banana plantation in Honduras that was named in an official complaint filed through CAFTA, the Central America Free Trade Agreement. The complaint claims that Honduras has not fulfilled its commitment under the trade agreement in enforcing labor laws. Though Tres Hermanas is only one case cited in the report, it is important because this plantation is also Rainforest Alliance Certified. The union, SITRAINBA, has more recently reported violations including failure to pay minimum wages and overtime and harassment of union supporters. The egregious situation is the subject of a recent International Labor Rights Forum alert.

Voluntary labeling systems such as Rainforest Alliance are meant to provide market incentives for businesses, including farms, to do more than required by government regulations in areas such as fairness and sustainability. By allowing the use of its seal for plantations that violate basic labor laws such as Tres Hermanas, Rainforest Alliance is rewarding bad actors with marketing advantages.

The above issue, coupled with the fact that Rainforest Alliance Certified is often confused as a fair trade labeling initiative creates a situation where businesses that are not even meeting minimum government regulations for labor rights are undermining the efforts of a movement striving to ensure small producers and their own workers are paid and treated fairly in trading relationships.

Here are a few things you can do:

• If any of your favorite brands use the Rainforest Alliance Certified seal, let them know you would like them to switch to a legitimate fair trade label to show their commitment to fair payments, fair working conditions, and environmental sustainability. A list of certified products can be found on Rainforest Alliance’s website and our own website has an overview of fair trade labels.

• Join the International Labor Rights Forum in their petition and follow their efforts to ask Rainforest Alliance to immediately correct the current situation with Tres Hermanas. 

• Check out our committed brands section to find companies that are already committing to true fair trade practices. 

• Get involved in the campaign to stop the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a “free trade” agreement that will have harmful effects on farmers and workers globally.

The subject of why or whether to grow industrial hemp in the United States is often debated yet much misunderstood. The controversy surrounding the plant obscures much of its historical and potential impact — and its adaptability to diverse industries.

It never used to be that way. From the first plantings in Jamestown, when it was illegal not to grow hemp, to our Founding Fathers’ hemp plantations, to the hemp sails and rigging of the clipper ships that sailed the 19th century seas, to the hemp canvas-covered wagons of the pioneers headed west, to the sturdy hemp Levi’s pants of the original 49ers seeking their fortunes in the California hills, to the massive “Hemp for Victory” government program of WWII, hemp has developed a long and illustrious history in America. In fact, hemp has been used extensively for millennia in cultures around the world and belongs to humanity’s common agricultural and commercial heritage.

The seed was known for its healthy protein and rich oil. The outer bast fiber from the stalk was used for clothing, canvas and rope. The useful inner core fiber (or hurds) was used for construction and paper production. In fact, the Declaration of Independence was drafted on hemp paper, and the finest Bible paper remains hemp-based even today. In the early 20th century, some researchers were beginning to look at using the cellulose from hemp as an affordable and renewable raw material for plastics. Henry Ford actually built a prototype car made out of agricultural fiber biocomposites, including hemp.

Industrial Hemp Defined
Industrial hemp varieties of the Cannabis plant, also referred to as “fiber” or “low-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)” hemp, should not be confused with psychoactive “marijuana” varieties of the plant. In fact, they are quite distinct varieties or breeds of the same plant species, much like a St. Bernard and a Chihuahua are very different varieties of the same canine species. It is not possible to get “high” from hemp.

The majority of Western countries recognizes this distinction by differentiating Cannabis based primarily on THC content and permits the farming of low-THC hemp varieties for fiber and seed. This distinction is formally affirmed in Article 28(2) of the 1961 United Nations’ Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, to which the U.S. is a signatory party. The Article reads: “This Convention shall not apply to the cultivation of the Cannabis plant exclusively for industrial purposes (fiber and seed) or horticultural purposes.”

Hemp has a well-established meaning in the international community, referring to non-psychoactive Cannabis varieties. Regulations in the European Union and Canada conservatively mandate less than 0.2% and 0.3% THC in the flowers, respectively. In contrast, marijuana varieties generally contain between 3% and 15% THC in their flowers. Because of their minimal THC content, flowers and leaves from hemp have absolutely no value as a psychoactive recreational drug.

