Child Slavery in Food Production

[Pan]

i was the poster of the original "chocolate slaves" thread of about a year ago.

perhaps these two threads should be merged so that any good information that is brought to the community is in a central place?

does one have to make a formal request of a moderator for this?

cheers --

←

Done.

For future reference, you can always click "!report" and make the request that way, or you can simply PM a host for this forum.

[PassionateChefsDie]

Regarding boycotting did it work for south africa before aparthied, I believe not, just political circumstances allowed the country to take the next step.

Secondly as people sitting in countries of good economic background, where do we believe our economic background came from, is coming from. Both countries are really just merchant countries. UK built its wealth on plundering the world mixed with slavery and the spice trade. America is built from European communites who plundered the Native Americans. I believe that the plains Indians Mecca/Bethlehem etc was forced sold for less than 1% of what was taken from it.

Why as a generation do we believe that its any different now? How many countries in the world have a decent economic background? Who do we think is paying for our lifestyles? Tax has to come from profit. You could stand in the corner for good Business people yet there's always a loser in a deal, one party will always come out better whilst one concedes.

Is there a difference between Child Labor and Child Slavery so the master is your father yet still with 3/4 incomes the exsistence is little different, the work the same. So rather than being forced by the local gangster your forced by economic reasons the results are the same.

As long as the Human Race is fueled by Greed profit will be made and a Loser in a deal will be the cause.

Why stop at Coffee, Chocolate what about Vanilla, cheap meat, cheap poultry, South African produce(Do we really think its cost effective to fly and ship food around the world of course not its about profit, not cost effectiveness!). When do I stop what about local farmers using piece work with staff who are economic migrants in "civilised countries".

As long as the consumer goes looking for the cheapest, people will be exploited starting with the consumer finishing with the farm worker. Yet the middle men grow fat.

[Pan]

When you bring up the effectiveness of boycotts, let's keep in mind some that involved food specifically. In the 1970s, Gallo wine, California table grapes, and lettuce were boycotted in sympathy with the United Farm Workers Union led by Cesar Chavez. The boycotts of Gallo and table grapes were pretty effective and clearly had an effect on the eventual union contract, at least on the Gallo vineyard (the California politics that shaped the involvement of the governors and state legislators in farm workers' rights generally were more complex). Whereas Gallo's name used to be synonymous with union-busting, to my knowledge, they have had labor peace ever since they gave in to the demand to recognize and negotiate with the union.

Also, I think the question really is, Where do you draw the line? As you say, child slavery is not the same as child labor. And it might be added that child labor is not the same as adult labor, and that part-time child labor that allows children to go to school is not the same as full-time child labor which leaves the children illiterate and unskilled. I plan on decreasing my purchases of chocolate, but I admit that somewhere along the line, this issue will probably slip my mind.

[PassionateChefsDie]

If I started decreasing my purchases because of unethical work practises where would I stop. We just have to accept that for our quality of live someone has to pay.

Look at your coffee, mines got 100g free, 200g at about £4 which is now 300g. Am I meant to believe that the coffee workers decided to give there crop away. Do we believe that the coffee company is making a loss from that promotion.

From the little I know about business you are generally trying to increase turnover each year by 5-10%. So with an increase in sales, if you sell 10 jars I've given away 5 free. Now to return this I need one of the 10 purchasers to continue buying yet the first 4 and half jars won't be profit.

You can get bet anything that the coffee company will reach its predicted profit forecast. I also bet the coffee pickers haven't seen a 5-10% increase in wage, or the farmer 5% increase on crop price.

Lets not forget both countries where built on slavery. So we're 100 or so years forward in devolpment yet we can condemn the other countries and forgt our own sins.

[Pan]

If I started decreasing my purchases because of unethical work practises where would I stop.

←

That's for you to determine, but I find it amazing that a person who knows for certain that a product is being produced by slaves would buy it anyway, and that seems to be your viewpoint. So while I respect you for facing this honestly and having the guts to make this admission to yourself and us with open eyes, I really have to question why you wouldn't have enough fellow feeling for an enslaved child to think twice about this.

We just have to accept that for our quality of live someone has to pay.

←

But we're talking about slavery here! I don't think that the fact that it's difficult and perhaps impossible to be completely ethical in our purchases is a good argument for the other extreme, which is to have no standards whatsoever.

