chocolate

[ina]

And this is why we need to bring it all down NOW

Let's have a chocolate revolution!

[red]

but.. if green and blacks is fair trade.. then buying green and blacks is still an ok thing to do. The fact it is owned by a larger company that makes other stuff makes what difference? if that larger company is doing something bad itself.. then I get the point.. but if you want them to change, if the only argument is that they are big could make a difference, then lobby them, vote with your purse.. only buy fair trade etc. why would it have been ok to buy G&Bs when they were separate?

if you go down the 'by connection' route.. then it is dangerous ground.. I mean,I could stop buying chocolate.. but the co-op still sell it.. if i buy something else from the co-op am i implicated still?


if the whole world only bought fair trade.. then the likes of cadbury would have to change their actions.. surely?

I am not totally convinced it is the right thing to do to stop buying products from these poorer countries all of a sudden.. perhaps more appropriate to continue buying, but buy fair trade.. or other groups that ensure workers are treated fairly.

[Clara]

but.. if green and blacks is fair trade.. then buying green and blacks is still an ok thing to do. The fact it is owned by a larger company that makes other stuff makes what difference? if that larger company is doing something bad itself.. then I get the point.. but if you want them to change, if the only argument is that they are big could make a difference, then lobby them, vote with your purse.. only buy fair trade etc. why would it have been ok to buy G&Bs when they were separate?

if you go down the 'by connection' route.. then it is dangerous ground.. I mean,I could stop buying chocolate.. but the co-op still sell it.. if i buy something else from the co-op am i implicated still?


if the whole world only bought fair trade.. then the likes of cadbury would have to change their actions.. surely?

I am not totally convinced it is the right thing to do to stop buying products from these poorer countries all of a sudden.. perhaps more appropriate to continue buying, but buy fair trade.. or other groups that ensure workers are treated fairly.

That is one side of the argument....the other is that by buying a hugely commercially important fairtrade brand Cadburys are having their cake and eating it. And as they own the brand which has the lions share of fair trade (and organic) sales they have no motivation whatsoever to do anything about their slavery chocolate. By buying G&Bs a consumer is directly giving money to Cadburys who, although they are the biggest confectioner in the world, do nothing about the forced child labour employed on a vast scale in the cocoa industry. Buying G&Bs will not give them motivation to change that, if fairtrade consumers move away from G&Bs because of it´s ties to Cadburys, it does.

Your slippery slope argument has some merit, in an ideal world we shouldn´t buy anything from anyone, who has anything to do with exploitative practices. That would be my goal. But I appreciate that this is not as easy for some people to achieve as it is others, so you have to do what you can. Afterall, this discussion is about chocolate, a non-vital (not very health enhancing!) luxury item.....how much complicity in bonded labour is tolerable for something so trivial? I would argue not one jot.

I understand you like chocolate, who doesn´t, I understand you like G&B´s chocolate (me too! - except the cherry and dark choc which gives me headaches!). I understand that ethical decisions are easier to make the less they affect our "quality" of life, so giving up chocolate might be harder than say buying only recycled loo roll.

This is why I love ish - ordinary conversations turn into thought provoking debate. The last time I really got into one of these, I gave up loo roll. I think the only conclusion I can come to with this one is the personal decision to give up buying chocolate......lets see how long I last!

[red]

you are absolutely right.. there are no good grounds for buying chocolate.


but equally none for buying bananas (why not eat apples), coffee, tea , sugar (bad for you in so many ways) mangos... etc etc

although the fruit is more plausible than the others.. still not necessary.. still a luxury. but it is not clear cut - we cannot build up a trade with other countries.. get the farmers dependent, then turn our backs.. well we can - but should we?

I agree there is a whole lot of difference between farmers and slave labour. on that one I am going to have to do more research.

Yes - some ethical choices are easier to live with than others! I gave up coke a couple of years ago - for ethical reasons. still love the stuff..... but don't have it...
yup - I like to debate these things.. helps sort out in my mind what I really think.

[Annpan]

Well... for starters, not even all G+B is fairtrade (organic but not FT)... but dam it is tasty....

I won't stop buying chocolate because... it is a really important economy in many countries.

I will only buy fair trade, because you are supporting the cocoa industry in a responsible way... if everyone only bought fair trade chocolate and coffee, the slave labour (in these industries) would stop pretty quickly...

I just don't think there is an argument for stopping buying it all together, as I have said before it is a whole lot better than giving aid.




And another thing, and I am playing devils advocate a little here but.... do you really believe that fairtrade (or organic, or 'ethical') is non-corrupt? I don't want to start another long thread but there is corruption everywhere. Personally I will continue to support these issues, because we have to believe in something.... I just don't think it is whiter than white...

[red]

G&Bs maya gold is FT - but the rest of the range is not.. or thats what I understand


I'm afraid organic and fair trade are also likely to have its cheaters and corrupters....like everything else

[Stonehead]

Sadly, the chocolatier closed a few years back.

Does the OH know that yet?

I won't tell her if you don't...

[johnhcrf]

This is why I love ish - ordinary conversations turn into thought provoking debate. The last time I really got into one of these, I gave up loo roll. I think the only conclusion I can come to with this one is the personal decision to give up buying chocolate......lets see how long I last!

Engaging and encouraging good practice is the way ahead. Stopping eating chocolate will impact on producers. Trade is good as it can benefit all!

