But not enough of that money is reaching farmers. A recent survey by Fairtrade International found that the average household income of cocoa farmers in West Africa is $2707/year, which is only about a third of what would be considered a livable income.

Chocolate companies insisting that farmers farm “better” while companies reap profits is an example of corporate corruption at its most egregious.

As awareness grows of social and environmental problems associated with growing cocoa, including child labor, deforestation, and poverty income for farmers, consumers have put pressure on mega chocolate companies like Mars, Nestle, Hershey and Mondelez to build fair and sustainable supply chains. These companies have started to make commitments to purchase cocoa certified by a variety of eco-social certifications.

Not All Certifications Are Fair to Farmers

Evidence is mounting that not all eco-social certifications are effective at solving the cocoa crisis. UTZ, which has recently merged with Rainforest Alliance, is the most popular certification with these large companies. But the premiums given to farmers have fallen by a third in the past five years, according to recent reporting.

Even more troubling, the model used by UTZ and Rainforest Alliance as well as by Mondelez’s own Cocoa Life program focuses on improved agricultural practices so that farmers and grow and sell more.

This is a problem for several reasons. First, one of the reasons prices are so low is that there is already an oversupply of cocoa. Encouraging farmers to grow more contributes to the oversupply and depressed prices. Increasing yields without increasing price is not a sustainable solution.

Second, this model shifts the burden to farmers. Cocoa farmers in West Africa are largely smallholders. According to the Fairtrade International survey, only 7% of the farmers in the sample were able to achieve a livable income, that is a fair income that keeps the farmer out of poverty.

Last year Hershey had $7.44 billion in sales and $720 million in profits. Mars had revenue of $35 billion. Mondelez had over $25 billion in revenue and returned $3.4 billion in profit to shareholders. These companies are profitable and powerful. Insisting that farmers farm “better” while companies reap profits is an example of corporate corruption at its most egregious.

Hershy’s reported plan to use smartphones to send growers video and text messages with tips on agricultural practice while boasting of lower cost of goods (i.e. paying farmers less for cocoa) is an affront to farmers who desperately need a fair price for what they are already producing.

So What Can Consumers Do?

1. Look for fair trade chocolate with the labels from strong fair trade certifiers like Fairtrade America and Fair for Life. Fair trade is the one certification that guarantees a minimum price for cocoa and a set additional premium that is democratically administered by farmers who choose how it is used to invest in their farms and communities.
2. Buy from brands that are committed to paying fair and sustainable prices to all farmers they buy from.
3. Farmers can benefit from training and sharing best practices. But this is most effective when they can learn from each other, not through a text message from Hershey. Grow Ahead is a crowd funding platform that raises money for farmer-to-farmer trainings and other resources for small-scale farmers.
4. Ask your local stores to make fair trade chocolate available.
5. Ask your favorite brands to use fair trade chocolate if they do not already. You can call, write, or contact via social media any brand that uses chocolate and let them know you want them to prioritize fair prices for farmers over corporate profits and cheap chocolate. The more brands hear from consumers, the more likely they are to comply with our demands!

The post Chocolate Is Profitable, Just Not for Farmers appeared first on Fair World Project.

This tragic accident raised awareness of the risks apparel workers take to make our clothes, but unfortunately it did not end the exploitation in these supply chains. Daily, apparel workers continue to face a barrage of tragedy and exploitation in the form of debilitating accidents, injuries, wages that keep families in poverty, and human rights abuses.

During Fashion Revolution Week, April 24-30, we join the call to expose abuses and exploitation and create empowering, dignified work for apparel workers.

A simple step you can take is demanding transparency in supply chains. When we demand transparency, we put brands on notice and we can start to identify where improvements are needed.

You can contact your favorite apparel brand this week by phone, email, or social media and ask who made your clothes. We’ve also set up this tool to make it easier to Tweet at some of the most popular brands in the U.S.: H&M, Nike, Zara, and Old Navy.

The post Who Made My Clothes? appeared first on Fair World Project.

Approximately 80% of the farm bill goes towards nutrition programs such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).  The other 20% goes to farm programs like income supports, rural development, research, crop insurance, and credit.

Not All Farm Bill Spending Is Good Spending

Investing in our food and agriculture system is important. Unfortunately, too many provisions in the farm bill promote the wrong kinds of food: unhealthy food produced in ways that harm small-scale farmers, rural communities, and the environment.