Lets not forget both countries where built on slavery. So we're 100 or so years forward in devolpment yet we can condemn the other countries and forgt our own sins.

←

Who's forgetting anything? If there were no abolitionists who not only condemned slavery but risked and in many cases gave their lives for the moral imperative of eliminating it from their corners of the Earth, there might very well still be legalized slavery in countries like the US today. I just can't see being apathetic about this. I don't know about you, but when I think about this, I imagine putting myself in the shoes of the slaves, not the masters. My problem is not apathy, but that this issue tends to gradually move into my subconscious and I buy more chocolate items again. I will try not to forget, this time.

Edited February 16, 2006 by Pan (log)

[JohnL]

If I started decreasing my purchases because of unethical work practises where would I stop. We just have to accept that for our quality of live someone has to pay.

Look at your coffee, mines got 100g free, 200g at about £4 which is now 300g. Am I meant to believe that the coffee workers decided to give there crop away. Do we believe that the coffee company is making a loss from that promotion.

From the little I know about business you are generally trying to increase turnover each year by 5-10%. So with an increase in sales, if you sell 10 jars I've given away 5 free. Now to return this I need one of the 10 purchasers to continue buying yet the first 4 and half jars won't be profit.

You can get bet anything that the coffee company will reach its predicted profit forecast. I also bet the coffee pickers haven't seen a 5-10% increase in wage, or the farmer 5% increase on crop price.

Lets not forget both countries where built on slavery. So we're 100 or so years forward in devolpment yet we can condemn the other countries and forgt our own sins.

←

Our "quality of life" is not the result of a zero sum game. It is based upon our having basic freedom. I do not accept that one man's freedom must mean another is not free.

The slavery issue is very important--the very fact that it still exists is unacceptable.

Our sins are in the past--we have moved beyond them. This has no bearing on condemnation of this activity--what is wrong is wrong.

However--as is often the case with these things (see foie gras/animal rights etc.) it is difficult to get good accurate information. The Times piece is of little use--in fact--the slavery issue is dropped in an almost offhand manner.

What exactly is involved in the production of chocolate is important if one is going to be critical.

We often do "project" our own values on situations where we lack any real insight into the issue at hand.

So--I for one, would like to learn a bit more about how chocolate is produced before I form any opinions and certainly before I stop buying chocolate.

I am a bit skeptical of claims made by any group--the Fair Market folks have an altruistic purpose--I am not sure I would agree with their definition of "fair market." They are pointing the finger at the chocolate business and using a very charged term--"slavery." It would be nice to get some information from a source that has no agenda.

By the way, I have no quibble with the Fair Market folks--I would simply like some more information before I condemn an industry.

In the end--slavery is abhorrent--no society should allow it or make excuses for not acting to abolish it.

If, in fact, chocolate is produced by a system of slavery then it is morally wrong to buy it.

[PassionateChefsDie]

I personally dont distinguish between Child Slavery and Child Labour as pointed out just because your standard of living is dictated by a master or economic reasons.

So the moral thing would be you return your wealth to the Native Americans and us to the old Empire seriously is this going to happen. We back pay the familys of slaves that made our industrys then perhaps we can stand on the high moral ground then.

No I'm not condoning slavery or child labour yet both countrys would pull companys or small holdings into court if we treated our children like some of these countries. christ in our country even paper rounds for the under 13 are a no go.

Now the point I'm getting to is if we continually search for more profit who do we think is paying for it. It comes from countries where there is no minimum wage, this is why more and more western world companies use these countries for a labour force.

What are we thinking that they're there to boost the local economy, I know the argument, but we give them more than what they would earn. Yet the wage they pay would be illegal in this country so how is it an argument.

Lets be honest if we paid the coffee workers a fair wage lets take a small figure of $5 dollars an hour thats $40 dollars a day (Most of the western world wouldn't even get out of bed for that) Seriously how much would coffee price jump up, Vanilla, Chocolate etc.

But I leave you with this thought with out our use of slavery and yours would we be as powerful as we are? Is it not part of our development? Its like taking the mickey out the newbies at school on there first day for not being able to read or write. They'll learn just not on there first day!

Lets boycott our own countries and see if they want to return some of there profits to the devolping countries, seeming as there run by share holders I cant see this happening. And set the example for them years down the line.