In spite of this, the DEA continues to intentionally confound non-psychoactive hemp varieties of Cannabis with psychoactive marijuana varieties. The U.S. is the only major industrialized nation in the world to prohibit the growing and processing of hemp. However, non-viable hemp seed, oil and fiber are all currently legal for import and trade in the U.S., and domestic industry has continued to import them for diverse uses every year since the Marihuana Tax Act, effectively making marijuana illegal, was passed by Congress in 1937. Industry estimates put the total North American retail market for hemp products at approximately $450 million in 2012.

Hemp: Controversy and Comeback
Despite large renewed domestic production during WWII, hemp’s cultivation and use in the U.S. was essentially discontinued in the mid-20th century. This was largely due to misinformed and misguided fears that industrial hemp is marijuana, and hemp became demonized during the “reefer madness” craze that swept the country over much of the last century. Despite easily discernible and widely accepted differences between the two distinct plant varieties, serious misconceptions continue to persist to this day.

This is not the case for our “neighbors to the north,” however. For the past fifteen years, Canadians have shown that they can distinguish the difference between hemp and marijuana in their farming communities.

Common sense, thankfully, has an ability to shine through even the cloudiest situations. Environmental and economic interests are beginning to cut through the U.S. policy murk, and support for hemp is forming into a broad political base, including:

Farmers: hemp can help farmers looking to diversify their farm operations. Hemp fits well into increasingly popular organic, low-input and sustainable methods of agriculture.

Reform-Minded Businesses: hemp’s valuable fiber and significant biomass productivity can help companies “go green” by creating a wide variety of opportunities and supplementing or replacing more commonly used, problematic and stressed-out raw material sources.

Nutritionists and Health Food Advocates: hemp’s oil-rich seed has an exceptionally high content of vital essential fatty acids (or EFAs, Omega-3 and Omega-6) that nutritionists have found to be commonly deficient in our diet. A diet rich in EFAs can help alleviate and prevent many common ailments. For similar reasons, hemp oil is increasingly employed in the natural body care industry as well.

Hemp, of course, is not in itself a total panacea for the social, economic and environmental woes that plague our planet today. Indeed, no single crop can be. But, with focused and sustained research and development in both the public and private sectors, hemp and other qualified annual crops are poised to spur dramatic — and certainly vital — change. These renewable resources will transition our major industries from depending on non-renewable, fast-disappearing resource bases to being driven and supported on a sustainable economic basis by the annual agri-industrial produce of the Earth’s fertile fields.

With thirty-one other nations growing industrial hemp and the U.S. representing the largest consumer and industrial market for their hemp products, we are poised to take advantage of an unprecedented opportunity. Americans are becoming more aware each day of the significant possibilities and benefits that hemp presents.

We are in the midst of a sea change on Cannabis policy in America, with both Washington and Colorado recently voting to dismantle Cannabis prohibition generally and directing their state legislatures to enact industrial hemp farming programs in particular. They join other states such as North Dakota that are ready and willing to cultivate industrial hemp as soon as the federal government gets out of the way. Fortunately, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) are currently spearheading efforts in the Senate to do just that: direct the Department of Justice to allow states the choice to regulate industrial hemp without federal interference.

Moreover, due to the strong ethical consumer base that drives the U.S. hemp market, the development of that market is poised to spur pioneering domestic fair trade certification in the U.S., just as it has been doing in Canada via the leadership of the Farmer Direct Co-operative (which supplies Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps with hemp seed oil for various products).

For more information and resources visit Votehemp.com and hemphistoryweek.com

Hemp provides the unique opportunity to create an innovative value chain which is both socially just and ecologically sustainable. The percentage of hemp that is organically grown versus conventionally grown is the highest relative to all other grains grown in North America. The price organic farmers are receiving for their hemp is already fair, and many of these farmers are also ensuring fair wages and working conditions for their farmworkers.

Because of strong demand from organic consumers for food that is not only organic but also fair, our co-operative of organic family grain farms is certified to the Food Justice domestic fair trade standard (www.agriculturaljusticeproject.org) by Quality Certification Services (www.qcsinfo.org). We chose this social justice standard because it was developed by both farmers and farmworkers.