We join our allies who work on domestic food and farming policy in calling for a fair farm bill that supports beginning farmers and ranchers, provides for investment in public research to benefit all farmers, expands conservation programs and programs that encourage agroecology and sustainable production, and programs that address and redress the racism that has plagued our food and agriculture system, among other priorities. Programs like the “Section 2501” grants that provide resources to farmers of color and the Organic Certification Cost Share Program that makes organic certification more affordable for small-scale farmers represent a very small slice of the total farm bill but are essential for a fair and sustainable food system.

Global Reach

But the Farm Bill’s impact stretches beyond the U.S. Of particular interest to those interested in fair trade is Title III, which covers trade and food aid.

The U.S. Farm Bill has had a dramatic impact on agricultural communities across the globe. Agricultural dumping from U.S.-based agribusiness firms undercut farmers in poor countries. When large amounts of food is dumped into a region, it makes it difficult for farmers to sell goods in their own local markets because they are now competing with an influx of cheap food. This puts farmers local to the region in danger of losing their land and pushes them further into poverty. For these reasons, it is often better to secure food aid from a region’s own farmers when available so the benefits are seen in the short and long term from both immediate food aid and cash to invest in farms and communities.

In one stark example, our current Farm Bill encouraged domestic farmers to plant and harvest an over supply of peanuts. When USDA proposed sending some of this supply to Haiti as “food aid,” 60 aid groups quickly organized to demand a stop to this shipment, fearing the long-term damage to farming communities of this food dump would far outweigh any short-term nutritional value of the food.

A fair farm bill would prioritize people and planet globally by investing in small-scale farmers who practice agroecology and produce healthy food. It would also ensure access to healthy food for all consumers and distribute food aid both domestically and internationally in a way that protects long-term markets for farmers in addition to providing access to nutritious food for all consumers.

Act Now

Fortunately, a bill that upholds many of these principles and values has already been introduced by Representative Earl Blumenauer. His Food and Farm Act would favor farmers and consumers not agribusiness and would be a good start to fixing our food and agriculture system.

The next Farm Bill is in early discussions and Congress needs to hear now that we want this massive legislation to ensure healthy farms and healthy food. Contact your Senators and Representatives now by email, phone, and social media!

TAKE ACTION: Email your Senators and Representatives…

TAKE ACTION: Call your Senators and Representatives for a greater impact…

Additional resources and sources of facts in this post:

What is the Farm Bill?  – A primer by the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

An Agenda for the 2018 Farm Bill – A report by the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

U.S. to Ship Peanuts to Haitian Kids; Aid Groups Say ‘This Is Wrong” – coverage of the example of peanut dumping

A Short History of U.S. Ag and Trade Policy – A brief paper by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy on how U.S. food policy harms farmers globally

Food and Farm Act Highlights – A brief summary of the main points of Representative Blumenauer’s Food and Farm Act

(Photo Credit: “Autum Farm” by Randen Pederson (chefranden) is licensed under CC BY 2.0)

The post Join the Fight for a Fair Farm Bill appeared first on Fair World Project.

Climate change is already having a real effect on real people every day, especially those already in vulnerable circumstances and marginalized communities. Small-scale farmers are feeling the economic impact of unpredictable harvests. Workers in fields and factories are suffering illness and death from heat stress due to rising temperatures. These impacts and others will continue to get worse in coming years and bold action and leadership is essential.

The Paris Agreement did not set goals aggressive enough and enforceable enough to prioritize people and planet over corporate profits. Yet it provided a baseline to work from and became a symbol of a global commitment to action.

Fair World Project applauds the efforts of local and state governments, universities, and businesses to commit directly to the United Nations to meet the U.S. targets for reduction of climate emissions, despite the shortcomings and shortsighted decision of a President who is not representing wishes of the country.

Fair World Project also pledges to continue in solidarity with communities around the world as we work to build a just economy that functions in harmony with the environment while providing dignified livelihoods for all.

The post Fair World Project Condemns U.S. Withdrawal From Paris Agreement appeared first on Fair World Project.

The message has not gotten through to Ivanka Trump. During Fashion Revolution week, it was also revealed that a factory in China that produces clothes for Ivanka Trump, along with other well-known brands, had violated dozen of international labor standards plus China’s own overtime limits and benefits laws.