Germany has more right to stand on the high moral ground than either the US or UK. At least some of the companies that benefited from the 2nd world war have had to pay compensation.

Edited to Add

Firstly as a chef I find I'm drawn to the artisan and premium products which generally do have better ethics but a higher price.

Yet when I walk around the supermarket I can at least equate the amount of work gone into a product and the price on the shelf.

Can someone tell me one how much coffee beans it would take for my 300g of freezedried coffee and how long it would take to pick that many. I'm guessing its twice the amount in the jar and probably 3* the amount of green beans. So for 900g of coffee beans the company gets £4 guessing with the size of the beans surely thats a days picking(Not really sure), and from that £4 2 middle men get a cut and it has to be marketed, packaged and transported and finally Taxed.

Now lets pick on the middle men (Not the two at the ends being the consumer or worker.) who are making there minimun wage if not a fat cat bonus.

If we force economic slavery (Where is there freedom?) dictated by a buyers market, how can we condemn the other without condeming this. So there not forced to get up by a master but a need to work the land to put a meal in there mouths. They have no freedom because any profit is eaten up by the middle men, they have no choices. As the western world do we really believe we have a free market what wasn't it recently China was producing too much cheap goods!

Edited February 15, 2006 by PassionateChefsDie (log)

[JohnL]

You are lost in the past.

I would respectfully suggest that you focus on one thing and one thing only.

Slavery is wrong--agreed?

Let's also remove the current price of coffee from the debate (for at least a moment--as well as the price of tea in China).

Fair wages and slavery are incongruent --slavery means "work for no wages--the meaning according to Webster is :"a person held in servitude as property."

If people involved in any enterprise fit under that definition--then it is abhorrent and no one should morally or financially support that enterprise.

You may, in fact, be on to something when you refer to minimum wages--that is another topic requiring another set of facts.

The basic question I have in reference to the production of chocolate (cocoa) is: Is anyone involved in this process a slave--as defined by Webster?

After that simple answer--we can move forward.

[prasantrin]

The basic question I have in reference to the production of chocolate (cocoa) is: Is anyone involved in this process a slave--as defined by Webster?

After that simple answer--we can move forward.

←

The link　produced by a Google search on chocolate and slavery produces this quotation

Young boys whose ages range from 12 to 16 have been sold into slave labor and are forced to work in cocoa farms in order to harvest the beans, from which chocolate is made, under inhumane conditions and extreme abuse.

and

Slave traders are trafficking boys ranging from the age of 12 to 16 from their home countries and are selling them to cocoa farmers in Cote d'Ivoire. They work on small farms across the country, harvesting the cocoa beans day and night, under inhumane conditions.

The hundreds of other links produce similar quotations. While I cannot vouch for the veracity of any of the sites, the sheer multitude of sites that say, more or less, the same thing would lead me to say, the answer to your question is "yes".

[prasantrin]

Of great interest to me was this page from foodrevolution.org where they list some companies that do and do not use chocolate from the Ivory Coast. The "slave-free" chocolates comes from companies which include

Clif Bar, Cloud Nine, Dagoba Organic Chocolate, Denman Island Chocolate, Gardners Candies, Green and Black's, Kailua Candy Company, Koppers Chocolate, L.A. Burdick Chocolates, Montezuma's Chocolates, Newman's Own Organics, Omanhene Cocoa Bean Company, Rapunzel Pure Organics, and The Endangered Species Chocolate Company

L. A. Burdick, from what I remember, makes pretty good chocolate, and its prices are not out-of-line with other high-end chocolates. That says, to me, that saying the price or quality of chocolate will change for the worse without the use of cheap chocolate is pretty much moot, at least with the high-end companies (Bernard Callebaut, Godiva, and Guittard are all on the list of probably slave-not-free chocolates).

Also of interest in that article was this:

On June 28, 2001, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 291-115 to look into setting up a labeling system so consumers could be assured no slave labor was used in the production of their chocolate. Unhappy with this turn of events, the U.S. chocolate industry and its allies mounted an intense lobbying effort to fight off legislation that would require "slave free" labels for their products. The Chocolate Manufacturer's Association, a trade group that represents U.S. chocolate producers, hired two former Senate majority leaders - Bob Dole, a Republican, and George Mitchell, a Democrat - to lobby lawmakers on its behalf.