[Clara]

This is why I love ish - ordinary conversations turn into thought provoking debate. The last time I really got into one of these, I gave up loo roll. I think the only conclusion I can come to with this one is the personal decision to give up buying chocolate......lets see how long I last!

Engaging and encouraging good practice is the way ahead. Stopping eating chocolate will impact on producers. Trade is good as it can benefit all!

The Trade is Good line is often trotted out and I´m more and more inclined these days to think that it is something that is said in order to maintain the status quo (i.e. rich nations draining and exploiting the natural resources of poor nations). I can see there would be short term difficulties in abandoning trade, but on the whole the ONLY way a community can be sustainable is if it can meet its own needs from its own landbase and the resources are renewable. Anything else is on a downward slope, even if that downward slope is made less steep by so-called sustainable practices

[Annpan]

Well... I have made the change to devine chocolate... it is pretty good, and a lot cheaper than G+B

Clara, I think the phrase 'short term difficulties in abandoning trade' is a huge understatement. Surely the best way to go is to support fairtrade, we cannot expect any of these countries* to repair themselves, and they certainly would never be comparable to the standards of living we are accustomed to. If we do not trade fairly with them... I believe that it is a major catastrophy that these countries (due to current EU trade laws) are unable to export finished products and are only allowed to export the cocoa or coffee beans.

* many nations which our (British and European) imperialistic attitudes in the past have helped create the appalling current circumstances.

[red]

I can see there would be short term difficulties in abandoning trade, but on the whole the ONLY way a community can be sustainable is if it can meet its own needs from its own landbase and the resources are renewable. Anything else is on a downward slope, even if that downward slope is made less steep by so-called sustainable practices

whilst I take your point, I am not sure I agree. taken to the ultimate end, this would mean stopping all famine aid etc. And a viewpoint that can only be really held once having given up all imported foods - including sugar, coffee, tea, spices, along with cocoa.

[red]

in the interests of research only I have just devoured a bar of 'traidcraft organic swiss made milk chocolate' - pretty good too...

[Millymollymandy]

Well, apart from you, Red , how often do you guys eat chocolate?

I eat it at Christmas and my birthday, Easter and maybe 1 or 2 other times during the year. That's all.

I'd eat it every week if I could but (1) it rots my teeth (2) it makes me fat (3) it makes me spotty and (4) it's just downright unhealthy and (5) it's expensive!

[hamster]

I read about some chocolate company that's striving for something called 'equitrade', which (I believe) aims to help third world countries 'add value' to products themselves and thus gives them a greater share of the profits. I can't remember the name of the chocolate (though I'll try to dig it out) but I do remember that it was extravagantly expensive - one of those cases where you're torn between thinking 'Does this reflect the true cost of this product? What else have I been buying all this time?' and 'Aha, they're tugging at my woolly-liberal heartstrings, trying to make me part with more cash cos it gives me a fuzzy feeling inside!'

I don't know where I stand on this issue more generally. On the one hand, I tend to think, 'We need to support farmers in developing countries,' is a big, fat euphemism for, 'We'd like to move into places with cheap labour and fewer regulations to produce cash crops at low cost for the Western market, turn local communities away from self-sufficiency and lock them into working for wages (and buying food) and then look like we're helping them because the money from exporting asparagus gets counted in the GDP whereas subsistence farming, aquifer depletion and the fact that the workers are being exposed to noxious chemicals don't appear on anyone's balance sheet.'

On the other hand, I don't believe there is anything morally wrong in wanting to trade for commodities that you can't produce locally. I don't think I'm alone in feeling there is a difference between eating imported asparagus or strawberries in November (or at any time) and drinking coffee. I think it's really important that communities are self-sustaining in the essentials, but we had sugar in Britain from around the 11th century and in the 18th century 2 cups of tea a day was a standard part of servants' wage agreements, and while I'm not pretending trade in the 18th century at least was likely to be particularly equitable, it is theoretically possible for trade in these things to exist without cheap oil, air-freight or intensive agriculture. The question for me is how rather than if it's done, I think.

[Clara]

Clara, I think the phrase 'short term difficulties in abandoning trade' is a huge understatement. Surely the best way to go is to support fairtrade, we cannot expect any of these countries* to repair themselves, and they certainly would never be comparable to the standards of living we are accustomed to......

1. I don´t actually believe that global trade either has as its stated purpose or accidental outcome the ability to achieve this....if they did start to have "our standards of living" then they would probably want annoying things like a western wage and working conditions, which would contradict the whole reason trade is done with far flung countries instead of working with what we have available on our own landbase.

2. If the rest of the world lived and consumed like the "developed" western minority, we would be looking at collapse far far quicker than we are at present.

3. I suspect what would actually happen is they would survive just fine as they turn their monocropped land back to arable use, stop spraying pesticides (google "chocolate" and "lindane") and provide their own food and clothing locally. In truth, it would be us who would be screwed because our current consumption far exceeds the capacity of our landbase

Take rice as an example. Their is a world shortage, I´m sure you´ve read about it. People are going to starve in countries for want of their basic food, but the available rice will be exported (except from those countries sensible enough to have put in place emergency measures to prevent this), because you and I will always be able to outbid a citizen of one of these countries for rice. Now, if we stopped buying rice, people wouldn´t starve to death, quite the contrary.