What I found most intriguing about Colonial Pasts and Fair Trade Futures is that this is the first time our class has been exposed to the downsides of pursuing the Fair Trade framework within an industry.
Discussing the Darjeeling Tea industry of West Bengal, Sarah Besky identifies that perhaps it is better for this industry to stick to the infrastructure left by its British colonizers. This to me was surprising, as I have never heard that colonial infrastructure is in the best interest of freed colonies.
Upon reading Besky’s explanation however, this structure would make sense for the Bengali tea industry. Colonial institutions set up a framework for the tea industry and it was maintained after freedom. Colonial labor policies adapted into the Plantation Labor Act (PLA) which “guarantees plantation worker’s social welfare, insisting that owners provide workers housing, health care, food rations, and schooling for children.” Besky describes the colonial institution as a “positive legacy of an otherwise exploitative colonial regime,” and I agree.
What I found a little disappointing after having spent weeks discussing the benefits and good work that comes from a Fair Trade business framework, is to hear that in this industry it has failed its purpose to promote social justice.
In this area, Fair Trade was adopted because it was a way for plantation owners to get around their obligations to provide social benefits to their employees according to PLA. Fair Trade standards are far more flexible than the laws adopted from the colonial system. Additionally, it seems that there is little Fair Trade education among the workers. For example a Joint Body, a group elected group of representatives from the industry and community to manage, investigate and uphold fair trade values, was implemented in the region. However, in this case the Joint Body was selected the owners. The Joint Body did not represent the whole group and some people did not even know what it was. Additionally, some community members did not know the concept of fair trade.
I think that this is an indication that some aspects of the Fair Trade framework should be reworked. In this case, the original system ensured the best interests of the workers in mind more strictly than Fair Trade standards. Perhaps there can be an amendment made that Fair Trade guidelines will be implemented in places that do not have an existing framework for worker’s interests. In areas that have laws already in place to protect workers, the standards held should be the stricter guidelines to ensure worker’s are truly being treated in all fairness.

After reading “Colonial Past and Fair Trade Futures,” I was exposed to a downside of fair trade. I can clearly see how Darjeeling tea-plantation owners are co-opting fair trade and using it to solve postcolonial demand problems. Fair Trade was seen as a way to avoid costs and marketing woes. Neoliberals uphold the free market, a market that is free of obstacles to trade such as national government policies and a market that privileges the power of private interests over publicly held institutions. However, fair trade aims to direct capital into the hands of empowered small farmers. It is disheartening to see that a fair trade ideology is not being used effectively.

The article was surprising most of the time, but I could see overall that all people must ideologically buy into the system of fair trade for effectiveness. However, the workers are not entrenched in fair trade that is leading to problems. They are reverting to the old system that is not helping. Some even say, “The British time was better.” The colonial times, to them, expressed a stable tea supply.

It is shocking to see that fair trade has benefited the owners and not the workers. The hierarchy structure creates a dividing line and makes it hard for both to work in a joint manner. I did not know this problem could be created through fair trade, but for this tea-plantation, it is a major problem, which continues to surprise me.

Fair trade emphasizes nongovernmental regulation and individual empowerment, but challenges the disenfranchisement that such policies cause. A possible improvement includes the expansion of FLO and other organizations that will help the understanding of local legal codes and histories. It is interesting to see the challenges fair trade has provided in this piece because it makes me think of different issues that are caused as a result.

This article of "Colonial Pasts and Fair Trade Futures" definitely presents a very different viewpoint on Fair Trade. The author seems to play devil's advocate a lot and show the different "what if"s of the affects of Fair Trade and other possible methods of improvement in the tea industry. Two things that stood out to me was the suggested reforms of the Plantations Labor Act made by plantation owners, and colonialism in India and how it affects the tea industry.