It seems the chocolate industry must have won, since this occurred almost 5 years ago.

[Pan]

[...]What are we thinking that they're there to boost the local economy, I know the argument, but we give them more than what they would earn. Yet the wage they pay would be illegal in this country so how is it an argument.[...]

←

In order to make a logical comparison of wages from one area of the world to another, you have to figure out what constitutes equal purchasing power. For example, I always had the impression that for local foods, 1 Malaysian ringgit was approximately equal in value to $1 US, in spite of the exchange rate of a ringgit = some $0.40 US. And there are many countries with much lower standards of living than Malaysia.

But of course, none of this is relevant to slavery, which means forced work for no pay.

[Carrot Top]

As someone else noted plainly, slavery is wrong.

And if it would be stopped, it will take more than a one-pronged attack upon the product that is being sold.

Though that is a good start.

My first question is: Is slavery actually against the law in the countries where this is occuring? Is it called by the name of "slavery" or by some other term that would shade the act differently for those involved in it?

The second question is: Who is selling these children into slavery? Their parents? Or are they being abducted then sold? Are there any laws against this in the countries where this is occuring?

Sometimes the laws of different places do allow different things that would seem unacceptable to people from other places. I do wonder if this is truly against the law in these countries, either in either a real or stated sense or in the sense that it is something that a blind eye is cast upon in general.

It would seem to me that *if* it is legal or acceptable where it is occuring, then it will continue in some form or manner whether the final product (chocolate in this case) is purchased by outsiders or not.

For the real product here, at the core - is not chocolate. It is not merely the bar of chocolate that has profit stamped upon it. Each "slave" has profit stamped upon them - each person that is bought and sold. If the practice is condoned, they will simply be used in another industry.

Not to bring too unhappy a note to the discussion, because this is already a difficult thing to have to read about. . .but there are worse industries than the production of chocolate that slavery allows children to be sold into.

Children.

Not adults.

Regardless of where each culture places them in our lives in a sociologic sense, they are still (along with the elderly) the most vulnerable among us.

Yes, I think that there should be more discussion about this. It warrants quite an extensive thread. It is just that it might be just plain too difficult for many to look straight in the eye. One wants to run away from these sorts of things.

But can we, and remain right with ourselves?

I hope not.

[PassionateChefsDie]

So you justify Economic Slavery?

So the workers around the world that work for no more than 1 meal between 4, usally because of the buying power of some western world company, but thats OK?

So because the "Company" doesn't claim to own them but threatens to use another co-op if the price isn't right, so uses economic power to force servitude, but this Ok?

So clearly we all agree Child slavery is wrong, all they have is a meal, and a roof so whats the difference between this and Child labour? I'm glad you all can justify and distinguish the difference for your own peace of mind. I struggle its quality of life that distinguishs the difference in my mind, and there I see little.

So the Malaysians quality of life is brilliant, western world companies are paying them 0.4* an Americans wage then, or will we find its closer to 0.1*? I cant see Malay enforcing a minimum wage, I dont honestly know.

So Child Labour isnt Child Slavery though I bet many children employees dont see there wages, let alone be paid fairly.

Edited to Add

Surely if we targeted child labour we would find child slavery dissapearing with it! For if you cant employ children using them in slavery would be just as hard. But this means propping up there economys due to a sudden dissapearence of a work force..

Edited February 16, 2006 by PassionateChefsDie (log)

[prasantrin]

My first question is: Is slavery actually against the law in the countries where this is occuring? Is it called by the name of "slavery" or by some other term that would shade the act differently for those involved in it?

The second question is: Who is selling these children into slavery? Their parents? Or are they being abducted then sold? Are there any laws against this in the countries where this is occuring?

←

Perhaps you should read the article at foodrevolution.org to which I linked in an earlier post. It's a relatively (I say relatively because it is, after all, just an article on the internet) thorough article which answers all your questions. If nothing else, it refers to a number of studies, documentaries, etc. which you may look up at your leisure.

[prasantrin]

So Child Labour isnt Child Slavery though I bet many children employees dont see there wages, let alone be paid fairly.

