@diplomat

"Further, if you think that a newspaper like The Economist is paid by corporations to write articles like that then you really are off your mind."

The magazines and newspapers do that since years maybe decades. They save the money for the journalists and let free journalists, hired by corporations, write articles for them without costs. I´m suprised you don´t know that.

"Actually, this criticism comes directly from my own mind based upon knowledge of economics and the coffee & tea business."

If that´s true, than you will know the coffee market is oversupplied by the non-fairtrade
coffee not the FairTrade. You overstate the influence of FairTrade by far, even if the Fairtrade farmers sell their surplus of coffee, would its amount be not be significant.

So coming back to your phrase of ""market disorting evil" its still bullshit, thats my opinion and i am not making this up my own mind, studies helped me to understand how it works and how the farmers benefit from it, even local non-FairTrade markets do.

@Draugnar: it can get very confusing. Tea as sold to consumers comes in a bewildering array of flavours, blends, origins and so on but there is only one plant species: camelia sinensis.

Strictly speaking all tea (also called cha, char, the, hervata, etc) is an infusion of the leaves of camelia sinensis. The confusion arises because the leaves of other plants (mint, orange, rooiboos) can also be infused. The latter are usually called infusions rather than tea but the labeling regulations and practices vary significantly around the world. It becomes more confusing because flavours are sometimes added to tea (that is camelia sinensis) so for example you can get tea flavoured with orange AND an infusion of orange leaves; these are not the same thing.

The growing conditions do make a difference to both tea and coffee however a skilled blender is able to compensate for these to produce a consistent flavour/quality/price. For our main tea brand, packed in numerous places across the world, we aim to have the same end result for the consumer despite using different combinations of teas in the blend.

@Miro: "The magazines and newspapers do that since years maybe decades. They save the money for the journalists and let free journalists, hired by corporations, write articles for them without costs. I´m suprised you don´t know that."

Reputable newspapers, such as The Economist, are extremely careful not to accept payments, in cash or in kind, from companies that may be seeking to influence them. If you are reading the type of papers that do accept such reward it is no wonder that you come out with the kind of rubbish that you do.

"If that´s true," why would I lie to you?

" than you will know the coffee market is oversupplied by the non-fairtrade coffee not the FairTrade."

Half right. As I said in my original post, those with FT contracts will seek to grow more to make the most of the contract that they have, and others will enter the market in the hope of gaining a lucrative FT contract. Therefore, the total SUPPLY has increased and given the same DEMAND, PRICE will fall but only for those without an FT contract.

Of course farmers WITH an FT contract benefit from it. I am not questioning that and I doubt that many others do either. The point is does it have an unfair impact on those WITHOUT an FT contract.

"So, is fair trade a good thing or a market distorting evil?". Note that I have not voted yet.

Yes I get that. And I just checked and my favorite Chai has black tea in it, but not all herbal teas are actually tea. In fact, I have a recipe for raspberry mint tea that includes mint leaves, fresh raspberries, lemon slices and whole cinnamon cloves that doesn't have a single bit of tea in it.

I love teas and I understand that green versus black versus white is in the age of the leaf. But I stand by the assertion that I know for a fact not all "teas" actually have tea in them. If I were at home with my collection of herbals, I'm sure I could find several where the ingredients do not include tea of any sort.

Actually, I just went to Celestial Seasonings site and looked up the ingredients for Mandarin Orange Spice, - the wife and I make this as iced tea using two bags per quart and nothing else.

Orange peel, hibiscus, roasted chicory, rosehips, blackberry leaves, chamomile, hawthorn, cinnamon, natural mandarin orange flavor with other natural flavors (contains soy lecithin), cloves and coriander.

Not a bit of tea in it.

Here's Bengals Spices ingredients, an excellent hot tea...

Cinnamon, roasted chicory, roasted carob, natural spice and vanilla flavors with other natural flavors, ginger, cardamom, black pepper, cloves and nutmeg.

Do you see any tea?

"Reputable newspapers, such as The Economist, are extremely careful not to accept payments, in cash or in kind, from companies that may be seeking to influence them"

Are you kidding me? They print everything for their advetising partners, especially The Economist.

"The point is does it have an unfair impact on those WITHOUT an FT contract."

No it hasn´t cause their influence is not significant, as i already said. Its indeed the opposite as one study brought to light. Local markets profit from FairTrades by higher prices.

I seioursly doubt that the author of the economist article expressed those views because he was paid to or pressured by large corporations. It's if you are suggesting that he knows he is wrong but he just needs the money.
That's like suggesting that posters to this forum are in the pay of large corporations.