The first thing that struck me was how the planters are seeking to "update" the Plantations Labor Act (PLA) discussed on page 99. Currently, PLA instructs plantation owners to have to provide social welfare to their workers. This includes: houses, medical care, firewood, and food. Deeming these "social costs" and burdens, plantation owners no longer want to provide these for their workers. This fact sparks some conflicting feelings with me.

Upon first reading this fact regarding the PLA, I was pleasantly surprised that plantation owners were even providing social welfare to their plantation workers in the first place. It comforts me that these people aren't left to fend for themselves. That being said, I feel like I don't know enough about the monetary situation of the workers to develop a proper opinion on the matter. The article doesn't state how much these workers are getting paid. It doesn't blatantly stay that these people are living in total poverty, but do we assume this to be true? If these workers are actually adequately paid, then I think it is safe to say that they can pay for these "social costs" themselves. Looking at business in general, employees usually do get benefits from their companies however, food and housing is never provided. If these workers aren't adequately paid, then it is obviously horrible that these tea plantation and factor workers no longer want to provide for them.

The second thing that I found to be interesting was how the article brushed up on the fall of colonialism within India and its affects on the tea industry. I think it's a good analysis to look at the economic and political side of things; to factors that I think have a huge weight on the state of how businesses are able to operate. The British slowly turned their Darjeeling tea plantations over to elite Indians, who soon realized that they did not have enough capital to operate these plantations smoothly (pg. 103). When the British eventually left, not only was the government in India not strong, but the tea industry itself collapsed as well and suffered.

I think this collapse of the industry and the fact that the Indian government was left in a period of vulnerability paved the way for a questionable current state of the tea industry today. Luckily the PLA was able to be formed to help alleviate this situation, but I think this is important to keep in mind that similar to what we discussed in Blood Coltan, while not as extreme, may be something that is deeply rooted in the political and economical state of how things are in India. Rather than trying to tackle what the main issues in the tea industry is, maybe we have to examine the overall economical state of things to see if there is any overlap with what issues are arising within the tea industry.

The tea industry generally seems to be facing a lot of trouble in general right now. There is a lot of areas for improvement and revisions on policies, laws, regulations, etc. How we go about fixing all of these issues is something that we all have yet to see.

In Sarah Besky’s “Colonial Pasts and Fair Trade Futures,” Besky discusses the negative impact fair trade certification has on the Darjeeling Tea Plantations. Before reading this chapter, I had always thought that nothing negative or bad could come out of Fair Trade and being fair trade certified. However, in Besky’s chapter, she talks about how the workers of the Darjeeling tea plantations feel : “how deplorable and often illegal the conditions of their life and employment really are,” (Besky 98). Besky continues to talk about the “problems that fair trade certification, with its emphasis on direct trade, have created for workers on Darjeeling tea plantations,” (Besky 99).

Although the main point of ‘Fair Trade’ is to help the workers, and individual small farmers, in the case of the Darjeeling tea plantations, being fair trade has actually benefited the owners and not the workers. The owners of the Darjeeling tea plantations are seeking to earn fair trade certification on the basis that it not only “attests to the equitable treatment of workers, but it also provides owners a way to get their tea directly to foreign and boutique markets,” (Besky 99).

What I found unbelievable was that even though fair trade is supposed to benefit the workers and promote social welfare, it has failed to serve its purpose within the Darjeeling tea industry. Before the adaptation of fair trade policies and standards from the Fair Trade Labeling Organizations International (FLO), the plantations had to adhere to very strict Colonial regulations. Namely, the Plantations Labor Act (PLA), required that “owners provide workers houses, medical facilities, firewood, and food rations,” (Besky 99). To learn that the plantation owners are adopting Fair trade standards to avoid having to adhere to the PLA regulations is very disheartening.

Reading the chapter has made me see how fair trade can have negative impacts on certain industries when not implemented for the right reasons. As Besky states, in the case of the Darjeeling tea plantations, “fair trade is actually a destabilizing force, which erodes the headway that older, colonially rooted modes of regulation have made in maintaining the quality of life on plantations” (Beskky 101).