←

Just an anecdote, but I have a friend whose parents owned a farm when she was growing up. As a child (from about the age of 8 or 10?), when she was scheduled to work she had to punch in just like all the adult employees. And she got paid just like all the others.

I also worked in my parents' store as a child (as did my brother and sister) and I, too, would get paid for whatever work I did (usually not an hourly wage, but a set amount depending on the job I did).

And when I lived in the Philippines, one of our maids was 14 (just 4 years older than I at the time). She was paid monthly, with the wage going directly to her. She did general cleaning and got paid a little less than the adult maid, who was also the cook and laundress, therefore doing more work. She didn't get to go to school, but she probably got more of an education working for us than she would have not working. My sister (who was 11) and I taught her English and how to write (as well as children could teach such things), while if she were living at home, she wouldn't have been schooled at all. While much of her wage was used to buy rice and other staples for her family, she did get to keep a (very) small portion of her earnings for herself. Plus she had better accommodations and meals than her family did.

[Pan]

So you justify Economic Slavery?

So the workers around the world that work for no more than 1 meal between 4, usally because of the buying power of some western world company, but thats OK?

So because the "Company" doesn't claim to own them but threatens to use another co-op if the price isn't right, so uses economic power to force servitude, but this Ok?

←

Again: This is not an all-or-nothing question. We don't have to choose to either ignore slavery or boycott everything that isn't produced under utopian conditions. That said, boycotts or other forms of public pressure based on abusive work conditions short of actual enslavement are certainly not a bad thing, in my opinion, so if you feel strongly about the kinds of things you mentioned above, by all means organize some kind of action and, if it involves food or drink, feel free to publicize it on these forums.

So the Malaysians quality of life is brilliant, western world companies are paying them 0.4* an Americans wage then, or will we find its closer to 0.1*?[...]

←

Actually, the Malaysian standard of living is high enough now that Malaysians rarely will do the kind of backbreaking hard labor they or their parents used to do 30 years ago, and like developed Western countries, Malaysia has been using legal and illegal workers from poorer countries to do such work, so it's they who are being underpaid and abused (but also quite obviously being paid sufficiently higher than what they might have gotten at home often enough to keep them coming and, in many cases, staying), much as is true of the illegal aliens who do migrant agricultural work in California and so forth.

The question of comparative wages between regions, as I mentioned before, is complicated. The question of slavery seems very straightforward to me.

[Carrot Top]

So clearly we all agree Child slavery is wrong, all they have is a meal, and a roof so whats the difference between this and Child labour? I'm glad you all can justify and distinguish the difference for your own peace of mind. I struggle its quality of life that distinguishs the difference in my mind, and there I see little.

←

The difference, Stef, is an essential sense of self.

In the reality of a child that works, they in some way are being respected. It may be some small respect, and it may not be a lot of money that they get at all, and indeed they may not even be treated all that well in some conditions or places.

But to be a slave is to be considered a thing rather than a human being. In a straightforward and direct way. It is demeaning to the core of the essential beliefs most people hold that do make us "human" and therefore of a higher order (or at least most people attempt to aim at this goal).

If you are free, the world may not be a perfect place but in every small act you make during the day you are free to change or affect your own reality.

If you are a slave, you are not free to do so.

Edited February 16, 2006 by Carrot Top (log)

[PassionateChefsDie]

That's for you to determine, but I find it amazing that a person who knows for certain that a product is being produced by slaves would buy it anyway, and that seems to be your viewpoint. So while I respect you for facing this honestly and having the guts to make this admission to yourself and us with open eyes, I really have to question why you wouldn't have enough fellow feeling for an enslaved child to think twice about this.

I quote you here Pan and replace slaves to that slaves/child labour and enslaved child with enslaved child/children working for a meal.

Yes I do go shopping with open eyes, but as 1 small person in this huge world how can I make an impact. I drink Nescafe and love Valhrona one seems fine 1 not, Foie Gras production isn't pleasant but like you the quality of life for the Duck/Geese is far higher than some chicken. I knew a vegetarian who ate game, because of the better quality of life game has.

Theres fors and againsts for boycotts sometimes they work sometimes they hurt the people that there trying to help.

I think you may of missed my edit If we target child labour will we not see the slavery side disappearing!

I am aware of what goes into producing my food, I dont have the income to be choosy, choice is disappearing as the big supermarkets take hold also.