Every farm with hired labor is audited in person by an inspector, along with a farmworker representative from a local or regional advocacy organization. The farmworker representative is present not only to insure the fairness of the process, but also to provide other support such as guidance regarding further educational opportunities or immigration services. The interview process is integral to verifying a fair worker/farmer relationship. The farmer and all farmworkers are interviewed together, then the farmer and farmworkers are interviewed separately, and finally each individual farmworker is interviewed. This ensures that all individuals on the farm have a voice. The main principles of the Food Justice standard are that farmers are paid fair prices and that farmworkers have access to collective bargaining, are paid fair wages and are working under safe conditions. To ensure the integrity of domestic fair trade, our co-op also initiated the fairDeal program (www.thefairdeal.org).

Mission-based companies and farmer-owned organizations, in solidarity with farmworkers, NGOs and active citizens, are leading the way. Companies like Farmer Direct, Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, Manitoba Harvest, Hemp Oil Canada and Nutiva strongly support domestic fair trade hemp. There is also significant commonality between ethical fair trade proponents and hemp consumers, and thus hemp is helping to make domestic fair trade a reality in North America.

For more information about domestic fair trade in North America, visit: www.theDFTA.org.

Even in today’s high-tech world, almost half of the global population is peasants or, in our U.S. context, small-scale family farmers. The majority of people in the world still depend upon food produced by peasants. Small-scale agriculture is not just an economic activity — for many people, it is the foundation of life itself. This is why, in order to protect human life, it is utterly important to respect, protect and fulfill the rights of peasants.

Food Sovereignty and Sustainable Peasant Agriculture: The Peasant Way and the People’s Solution
La Vía Campesina, an international peasants movement, promotes and defends food sovereignty and sustainable, agro-ecological, peasant-based production. These are among the most powerful responses to the current food, poverty and climate crises.

Sustainable peasant agriculture has been a priority for La Vía Campesina since 2000 when, at its 3rd International Conference, the organization determined that:

“Regarding sustainable peasant agriculture, we are convinced of the necessity of putting forward an alternative agricultural model instead of the large-scale industrial model. The industrial model does not mean ‘development’ but on the contrary: dependence, increased poverty and the destruction of nature. We are convinced that the system rooted in peasant-based sustainable agriculture is economically viable, socially sustainable and ecologically sound.”*

At a global level, we are confronted by the interrelated climate and food price crises which largely share the same underlying causes. The climate crisis is partially driven by the globalized, corporate-led food system which generates 50% of all greenhouse gas emissions. The food price crisis has both long- and short-term causes which overlap broadly with the causes of the climate crisis. The fact that the same corporate-led, globalized model of large-scale industrial farming that produces exports for distant markets, rather than food for local people, is behind both crises, actually means that the same set of solutions can address both the climate and food price crises. These solutions can be loosely grouped under the rubric of “food sovereignty,” the alternative paradigm developed since 1996 by the peasant and family farm organizations that belong to La Vía Campesina.
The Globalized Food System Violates Peasant Rights
The violation of peasant rights has increased since the implementation of neoliberal policies promoted by the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), and other global institutions and governments in the North and the South. The WTO, IMF and FTAs force the opening of markets and prevent countries from protecting and supporting their domestic agriculture. They push for deregulation in the agriculture sector. Free trade policies have allowed Transnational Corporations (TNCs), supported by the governments and subsidies of developed countries, to engage in dumping practices that undermine local production and local markets. As a result, cheap subsidized food floods local markets, thus forcing peasants out of business.

The introduction of biotechnologies, such as the production of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the unsafe use of growth hormones in meat production that have been pushed by transnational biotech and agribusiness, are also supported through mechanisms of the WTO and some national governments. Meanwhile, these same governments often prohibit the marketing of healthy products produced by peasants through the application of legislated sanitation barriers. The IMF has implemented Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), leading to massive cuts in support for agriculture and social services. 1 Countries have been forced to privatize state companies and to dismantle support mechanisms in the agricultural sector.

Many national and international policies directly or indirectly give priority to large TNCs for food production and trade. TNCs also practice bio-piracy and destroy genetic resources and biodiversity cultivated and defended by peasants and indigenous people. These polices taken together have dismantled peasant agriculture and caused multiple global food and climate problems.

The violation of peasant rights has now reached an unprecedented level, with news of farmer arrests and assassinations around the world reaching the Vía Campesina head office on a daily basis. A new offensive on resources such as land, forests and water by the financial sector seeking profitable investments is accelerating the destruction of family farmers’ territories and livelihoods. This offensive includes land-grabbing for agro-industrial mega-projects, speculative investment and development of extractive industries. 2 Suddenly, the commercialization and monetization of all natural resources has been renamed “environmental services” within the new framework of “green capitalism.”