Unfortunately these conditions are not unusual. Low pay, compulsory overtime, inattention to safety precautions despite risks of accidents and injuries are all the norm in apparel factories throughout the world.

Supply chains are long, with spinning, weaving, dying, and sewing often happening in different factories, and because most production is completed through contracts and subcontracts. Factories, such as the one cited in the report, handle contracts for multiple bands. Transparency and accountability are severely lacking in the apparel sector. .

If most brands honestly answered the question “Who Made my Clothes,” their answer might be something like this, “Between all the contracting and subcontracting in our supply chain, we really don’t know who is making the clothes, but we can say with statistical certainty that whoever they are they are underpaid and exploited.”

(There are exceptions of course and you can learn about some of the pioneering brands creating new business models here.)

A few factors make the exploitation in Ivanka Trump’s supply chain especially disturbing. Ivanka Trump has nominated herself to be the voice and face of working women and this month puts forth a book on working women in an attempt to pass herself off as an expert on these issues. (It has already been criticized for its privileged perspective.) She is also public servant and is related to and working for the President of the United States. We need our leaders to be leaders, not conventional business opportunists willing to profit at any cost.

We often talk about how consumer demand for cheap clothing drives down prices, but her clothing line is not cheap. One of the workers producing Ivanka Trump’s apparel would have to spend their entire paycheck for several weeks of work to afford just one article of clothing, which means that her company is enormously profitable.

Compounding the outrage, the Trump administration has championed the “Buy American” movement to create decent jobs. An expensive apparel line that exploits workers in China is in sharp contrast to what the administration has promised as well as what we should expect from our nation’s leaders.

We hope someday all apparel brands, including Ivanka Trump’s, will have a better answer to the question “Who Made My Clothes,” but until then we need to diligently avoid the worst, seek out the best, and continue to demand all workers have the opportunity for dignified jobs.

You can help spread the word about the contradiction between exploiting women who work while presenting yourself as a champion.

Tweet: Ask @IvankaTrump about the #WomenWhoWork making her clothes in factories riddled w/labor rights violations

The post Ivanka Trump’s Very Bad Answer to the Question “Who Made My Clothes” appeared first on Fair World Project.

This news is a reminder that organizing and resisting does work. Upon Puzder’s nomination, dozens of organizations formed a coalition to oppose Puzder. Thousands of citizens called and wrote to the HELP committee and their own Senators expressing concern.

Dubbed the Anti-Labor Secretary, Puzder stood for maximizing corporate profits, not supporting working families. He opposes meaningfully increasing the federal minimum wage or policies such as sick leave. Instead he supports replacing jobs with robots through automation. Within his own company, violations of labor laws such as wage theft and sexual harassment were rampant. Based on his values and track record, Puzder was not qualified to head the Department of Labor. His withdrawal is good news for wage-earners throughout the country.

At Fair World Project we will closely monitor the nomination process, evaluate the merits of the next nominee, and continue to advocate for a Secretary of Labor who will fight for working families.

The post Fair World Project Statement on Puzder appeared first on Fair World Project.

California legislators, responding to the growing Fight for $15 and Raise the Wage movements, passed a law earlier this year that will guarantee all workers in the state a minimum wage of $15 an hour. This is great news for farmworkers in the country’s largest agricultural state. But will it be a disaster for farmers and the agricultural economy?

Not necessarily. Phil Foster, an organic farmer in California who produces more than 60 crops for sale at regional farmers markets and retail locations, already pays his approximately 50 year-round workers at least $15 an hour, plus bonuses. By the time the rest of the state is required to pay this rate, he expects to be paying workers a few dollars an hour more. For Foster, this is not only the right thing to do, it also makes business sense by helping him retain the best employees and avoid the added costs of training a new crew each season.

Foster is the first to admit, however, that just because he’s made it work on his farm doesn’t mean all farmers will be able to follow suit. Dave Runsten, an agricultural economist with Community Alliance with Family Farmers, explains that agriculture is highly competitive and most farmers have no control over the price they receive. Small-scale farmers, organic farmers, and others who aren’t trying to compete solely on price and efficiency in commodity markets need to find a way to differentiate themselves in the marketplace or find an alternative business model. Foster, as a diversified organic farmer handling sales directly, has both a differentiated product and an alternative business model.