As you mentioned regarding wages its difficult to equate. Equate a third of your work force vanishing, which is what will happen in this countries with child labour. As prasantrin put forward in places with no or little education work is a better way of life and also highlighted a good link.

On a final note more child abuse in the western world is done by family members than strangers why do we think its any different in the devoloping world? I think I've ranted on enough I hope this thread carries on but it'll probably dissapear soon. For as Carrot Top pointed out its an emotive and difficult subject.

Can I shop with a clear conscience of course not! Just got my eyes open.

[Pan]

[...]Yes I do go shopping with open eyes, but as 1 small person in this huge world how can I make an impact.[...]

←

That's always open to question, no matter what the issue is. I agree that each individual has a limited impact on the World, but there are enough instances of one person doing a tremendous amount of good or harm for it to be evident that a single human being can make a big difference.

I don't think the question of paid child labor or children helping with family farms or businesses is as clear cut as you're making it, though.

[JohnL]

[...]Yes I do go shopping with open eyes, but as 1 small person in this huge world how can I make an impact.[...]

←

That's always open to question, no matter what the issue is. I agree that each individual has a limited impact on the World, but there are enough instances of one person doing a tremendous amount of good or harm for it to be evident that a single human being can make a big difference.

I don't think the question of paid child labor or children helping with family farms or businesses is as clear cut as you're making it, though.

←

I agree.

Freedom (the opposite of slavery) wins out most every time.

We have freedom to express thoughts and ideas and to receive and exchange and challenge information. Take this eGullet thread.

Because of freedom we (and by "we" I mean many many free countries) have an economically powerful market that buys a lot of chocolate thus we have many companies who produce chocolate from many sources.

We are free to buy chocolate from anyone of these. We can thus --having been informed about a possible injustice--individually--or collectively (really a collective is a number if individuals anyway one looks at it) and impact the market and thus the production practices. (one hopes).

So we can split hairs over definitions and agonize about the past and past injustices but that is really just academic and doesn't really get us anywhere in today's real world.

We can quibble over who did what to whom or we can move forward.

I opt for the latter!

[PassionateChefsDie]

Not sure how you got I think that child labour is clear cut from what I've written.

I've agreed with prasantrin about it being a better way of life for some children, I've agreed it's difficult to equate wages, I've highlighted the effect of removing the work force, where is this clear cut its seems ambigious to me!

As for the past if we dont right our wrongs how can we stand on the moral high ground, would you listen to the bully who's been bullying for years and then has a change of heart. Our future is built on past actions if we right the wrongs at least we're setting the right example.

But it's only Academic, I'm curious I struggle to justfy shopping are you saying we should ignore our past actions?

You all ignored Economic Slavery is it too hard to swallow?

As said it's a difficult and emotive subject, just using the word difficult suggests its not clear cut. I think some people are struggling to swallow the truth in this thread, when someones freedom is removed by a master its easier, yet when its by economic powers its not so easy to swallow. (And we have choice I believe that 60% of retail turnover in this country is cut between something like 30 companies, what choice, the choice of profit and economic power)

I also think you'll find economic power buys freedom not the other way around.

Which highlights my point if open minded people like us struggle how can we make the rest of the world understand? I cant even get it across to like minded people

[Pan]

[...]As for the past if we dont right our wrongs how can we stand on the moral high ground, would you listen to the bully who's been bullying for years and then has a change of heart. Our future is built on past actions if we right the wrongs at least we're setting the right example.

←

I don't disagree with your point as applied to nations (or even, to some extent, individuals), but I would offer the rejoinder that I do not speak for any level of government, but only for myself and am therefore answerable to my own conscience, not for what people in the past or even present do over my opposition or did before I was around to even vote.

But it's only Academic, I'm curious I struggle to justfy shopping are you saying we should ignore our past actions?

←

I have full confidence that you have never enslaved anyone.

You all ignored Economic Slavery is it too hard to swallow?[...]