Similarly, another factor that stood out to me as very striking was the statement that one of the reasons fair trade certifications attracts owners is that “fair trade standards are more flexible than labor law, and since there is minimal oversight, owners can often cut corners on labor practices and still keep fair trade certification” (Besky 104). It was quite upsetting to learn that there exists a case where fair trade standards are considered lax when compared with the colonial regulations! It was upsetting to learn that owners are seeking to be fair trade certified to AVOID having to follow the strict labor laws, thus getting out of the legal obligation to provide for the workers and promote good working conditions.

If the plantation owners are seeking to be fair trade certified for the wrong reasons, and if they continue to dishonor the core ideals of fair trade, perhaps it is for the best to keep the old laws and to not adopt fair trade standards (at least for the Darjeeling tea industry). It pains me to even suggest not seeking to be fair trade. However, if the owners are abusing fair trade standards and what it means to be fair trade, and IF the workers would have been better off if the plantations followed the old PLA regulations, then I believe it is better for them to be not fair trade (given that this option will lead to even a slightly better conditions and treatment of the workers).

I was always under the impression that Fair Trade was always the best option to ensure social justice for indigenous people. My past beliefs were only strengthened by what we learned about in the class from the exploitation of people in the Congo in the Coltan trade or the use of child labor in the cocoa industry. However, Sarah Besky has provides us with an example in which this is not the case. In “Colonial Pasts and Fair Trade Futures,” Besky shows that the fair trade framework can sometimes be detrimental to an area and draws examples from the Darjeeling Tea Trade.

Besky explains how the colonial framework left behind by the British was actually socially and economically beneficial to the indigenous people of the area. Colonial labor policies guarantee the welfare of the plantation workers. The Plantation Labor Act states that owners must provide workers with housing, schooling for the workers’ children, proper food rations, and even health care. While British colonial rule might have been exploitive in many other ways, the framework they left behind for plantations was actually very fair.

Interjecting Fair Trade into the current colonial style structure is detrimental to the wellbeing of the indigenous people of the area. The laws that govern “fair trade” are very loosely written and they offer a way out for plantation owners who don’t want to pay for the welfare of their employees. In fact, by operating through “fair trade,” employers can abstain from providing healthcare and schooling for workers’ children. Thus the Plantation Labor Act is ignored and all of the social benefits that go along with are swept away.

In most cases, Fair Trade is still the best and fairest option to ensure social welfare for the indigenous people of an area, but this case does provide me with something to think about. It is good to be open minded at all times and never limit your mind by just assuming that something that is seemingly good, must be the best option in all cases. In all honesty, I believe that I learned the most from this case study than any of the other texts we have read over the course of the semester. It is great to have an understanding of the potential pitfalls of pursuing fair trade.

Sarah Besky’s article, “Colonial Pasts and Fair Trade Futures,” takes on a different approach to the implementation of Fair Trade and the outcomes from it. I found this article very interesting, as Besky takes a surprising route in the article, by arguing that Fair Trade is not always as beneficial as we believe it to be. This reading definitely opened my eyes and my mind that there are still two sides to what Fair Trade does and is. There are always two sides to a situation, and I think that it is important that our class is educated on the fact that Fair Trade does not always work out as smoothly as we would like it to.

Besky focuses on the Darjeeling tea trade in her article as an example of when Fair Trade is not always beneficial, and points out that while Darjeeling tea is some of the priciest tea in the world, in West Bengal, where the Darjeeling district is located, (fair trade) tea laborers are paid India’s lowest wages. In Darjeeling, the implementation of FLO standards seemingly benefits owners, not workers. Fair Trade standards do not reflect that plantations are hierarchical, which makes it impossible for resources to be managed jointly. Apparently, FLO implicitly assumes that through “democratically elected bodies,” fair trade revenue will be distributed where it is needed most. Besky points out that because plantations are hierarchical, revenue will not necessarily be distributed where it is supposed to go and tends to spread unevenly throughout the different levels.