California passed the new minimum wage bill and considered a second piece of legislation intended to give farmworkers a better wage. Currently farmworkers are exempt from regulations that require other hourly workers to be paid overtime after 40 hours of work in a week or eight hours a day, but the proposed California bill would have changed that. Although the bill was defeated this year, its sponsor vowed to introduce it again next session. If it passes, farmworkers who make $15 an hour regular time will receive $22.50 an hour in overtime pay.

Because all workers in the state will see higher wages and higher wages are associated with better eating, in the long run, there may be more dollars going to organic food and labor-intensive fruit and vegetable production. This would allow these farmers, who have higher costs, to raise prices enough to keep up with labor costs, an increase which would have minimal impact on consumers according to most projections. Farmers are also worried about the rising costs of healthcare and the combination of the three—increased minimum wage, new overtime rules, and rising cost of healthcare has some farmers scrambling to meet anticipated rising costs of production. If labor costs increase too much or too fast, farmers may try to reduce costs through capital investments in machinery or by shifting to less labor-intensive crops. The reality, explains another California organic farmer, Paul Muller, is that larger farms can make these investments more easily, and it is small-scale farmers and especially new farmers who will be hit hardest by the trifecta of rising labor costs, particularly in the short run.

Farm work is notoriously difficult and dangerous and though it is highly skilled work, it pays low wages. The new $15/hour minimum wage will give a needed boost to farmworkers. It will not make them rich, but it will allow families who work in agriculture to more easily meet basic needs. If we want to also ensure that the most vulnerable farmers are also able to thrive, we need equal investment in policies that protect their interests.

“We give all kinds of tax incentives when we want businesses to relocate to our communities. Why aren’t we giving the same incentives to farmers?” Muller asks. Tax breaks to farmers who do not cut back on labor as it becomes more expensive, either because they are committed to providing their communities with decent jobs or because they simply can’t afford capital investments, would give a boost to both farmers and farmworkers.

Local governments give tax incentives to businesses to get them to relocate. Both federal and state governments give tax breaks to businesses that create jobs. Taxpayers also pay billions of dollars annually to subsidize a small percentage of large farms, most of which produce commodity crops like corn and soy that are highly mechanized and provide few jobs. There is a growing movement to allocate federal agricultural subsidies to farmers who practice environmentally sustainable or regenerative practices. Adding social and sustainability criteria would further strengthen the agricultural system, as would providing incentives to diversified farms that create or maintain decent jobs.

If we want farmers, including organic farmers, small-scale farmers, young farmers, and new farmers to succeed in California, and if we want farmers to continue to hire farmworkers despite rising labor costs, we need to address major policy issues such as the federal minimum wage (farmers in California paying $15 an hour will now be competing with farmers in Alabama who need only pay $7.25 an hour), trade policy (farmers in California will also be competing with farmers in other countries, like Mexico, who can pay less than $15 a day), and immigration policy. We will also need to be proactive and invest public funds. Here are a few of the many places where public investment can have an impact:

Public procurement policies can ensure California farmers are prioritized in government purchasing decisions. Los Angeles recently adopted a Good Food Purchasing Policy that has been a model for other cities around the country. The policy requires government purchasers, like the school district, to consider factors other than just price when buying food and to give preference to local farmers. These promising policies can be supported by public investment in training buyers and kitchen managers to identify suitable farms, and investment in developing infrastructure to make it easier for small farms to access contracts.

Publicly funded “buy local” or “buy California” programs could educate consumers about the true cost of food and importance of supporting local farmers. Emphasizing local economies would help farmers distinguish themselves in a marketplace where they compete with food produced more cheaply in countries and regions with lower wages and looser regulations.

Increased funding for farmer services through extension or farmer advocacy organizations can give farmers the support they need for their businesses to survive. Farming is difficult work, requiring long hours and a viable business plan. Assistance for farmers, especially those who are new or in transition, in developing a marketing plan and business model that works for their farm can help these farmers weather the changes in labor costs. As in the example of Phil Foster, a good business and marketing plan built on long-term relationships can help a farm thrive, but that plan will look different for each farm.

California is the first state to fully embrace the movement to raise wages for all workers to at least $15 an hour. As an important agricultural state with enough public investment in key areas, California can also show that agricultural economies, farmers, and farmworkers all thrive in the era of fair pay.