Peasants Seek to Uphold and Protect their Rights
Facing these new realities, peasants — both women and men — are struggling to survive. All over the world, thousands of peasant leaders have been arrested because they are fighting to protect their rights and livelihood. They are brought to court by unfair judicial systems, there are increasing incidents of massacres and extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrests and detention, and political persecution and harassment are common.

While peasants work hard to ensure the sustainability of seeds and food, the violation of peasant rights undermines the world’s capacity to feed itself. The International Human Rights framework, which includes thematic instruments that address the rights to food, housing, water and health, as well as human rights defenders, indigenous peoples, racism and racial discrimination, women’s rights and the mechanisms of the Human Rights Council, is fully applicable to the struggle of peasants.

Toward an International Convention on the Rights of Peasants in the United Nations
La Vía Campesina values the central importance of the UN Human Rights Council and its Advisory Committee. La Vía Campesina ratified a proposal for the International Convention on the Rights of Peasants (ICRP) during the 5th International Conference celebrated by the international peasant movement in October of 2008 in Mozambique. 3

Since 2008, La Vía Campesina, along with its allies, has been working with the UN Human Rights mechanisms in Geneva. In August of 2008, in light of the food crisis, the first session of the Advisory Committee adopted a resolution in which the problems of hunger and the food crisis were analyzed over a longer term. The Advisory Committee also defined the problem of discrimination against peasants, and defined the rights and roles of peasants.

Progress at the UN Human Rights Council
It is with great satisfaction that La Vía Campesina and its member organization in Switzerland, the peasant union Uniterre, announced that the United Nations has decided to better protect the rights of farmers and peasants around the world. On September 27, 2012, the Human Rights Council adopted a resolution promoting the human rights of peasants and other people living in rural areas. 4

Through this resolution, the Council recognized the need for a new international legal instrument that can take the form of a United Nations declaration. It aims to bring together in a single document the specific rights of peasant farmers and to integrate new rights, such as those to land, seeds, the means of production and information, in rural areas. This is not only in the interest of farmers alone, as it also responds to a global necessity in the world struggle against hunger, poverty and discrimination.

The Council engaged in this process in response to the 2007–2008 global food crisis. Noting that 80% of people suffering from hunger live in rural areas, and that 50% of them are peasants, the Council determined that particular attention should be paid to them. By protecting their fundamental rights, it expects to reduce hunger in the world.

La Vía Campesina welcomed the collaboration of various countries from Latin America, Asia and Africa, which made the adoption of the resolution possible. However, the peasant movement deplores the negative vote of certain European Union states (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Spain and Italy) and the United States, who opposed the establishment of specific protections for farmers and peasants. These governments, under pressure from some powerful lobbies, including large economic groups, speculators, agribusiness and extractive industries, did not dare to support their farmers. Instead they ignored the basic rights and general interests of their own citizens in favor of those economic players who violate the rights of family farmers around the world.

Public Policies Need to Support Food Sovereignty and Peasant Rights
Real shifts in public policy are needed. Achieving such shifts will require lobbying and campaigning by La Vía Campesina organizations and their allies at the national, regional and global levels. This outreach work will be based on making the real achievements of sustainable peasant production and the defense and propagation of peasant seeds more visible. La Vía Campesina will engage in work on these issues in each of its nine regions, and invites its consumer allies in the U.S. to help change the policies of their government that negatively impact all people across the globe.

References:
1. Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) are economic policies for developing countries that have been promoted by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) since the early 1980s through the provision of loans conditional upon the adoption of such policies. SAPs often require the restriction or elimination of certain government programs, including healthcare, schooling and other social programs.

2. Land grabs are the purchase of vast tracts of land in developing countries by wealthier, food-insecure nations and private investors. They have become a widespread phenomenon, with foreign interests seeking or securing 37–49 million acres of farmland between 2006 and mid-2009. (Source: Oakland Institute.)

3. Proposal for the International Convention on the Rights of Peasants (ICRP) during the 5th International Conference celebrated by the international peasant movement in October of 2008 in Mozambique. (See the document here: http://viacampesina.net/downloads/PDF/EN-3.pdf.)