Although Fair Trade does not appear to have the benefits within Darjeeling tea plantations that it was set up to provide, Besky points out a different positive that Fair Trade provides to these plantations and workers. “Fair trade certification was an effective and lucrative means of reaching U.S. and European markets without participation in the auction system. The benefits of this is that it can shorten the commodity chain and allow plantations to trade directly with international retailers, though it is hard to say if this is completely beneficial for the workers whom Fair Trade aims to empower. Plantations and Businesses especially in the Darjeeling area according to Besky see the benefits of becoming Fair Trade, not necessarily to provide workers with improved pay and conditions but to break into the international markets. I understand this point that Besky makes as Fair Trade products have become a mainstream way of providing social justice to other areas for our society. It is a way that people feel as if we can help benefit others, while still being provided with products we enjoy in return.

Besky’s article definitely opened my eyes to the side where Fair Trade is not as beneficial or is abused in ways that we can’t control. However, although Fair Trade may not be at the point that it should be, by providing workers with their deserved pay, for the most case, it continues to be the best trade option to ensure social justice and welfare for individuals. Besky leaves one point of how fair trade can improve in which she states: “one possible avenue for improvement is an expansion of FLO and other organizations’ understanding of local legal codes and labor histories, something that social scientists are uniquely positioned to provide.

This reading, “Colonial Pasts and Fair Trade Futures: Changing Modes of Production and Regulation on Darjeeling Tea Plantations” was interesting because it was the first reading we have had that shed a negative light on Fair Trade.

The author, Sarah Besky, stated, “Fair Trade certification attracts owners because (1) Fair Trade standards are more flexible than labor law, and since there is minimal oversight, owners can often cut corners on labor practices and still keep Fair Trade certification.” This was the first time a fact has revealed that there are loophole-like infractions in the fair trade economic system.

I found this to be very disappointing because if a set-up system such as fair trade is unjust, then i question whether or not complete justice is ever fully possible. Fair trade is supposed to empower laborers and give them justice. However, when it turns out that owners are cutting corners on labor practices while still maintaining their Fair Trade certification, the certification itself loses integrity and because discouraging.

Another fact that author Sarah Besky pointed out was that “a label has power...in this case to shift the perceptions of consumers about companies that are only marginally committed to the social and economic conditions of the agricultural communities.” This was yet another example of companies/owners misusing the Fair Trade label/certification.

I find this false marketing/advertising to truly be despicable because it is blatantly lying to consumers to attempt to maximize profits by acting as if their companies are socially or ethically responsible and instead being the opposite by taking advantage of their consumers. This false advertising is a ploy to maximize their profits which is one of the reasons why fair trade certification started in the first place--to empowerthe workers that are victims of corporations that take advantage of the workers as they try to capitalize to the best of their ability.

Sarah Besky’s article presented a very different view from the other fair trade articles we have read and what we have talked about in class. When I first read she was arguing against fair trade I was confused. How could protecting workers’ social welfare and wages be wrong? Once she got further into her argument, I could understand her point of view, since plantation owners sometimes abuse the fair trade system and cover it up to keep their fair trade certification. I was naïve to the fact that this could happen.

It seems that the old system during the colonial regime was a lot better for the workers. They received good pay, housing, money for the children’s education, and health benefits. Workers were able to provide and life a quality life. It would be ideal if the legislation in place could be changed to go back to the old system; however, plantation owners would freak out since they would be required to pay out much more money. It seems to be a difficult scenario. The options of fair trade and of reverting to the old laws present problems for improving workers’ social welfare.

I found the neoliberal theory to be interesting. It seems like an ideal situation to have a democratic system, free trade, and environmental protection. However, I worry that without any governmental involvement, workers will get taken advantage of and abused through this system. The plantation owners won’t have anyone to answer to and they would cover up any wrongdoing on their part. It seems to me there is a problem with this system.