Get Involved and Take Action:
To learn more about the Good Food Purchasing Policy and how to create a values- based government procurement policy, visit the Center for Good Food Purchasing: cfgfp.org.

To learn more about farm subsidies and national agriculture policy, efforts to direct more funds toward sustainable practices, and resources currently available to farmers, visit the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition: sustainableagriculture.net.

To learn more about efforts to raise the wage for all workers in all states, visit: fairworldproject.org/campaigns/raising-the-minimum-wage.

The post Policy Corner: Farms in California Prepare for $15/Hour Minimum Wage appeared first on Fair World Project.

In the United States, much of the discussion around schools and education is about what happens to students within the walls. Do we give too many tests? The right kind of tests? Are we disciplining kids effectively? Are resources allocated equitably?

In many parts of rural Togo, the concern is just getting to school. Is there a school for students to go to? How far will they need to travel? By the time they get there will they be too hungry and thirsty to even learn?

On our recent trip to Togo we got to see this first hand when we visited three new schools built with fair trade premium money generated through sales of Alaffia body care products. After traveling on muddy streets (getting stuck twice), passing through rural land characterized by farms but few houses, we would arrive at schools serving hundreds of children who traveled 5 or more miles, without the benefit of a motorized vehicle.

One school we visited, built last year, was a kindergarten on the grounds of a primary school. Previously, the younger kids in this community did not have a chance to attend school at all. They now have a three-room building that was quickly filled by eager kids, clean water in every class, toilets, and a small play-yard.

Two other schools have just been completed and will provide more capacity and better accommodations for nearby students, nearby here being a loose term to describe the staggering radius served by each school in a region of the world where families do not own cars and school buses would not make it down the dirt roads in rainy season even if bus service did exist.

To address the transportation issue, Alaffia also runs a bicycle program, collecting donated used bikes for the U.S. and distributing them to students of these rural schools. Students who do not have bicycles walk to school.

A brand building schools and providing student transportation may seem surprising, but as we explain in our video The Fair Trade Story, the fair trade movement has countless of examples of consumers, brands, and producers joining in solidarity to address the needs of marginalized communities. The fair trade premium is a common way the movement provides funds to pay for things like school that governments can’t or won’t provide, but should.

In a country where less than half of students will finish secondary school and adult illiteracy rates are high, providing a place to attend school and means to get there are vital first steps. We look forward to a day when all students can focus on what they are learning in school, rather than if and how they can get there at all.

The post At Rural Schools in Togo Getting There Can Be the Hardest Part appeared first on Fair World Project.

So much of the dialogue and media reporting of this news has pitted farmers and farmworkers against each other, asking whether farmers can afford this, decrying the injustice to farmers who are at the mercy of weather and seasons and rely on farmworkers’ flexibility to work more at certain times of year. The reporting even questions whether the change is good for farmworkers or whether net incomes will fall as farmers cap workers’ hours.

But as with the minimum wage debate itself, if we are asking a question that might have the answer, “Let’s keep farmworker wages low,” then we aren’t asking the right questions.

Yes, farm work is different from factory work. So is managerial work and the U.S. Department of Labor recently raised the salary under which managers must be paid overtime to $47,476, a salary most farmworkers could only dream of. Farm work is difficult work and workers who push on in the fields more than 8 hours a day or 40 hours a week get tired and increase risk of injury.

A broken food system that favors cheap food, subsidizes large-scale commodity crops, promotes climate-killing industrial agriculture, and denies farmers fair payment is not an excuse to treat farmworkers poorly. We need collectively to agree that farmworkers deserve a fair pay and go from there.

Instead of asking whether farmers are hoping for this new overtime bill to pass, let’s start asking how to address the whole food system so that farmworkers and farmers and consumers all get what they need. Many farmers want to pay farmworkers fairly but are legitimately concerned about their own ability to be sustainable. How can we shift public investments away from industrial agriculture and direct it to sustainable farmers and providing decent jobs for farmworkers on those farms?

If this bill passes, it will provide a needed boost to farmworker pay and signal that their work in the fields is valuable. Let’s make sure it’s also an opportunity to assess our whole food system and start to figure out how to make it work for farmers as well as farmworkers, not just in California, but throughout the global economy.

The post New Overtime Bill is Boost for Farmworkers and Opportunity to Do More appeared first on Fair World Project.