4. September 27, 2012 UN Human Rights Council resolution “Promoting the human rights of peasants and other people living in rural areas.” (See the document here: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/21/L.23.)

The federal Farm Bill is the single most important piece of legislation affecting the food you eat, the kinds of crops American farmers grow, the environment and the nation’s food security.

In response to the groundswell of demand for local and sustainably grown food, the proposed 2012 Farm Bill would make modest improvements to help family farmers deliver more of it to market. Yet the bill under consideration in Congress would continue Washington’s policy of disproportionately favoring large and highly profitable farm operations growing grain and cotton at the expense of small-scale growers producing healthy food for local markets. If passed, the bill would drastically underfund programs that promote healthy eating, protect natural resources and support small-scale, beginning and disadvantaged farmers who are growing primarily for local and/or organic markets.

This stacked deck is not unique to the U.S. Small-scale family farmers in developed and developing countries struggle with similar challenges in their quest to turn a profit and survive in a policy environment that is rigged against them. Among the difficulties they encounter are: a lack of access to affordable land, credit, capital and technical assistance; poor market prices; and inadequate information and infrastructure needed to aggregate, process and distribute their goods. They also face disadvantages in international trade and obstacles to market access in their own countries.

Fair trade organizations have stepped in to help farmers in many countries organize, improve their production and find direct, better-paying fair markets for their goods. For the most part, however, small-scale producers in the U.S. have been left to fend for themselves — at least until recently, when various non-profits, some with modest Farm Bill support, have stepped in to develop farm-to-table programs and help farmers establish and access new markets.

U.S. farm policy mostly benefits agribusiness, not small-scale producers
In recent years, some societies have begun to invest more in small-scale producers. Yet government policies the world over tend to favor industrial-scale, chemical-dependent production of raw commodity crops at the expense of small-scale farmers and organic growers who produce real, nourishing food. The U.S is no exception.

For too long, funding authorized under the U.S. Farm Bill has primarily benefited agribusiness and large, industrial-scale farm operations that aren’t growing food people actually eat. Instead, they’re growing genetically modified crops like corn, soybeans and cotton that get turned into ingredients for animal feed, fuel and highly processed food — at a high cost to Americans’ health and the environment. Producers in developing countries often find it hard to compete against these heavily subsidized American farmers.

Meanwhile, only meager public resources have been invested smartly in building dynamic, local food economies that help link small- and mid-sized family farms directly to local and regional markets. Research done by the Environmental Working Group between 2008 and 2010 has found that the U.S. government, acting under the authority of the federal Farm Bill, spent $39.4 billion subsidizing a handful of grains and cotton, more than eight times what it paid out for programs to support research, promotion and purchasing of fruits, nuts and vegetables.

The inequities were far greater when it came to supporting organic farming and small-scale farmers and helping expand local and regional markets. Over those same three years, the U.S. government spent just $159 million on organic agriculture and $300 million to build and strengthen local and regional food systems. These funds were channeled through eighteen different programs that support farmers’ markets and community-supported agriculture (CSAs), local garden and youth agriculture projects, research, value-added agricultural enterprises, farm-to-school initiatives and other projects that make fresh food more accessible, create new outlets, expand consumer-to-farmer links and return higher prices to local farmers.

New support for local and regional food systems: a small improvement, but not nearly enough
Thanks in large part to Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME), a passionate organic farmer who sits on the House Agriculture Committee, the 2012 Farm Bill is poised to increase overall funding by as much as 50% for programs that will expand local and regional food systems. With support from a growing cadre of local food and farm advocates, Rep. Pingree partnered with Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) to introduce the Local Food, Farms and Jobs Act, a comprehensive package of policy reforms that would boost farmers’ and ranchers’ incomes by helping them meet the growing demand for local and regional food.

This legislation is Washington’s closest equivalent to a “fair trade bill” for small farmers, even though it does little to address directly the unfair pricing issues facing many small-scale farmers and ranchers who often must sell to large corporations known for their oligopolistic and unjust business practices.

In a partial victory for the tens of thousands of people who called and wrote Congress to support the local food bill, lawmakers added several of the measure’s provisions to both the House and Senate versions of the 2012 Farm Bill. The resulting legislation, though significant, falls far short of what is needed to address the myriad challenges faced by small- and mid-scale American farmers who are working hard to produce healthy food.