I hope there can be a solution for the workers in Darjeeling tea plantations. I think reverting back to the old laws seems sort of impossible given the owners probably don’t have enough money or won’t be willing to pay for all the worker benefits. Fair trade I think can help, but there would have to be a lot more regulation put in place to make sure the owners aren’t abusing the fair trade system for higher profits.

Sarah Besky's article, "Colonial Pasts and Fair Trade Futures" painted a very different portrait of fair trade than what we have been exposed to in previous readings. Much like the condition of the Congo, described in Black Gold and the cocoa bean plantations on the Ivory Cost, the plantation workers on Darjeeling's tea plantations have are suffering at the hands of corporate greed. However, in this case, their suffering has been intensified by the implementation of Fair Trade standards. It was very eye-opening to read about ways that the Fair Trade business model has been manipulated to benefit plantation owners rather than the plantation workers.

The article began by explaining the past colonization of India that built up the strong tea industry in existence today. It went on to describe how the British colonization framework required owners workers houses, medical facilities, firewood, and food rations to ensure they lived somewhat of a just life. However, owners began to obtain fair trade certification as a means of working around these regulations which has negatively affected the lives of employees. Because the requirements of a Fair Trade certified company are significantly more lenient, and less strictly enforced than the requirements of the Plantation Labor Act, which was previously enforced.

It was very upsetting to read about an instance in which Fair Trade certification has had a negative effect on workers' livelihoods. Unfortunately, I find it hard to believe that this is the only instance in the world in which fair trade certification has been detrimental to workers' lives, and there are likely similar situations throughout the world. The article stated that the FLO does not enforce the regulations very strongly, which allows plantation owners to abuse the system. It is very hard to hear that in certain industries, even after the change has been made to become Fair Trade certified, the lives of the workers can continue to deteriorate because the FLO is not enforcing the regulations that were required. This also means that the marketing and sales completed by people in developed countries to spread the work about Fair Trade could be in vain if the regulations are not enforced enough to improve the working conditions of manufacturers in impoverished countries.

In this article, "Colional Pasts and Fair Trade Futures: Changing Modes of Production and Regulation on Darjeeling Tea Plantations" by Sarah Besky this most glaringly obvious thing that stands out is that Fair Trade is not helping these people. Every case we have looked at this semester has shown the positive aspects of Fair Trade and how implementing it in new places could be beneficial. This article actually talks about how it has had negative impacts and how the Colonial system was actually better for the workers. Besky talks about how the rules and regulations left by the British Colonial system already made it law that plantation worker's had to have access to basic healthcare, housing, food and education. Now with new Fair Trade laws they actually aren't required to fulfill all of those requirements and due to direct access to foreign markets the owners actually make more profit without the middlemen.

I think the problem here is that in a place like Darjeeling, India they already had a system that was working well for them. The workers might not have been getting rich, but they were living under decent conditions. I think that Fair Trade is a system that can only be implemented in it's current form in severely impoverished places. The rules and regulations of the current Fair Trade certification process are actually worse for these workers than their old system. That is because the Fair Trade system was meant to move extremely poor and mistreated workers into a better system. These Darjeeling tea workers were not in that bad of a situation so the Fair Trade system couldn't help them move up to a better life. In a case such as this you need to change the regulations of Fair Trade certification to fit their specific circumstances. You can't expect a one size fit's all kind of deal with Fair Trade. Sometimes you need to change it so that it fits each specific scenario.

Another interesting aspect of the article was when Besky talked about the power of a label. She was referring to the way a label creates, changes and shifts the perceptions of a consumer. When a person buys a product they automatically assume things about how ethical they are and how their products are made and of what quality.