It may be having bad effects now but I would just point out that it may in time pressure everyone to do as much, raising the overall price suppliers sell their goods for.

So.... no I don't really see anything wrong with it.

It's not like because of what you describe diplo61 that it's not actually "fair."

It's fair to the people involved and that's that.

All that said don't knock the Economist. They definitely know what the fuck they're talking about.

Surprisingly, I'm sort of against free trade, because it encourages farmers to grow more coffee, tea, etc (which are already cash crops), and thus prices are pushed down even further, and the food becomes more scarce.

The Economist may now what they talk about when it comes to businesses, but it is a capitalist whore (incidentally, it actually doesn't cover much economic articles).

i disagree. free trade is where it is at. subsidies are the devil

@Draugnar: obviously in the US products are allowed to be labeled "tea" (the drink) which don't have tea (the plant) in them; I cannot help you with that one. FWIW some other countries are stricter about food labeling regs.

The difference between teas is mainly in how they are processed after picking:
- White = buds & very young leaves, not oxidised before drying
- Green = not oxidised before drying
- Oolong = allowed (encouraged) to PARTIALLY oxidise before drying
- Black = allowed (encouraged) to FULLY oxidise before drying

To add to the confusion, the Chinese call partially oxidised tea "black" and fully oxidised tea "red". In the west, "red" tea is another name for product from the South African rooiboos plant (which is not camelia sinesis).

The semantics of "tea" product names is a bit OT.

PS: forgot to say that all these come from the plant "Camelia Sinensis". You could use the leaves from one bush to produce all these types of tea.

@Miro: of course local markets benefit from increased income of FT farmers. Similarly, local markets will also suffer if income of non FT farmers decreases.

@Thucy: I agree that it is fair to those involved. No argument there.

@spyman

"I seioursly doubt that the author of the economist article expressed those views because he was paid to or pressured by large corporations"

The author was from an "institute" that claims itself a "think tank for anarcho capitalism" that gets his money from coporations. You can´t tell anyone he is not biased spyman.

Time to come off the fence on this one.

In principle I dislike subsidies. To me the Common Agricultural Policy is one of the biggest things wrong with the EU. How can I object to a subsidy given to a European farmer and approve of them when given to an African? Where do you draw the line?

As I mentioned, in the previous post there is no doubt that for those growers who are able to sell their product this way Fair Trade is a good thing, and it will also benefit the local economy. In a way, you can see FT as aid given in a way that does not create a dependence culture (unless people stop buying FT).

Even with good intentions it must distort the market in some way. The problem is that we don't really see the consequences. In theory it will encourage more supply but does it happen in practice? I don't know. Miro says the volume of Fair Trade purchases is insignificant and therefore it won't. He is probably right about that, I hope he is, but again I don't know.

FT is definitely good for some but I have a nasty feeling that the law of unintended consequences is going to show up at some point.

In short, I am still on the fence.

But one have to say that the FairTrade products get no subsidies, i hope nobody gets a wrong idea about that.
And the EU has its fingers off this branch too, there is only one thing about FairTrade i am concerned about. Is it developing in the wrong way or will it follow its ideals in the future. But this concern is a theoretical one :-)

@Miro: FT is not a subsidy in name but it is in effect as because it artificially increases the price that a farmer receives. I do not "blame" the EU for FT, simply stating my position to another agricultural subsidy scheme.

"another agricultural subsidy scheme. "
As i said FairTrade products get no subsidies, so "another" doesn´t fit here, or did i miss something?

@Miro: there is another potential problem in FT which is the validating organisations themselves.

Plato asked "quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" who guards the guards?. How independent are these organisations? Some are developing into nice little businesses in competition with each other. A grower keen to get an FT contract might shop around for an agency willing to validate that his estate meets required standards and he might feel it appropriate to reward the agency for doing so. There have already been some questions about validation of sustainable logging in Indonesia.

This is a bit like the way that the credit crisis has revelaed that the ratings agencies (Standard & Poors, Dunn & Bradstreet) were not quite as independent as they should have beem.

There is allways a black sheep no doubt. But a systematic misuse is not in sight, they even can´t afford it. Systematic corruption would be the death of FairTrade itself

@Miro: I agree, systematic abuse is not in sight and would be a very major issue if it happens. The thing is systematic abuse starts one case at a time so they need to be very careful. I predict a few scandals along the way.

i disagree. free trade is where it is at. subsidies are the devil

Subsidies are the devil (they wouldn't be if they led to higher wages, but they don't). If we are to have FT, it should be applied to essential crops, not cash crops.