Public resources for private benefit
The problem isn’t just that American policy is under-investing in local and healthy food programs. The bigger concern is that taxpayer resources are going to programs that actually undermine the public interest.

The bulk of farm subsidy payments are channeled to the largest farm operations, many of which are among the most profitable companies in the U.S. 10% of farms receive roughly 70% of all subsidies. The outsized government benefits reaped by large farms are a major factor in their ability to expand further, leading to increased concentration in the agriculture sector. Government subsidies drive land costs up and small farmers out. Farmers of lesser means find it harder and harder to compete with highly capitalized large-scale operators.

Current subsidy policy also undercuts efforts to establish a more diverse and resilient food production system, and, according to new research by the Environmental Working Group and Defenders of Wildlife, published in a report entitled “Plowed Under,” it has encouraged planting on twenty-three million acres that were once wetlands, scrublands and grasslands in the Great Plains. It has destroyed vast stretches of natural habitat for wildlife and worsened water pollution due to farm run-off.

Strong forces oppose reform
Most members of the Congressional agriculture committees, as well as thousands of agribusiness lobbyists who spend tens of millions of dollars per year, consider it their priority to pass a subsidy-laden Farm Bill that advances large-scale agribusiness interests in a few states, mostly in the Midwest and South.

It’s tough for us good-food advocates to compete with the deep pockets of the agribusiness lobby. Sadly, however, many in this movement don’t even try. Instead, they settle for scraps from a mega-billion-dollar piece of legislation.

But what we in the good-food movement lack in resources, we can make up for in people power. Don’t believe for a minute that your call to your member of Congress doesn’t matter. It does. We can counter the pro-agribusiness agriculture committees by persuading legislators on the outside to withhold votes and demand real food system reforms. At the same time, we need more courageous leaders like Rep. Pingree and Sen. Brown to advance reform from within these committees.

To create a food system aligned with our values, we can raise our voices and send letters to legislators and policymakers to make sure they know we want our tax dollars to support more equitable, just and sustainable food policies. Equally important, we can vote with our wallets and our forks. Building demand for local farm products can move markets — and politicians. We can support local farmers by buying directly from them when we can. We can keep asking our grocers and restaurants to carry more local, regional and organically-grown food.
The change we’ve seen so far has resulted from the active engagement of millions of Americans. Let’s keep it up!

Readers who want to join the movement for food system reform can sign up for action alerts at www.ewg.org.

There is still time to influence the Farm Bill in 2013.
Instead of approving a new bill last year, Congress passed a dismal nine-month Farm Bill extension that cuts all mandatory funding for local and organic agriculture and disadvantaged farmers, while continuing to plough $5 billion this year into direct subsidy payments. Citizen engagement is needed now more than ever to fight for a new 2013 reform-minded Farm Bill that cuts subsidies and invests in local and healthy food programs, organic and sustainable agriculture and conservation.

CROP INSURANCE BY THE NUMBERS:

Crop insurance is the second-largest program in the Farm Bill, after food stamps. Research published by the Environmental Working Group determined that it has become the primary source of federal subsidies for farmers at a steadily increasing cost to taxpayers — from $2 billion in 2001 to $11 billion in 2011. The U.S. Department of Agriculture pays an average of 62% of the cost of a farmer’s insurance policy — with no strings attached to protect water and soil. The government forks over another $1.3 billion per year in payments to insurance companies and agents that sell policies to farmers.

Because crop insurance premium subsidies are doled out without means testing or limits on how much a farm business can collect, the program sets up an unfair playing field that benefits the largest, most profitable farm businesses that least need public support. According to an unprecedented analysis of one million government records obtained by the Environmental Working Group, last year twenty-six policyholders each received more than $1 million in premium subsidies. More than 10,000 policyholders each collected $100,000 or more in subsidies. Further, nearly 80% of all insurance funding went to the top 20% of subsidy recipients. In contrast, 80% of premium subsidy recipients received an average of just $5,000 each.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Common sense reform of crop insurance programs could provide an effective safety net for farmers and, at the same time, pay for much-needed support for local and healthy food programs.

The 2012 Farm Bill is set to now extend the same, flawed insurance approach to dairy farmers. With no limits imposed upon the payouts to even the most-profitable dairy farms, this proposed policy would lead to a further decline in the number of small farms and increased concentration in an already highly concentrated sector.