In this case I think the issue is that many consumers may actually think that because this tea is being more ethically produced and that workers are better off now. This can lead to more people buying the tea and the owners making more and more money while workers get less. This is how a Fair Trade label can actually hurt the workers. If consumers could see that the old tea without it's new "Fair Trade" label was actually better for the workers they might use their power through the idea of "buying is voting" to shift their purchases. This is a very unique case but in this circumstance the owners of the Darjeeling tea plantations are actually abusing the positive image and consumer view of the Fair Trade label.

Yet another eye opening article! I feel embarrassed to say that I had no idea that these injustices happened in the production of tea, but I cannot say I am surprised. I was disappointed to read that fair trade regulations had made such little impact in the darjeeling tea plantations.

Members of the Darjeeling Tea Association are trying to cut out the clauses of the Plantations Labor Act to lower their costs, and not have to provide as much for their workers, like housing, healthcare, schooling, and food. The Tea association also pushes for fair trade certification, which the author, Sarah Besky, argues is not the right thing. Currently, the owners of the Tea productions are making more money than the workers, which is true of most for-profit businesses, yet the workers in this case seem to be treated unfairly,like many of the cases we have read. It does seem as though the Darjeeling Tea Association pushes for Fair trade to get out of fully supporting their workers. It really is amazing how so many companies, domestic and international, will try to avoid providing fair compensation and benefits for their workers.

The author believes that tea auctioning and colonial-inspired labor codes can be more effective regulators in social justice than fair trade, which focuses on individual rights and empowerment. Besky believes that reverting back to the colonial labor laws would be more beneficial to the people who work in the Darjeeling tea industry. I find it sad that something we have so strongly supported in our class (Fair Trade), has been failing the Darjeeling Tea Industry, and workers are still being exploited. Besky also mentions more examples of how Fair Trade labels are misused. I think this goes to show that implementation is such a key part of Fair Trade, and that each case where fair trade is needed is different. For example, the cocoa industry might need different rules and regulations within Fair Trade, than the Tea industry.

I think overall, this article was a great read for our class because we were able to see another side of Fair Trade. I think it will make for a good discussion to be able to compare and contrast the benefits of Fair Trade, and how it needs to be implemented. In addition, this article also made me feel discouraged about Fair Trade and the future of workers who are brutally exploited all over the globe. It is discouraging to see Fair Trade failing in a place where it has been instated.

I enjoyed reading this article as I think Sarah Besky did a great job in her explanation of both the old regime and the new way that tea plantations get there products to the market. She sheds a different outlook on Fair Trade and what affect it has had on Laborers. In the Darjeeling Plantation, according to the article, it states that FT has made little impact. In fact, Sarah Besky, calls FT an international certification scheme. She states, in the case of the Darjeeling Tea Plantation and their regulatory processes – that FT has upset the way Tea is produced and auctioned off. It’s different than all the other articles we have read, that explain the exploitation of unfair child labor, this exploits FT and what affect it has had on Laborers and economic development in India. It’s amazing to read the history of the tea industry from the mid 1800’s that Sarah so greatly explains and think about how Tea plantations have evolved and how to this day it is such a lucrative crop. If one could only fathom that its never about land why there are wars, its about power – power with which we have learned about in our prior readings.

Sarah points out the flaws that fair trade has, as with any new thing or business that is catching on, however, we have to realize that not everything is a perfect system especially where money and profit is involved. I think the most disturbing thing of the entire reading that stood out to me was when the old woman that Sarah Besky was interviewing stated: “The British time was better.” This tells me that conditions are much worse than it used to be. FLO definitely has lots of improvements to make if they are to really impact the lives of farmers, families in a good way.

The first thing that impacted me the most about this reading was the lack of awareness about fair trade that the workers in the Darjeeling tea plantations. The plantation was fair trade certified, yet it was not doing anything that was demanded from having such standards. The author goes into detail of how it lacked in the three major statutes of fair trade, but the shocking part was that the majority of the workers were not even aware they were in such a system or that it even existed.