←

Not for me. I'm happy to discuss it, and did remark on the boycotts of some California agricultural products that were tended and picked under terrible working conditions. I just think that it's a more complex issue than slavery and, therefore, would probably be better discussed in another thread. If we were to put pressure for improvements of working conditions or wages for farm workers in specific segments of the industry, I imagine it would be most effective to launch a narrow campaign such as the boycott of Gallo wine in the 70s. On the other hand, one could also agitate for stronger enforcement of existing labor laws, increases in the minimum wage, and various other across-the-board measures that one believes would or could be reasonably expected to benefit farmworkers. Some of these topics may be of such general application (as in minimum wage increases or new minimum wage or maximum hours legislation) that they go beyond the mission statement of this society, but by all means, start one or more new threads as appropriate, if you'd like to discuss what if anything we should be doing about poor working conditions for farmworkers, short of slavery.

[PassionateChefsDie]

According to Prasantrin's article Slavery doesn't officially exist, Fair Trade pay nearly 25% over the top for there product, which is a step in the right direction.

Slavery has been replaced with middle men buyers. My point has been and always will be if we tackle child labour put pressure on companies to influence the regions of the world where they source there products. To pay an extra 25% for there product instead of offering a price before harvest and then dropping it by 10% when it comes to harvest time! But honestly if a company suddenly saw 25% of its profit margins dissapearing I think the consumer will be avoiding them, as they try to acquire it back from the consumer.

Lets be honest so 10% of the child work force in these devolping countries are associated to slavery, that leaves another 90% that from what I see are in economic slavery.

Slavery exsists because the profit margins at the farm are so low, this creates an enviroment where slavery can be used and is used according to some articles. Certainly the profit margins for the agriculture business in this country has forced the small holdings out, to be a Farmer in the UK you have to be commercial, working several 100 acres of land if not more. Then bring in agriculture subsidies(Which vary from country to country) from various sources our farmers are still struggling to make a profit.

This is what we call a fair and open market, not forgetting that either(both) in the UK or the US its more expensive and not cost effective to bring roast/ground coffee in to the country, who do we think could do it cheaper the western world or the developing countries? Surely this would of been to protect the commercial interests of a coffee house, who would be undermined by the import of cheap ground roasted coffee.

Which brings us a full circle as you said how do we tackle it, make subsidies all the same, that will mean pumping money into markets that are unstable and corrupt. Say it suceeded child labour is banned international, we can probably take 25% off production from these countries which presumably will increase the price by the said amount. Now take 25% of Wall St and probably the rest of the world markets, I really see this happening. We make the International Market more open and fair we remove subsidies completly then what, as the western worlds agriculture business's fold, without the subsidies they cant compete with the developing world. We allow China or whatever country to export as much as they want, so what if the undercut the western world, oops that will be why it wont happen!

Lets tackle the cause not the sympton, child slavery comes with child labour, child labour is used because the profits from agriculture are small, as the western world profits grow year in year out. We dont cure the cough and sniffles we take flu vaccinations.

To seperate the 2 is just as hard to equate as them being 1 and the same.

I leave you with this thought would you lose 25% of your wage(After Tax) just so the developing world can have a fair game, no 25% increase later, same increase as the developing world?

Edit to add

He who has the most money has the power!

Edited February 17, 2006 by PassionateChefsDie (log)

[JohnL]

As I see it, this thread started out about slavery and the production of cocoa/chocolate.

What we have discovered is that there is some slavery involved in the production of cocoa.

It is also pretty clear that an effort to eliminate this slavery is already underway and we as consumers can impact this issue positively by buying chocolate/cocoa from producers who do not benefit from the slavery and conversely avoid purchasing this product from the offenders.

IMOP--this is the "truth" of this thread.

I discovered a very good analysis of the cocoa problem--the key to finding a solution to a problem is understanding that problem. There is also a good review of what is currently being done to solve this problem. The causes discussed are wide ranging: governmental, cultural, economic, agricultural etc.

Chocolate and slavery- an analysis

Agonizing over righting the wrongs of the past and debating economics is an academic exercise that while interesting is really useless in solving a serious problem.

.

The real shame is that it is still practiced today--estimates are 700,000 people are suffering in slavery--the UN terms it "clandestine slavery." We can do our part to help the children in the Ivory Coast

Edited February 17, 2006 by JohnL (log)

[Pan]

Thanks for posting a link to that interesting article, John.

I wonder how the civil war in Cote d'Ivoire and the country's de facto division into a southern part controlled by the government and a northern part controlled by an opposition army has affected the practice of slavery in the cocoa industry.