The second most impactful thing about the reading was the blatant exploitation of the tea plantation owners; both to exploiting the workers and the community. Specifically, on the unfairly economic benefits from the revenue that comes from the plantation. The price floor (if there’s a price floor) set by the fair trade standards committee benefits the plantation owners directly because the majority of the workers are paid a minimum wage set by labor negotiations. To make matters worse, the price premium that is supposed to go into community development is being used to pay for the necessary requirements set forth by the labor agreement signed in the 50s. This will put more profit in the pocket of the owners and less will be received by the workers.

There are definitely factors that are wrong with fair trade and pieces like these are invaluable for advancing the fair trade mission. I think the author is a bit cynical since she tends to make the claim that the colonial system has a lot of benefits. However, like any developing country, corruption will be high and people trying to find loopholes in the system will always be present. The most important conclusion is to acknowledge the problems and find solutions so that the idealism behind fair trade can actually be accomplished. It’s shocking how much is wrong with the current system in Darjeeling, but there are other areas that definitely show much more improvement. Hopefully, now that some of the problems are being addressed, more action is being taken by both the consumer and the labeling body.

This recent article about the injustices in the tea industry were so interesting and showed some of the flaws within Fair Trade.

The first point about the article I found interesting is how Sarah lived in the the Indian culture to get a full understanding about what kinds of systems work and what do not in the Colonial culture. It was very eye-opening that Sarah would be so forthcoming to put herself in that type of situation in order for her to get a better knowledge of the inner workings of the tea crops. This type of action is very inspiring to me that some one would do something like this just for the good of it.

Another point in the article that challenged me was the notion that croppers were using fair trade as a loophole. This idea was very interesting because it displayed a moment where fair trade was not the best option at hand. Although this idea is upsetting, we also need to understand that fair trade is a fairly new idea and still needs to work out its kinks for it to be as successful as its fans want it to be. Even though most of us want fair trade to be the only option, we also need to understand that sometimes our help inly creates harm.

Despite the challenges I found with fair trade in this article, I still think it was very interesting to learn about the tea industry and hopefully we can somewhat regulate fair trade within it to create equality for all.

Sarah Besky’s “Colonial Pasts and Fair Trade Futures” describes the impact of Fair Trade certification on the Darjeeling tea plantations in India. According to Besky, plantation owners want to become Fair Trade certified so they can skirt pre-existing regulations, the established auction system, and requirements (from the Plantation Labor Act, established during British colonial rule) to provide a specific degree of social welfare. In the Darjeeling tea business, Besky argues the previous rules and regulations worked better than Fair Trade.

If Besky’s claims are true, and the workers do not benefit from Fair Trade agreements in Darjeeling, then this should be a wakeup call to the Fair Trade governing boards to step in and remove their certification. It should not be acceptable for a farm owner to display a Fair Trade badge on their wares without strict adherence to the rules. It was disheartening to read that workers were not aware of the Fair Trade mission, or the profits generated by the farm, as Fair Trade certification requires.

According to FLO, all Fair Trade certified businesses are certified on a three year basis, with surveillance audits along the way. http://www.flo-cert.net/flo-cert/64.html?&L=0 The requirements towards becoming and remaining Fair Trade do not seem to give a plantation the flexibility to take advantage of its workers, or staff the “Joint Body” with the owners friends, but I’m sure these things happen as soon as the auditors leave. Maybe auditors aren’t looking hard enough, for long enough. Besky states early on that she spent a great deal of time just talking to the locals, an amount of time I’m sure an auditor doesn’t have.

This article raised another interesting idea: that bigger corporations (such as Dunkin Donuts or Starbucks) stand to gain a lot of positive attention with only “marginal commitment” to carrying Fair Trade products. It gives a consumer the false impression that a company is deeply vested in Fair Trade when only a small sliver of their products are produced through Fair Trade agreements. “Fair Trade” or “organic” labels give an upscale impression to a consumer that they are not only voting with their wallet but that they have made a choice to shop in a mindful manner. If the company is not committed to Fair Trade, then the impact of that purchase is lessened.