New_Consumer's Articles

World Consumer Rights Day launches Junk Food Generation campaign

New_Consumer — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:04:42 GMT

Gemma Taylor writes:

Tomorrow, 15 March, marks World Consumer Rights Day 2008. This year?s theme is ?Junk Food Generation?.

The Consumers International (CI) campaign is asking the World Health Organisation (WHO) for an international code to ban the marketing of unhealthy food to children. The Junk Food Generation campaign will launch tomorrow as an ongoing campaign, urging ministers to support the code ahead of the World Health Assembly (WHA) in May 2008.

About 22 million children around the world under the age of five are already overweight or obese, due to unhealthy diets, which can lead to health problems, including heart disease which is on the rise, including in low and middle-income countries.

The Soil Association released a report last year, ?Not What the Doctor Ordered?. It looked at vending machines in a sample of sports centres and hospitals, across England and Wales, and found they are still dominated by the fatty snacks, fizzy drinks and confectionery that have been banned from schools to protect children's health.

Coca-Cola and McDonalds sponsoring London?s 2012 Olympics is a textbook example of how fast food brands even manage to dominate areas supposedly dedicated to health and fitness, and send out a confusing message to young consumers, priming them to be the next tired, unhealthy, apathetic, Junk Food Generation.

Organic Body Launches Compostable Bags

New_Consumer — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:00:31 GMT

Gemma Taylor writes:

A carrier bag that can degrade in as little as 35 days, compared to up to a 1000 years for the traditional plastic carrier, has been launched by Organic Farmers & Growers (OF&G).

OF&G, which inspects and licenses thousands of organic farms and food manufacturers across the UK, set about finding an alternative carrier, as: ?Putting products in plastic bags that will linger in the environment for hundreds of years does not sit at all well with the principles of organic food and farming?, explains Richard Jacobs, OF&G?s chief exec.

The bag is produced from non-GM cornstarch, grown on land that would otherwise be non-productive, and will fully degrade with 35-45 days - if correctly composted. The bags will also break down within months if any of them end up caught in hedges or trees, breaking down into harmless elements.

A compostable bag does, however, require a two-way process. The eco-manufacturing will go to waste if consumers allow the bag to end up in landfill, as in a largely anaerobic environment nothing really breaks down, whether it be a plastic bottle, a newspaper, an apple core or a ?compostable? bag.

OF&G recognises the bag is not perfect but is a ?better alternative? and plans to use it as a tool to educate consumers about composting. The bags are available to all interested retailers, not just OF&G?s licensees.

Planet Organic checked in its branded cornstarch carriers last years, which can break down within six months.

Do you think the cornstarch carrier is a good way forward, or would you still rather see the typically single-use bag banned?

More at www.newconsumer.com

Sumatran Tigers Are Being Sold Into Extinction

New_Consumer — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:21:35 GMT

Laws designed to protect the critically endangered Sumatran Tiger are being openly flouted, according to a TRAFFIC report released recently.

Tiger body parts, including canine teeth, claws, skin pieces, whiskers and bones, were found in one in ten of the 326 retail outlets surveyed during 2006, in 28 cities and towns across Sumatra. Typical outlets included goldsmiths, souvenir or antique shops and Chinese medicine shops.

Based on the number of canine teeth on sale, the survey conservatively estimates that 23 tigers were killed to supply to products seen.

'This is down from an estimate of 52 killed per year in 1999-2000', said Julia Ng, Programme Officer with TRAFFIC Southeast Asia and lead author on The Tiger Trade Revisited in Sumatra, Indonesia.

'Sadly, the decline in availability appears to be due to the dwindling number of tigers left in the wild. The Sumatran tiger population is estimated to be fewer than 400 to 500 individuals. It doesn't take a mathematician to work out that the Sumatran Tiger will disappear like the Javan and Bali tigers if the poaching and trade continues.'

TRAFFIC's surveys have indicated that the main hubs for the tiger trade are Medan, the capital of North Sumatra province, and Pancur Batu, a smaller town situated about 15 km away. The report recommends that resources and efforts should be concentrated on effective enforcement. Despite providing authorities with details of traders involved, it is not clear whether any serious enforcement action has been taken.

'This is an enforcement crisis. If Indonesian authorities need enforcement help from the international community they should ask for it. If not, they should demonstrate they are taking enforcement seriously,' said Heather Sohl, Wildlife Trade Officer at WWF-UK: 'Successive surveys continue to show that Sumatran tigers are being sold body part by body part into extinction.'

Sumatra's remaining tigers are also under threat from habitat loss, due to deforestation by the pulp and paper and palm oil industries.

'The Sumatran tiger is already listed as Critically Endangered on IUCN's Red List of Threatened Species, the highest category of threat before extinction in the wild,' explains Jane Smart, Head of IUCN?s Species Programme. 'We cannot afford to lose any more of these magnificent creatures.'

More at www.newconsumer.com

EU Fuelling Human Rights Disaster in Indonesia

New_Consumer — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:16:23 GMT

Palm oil production for food and biofuels is resulting in wide spread human rights abuses in Indonesia according to a report released by a coalition of international environmental groups.

In 'Losing Ground' Friends of the Earth, Sawit Watch, and LifeMosaic expose the huge social problems being fuelled by EU targets to increase the use of biofuels in transport.

The report reveals that oil palm companies often use violent tactics to grab land from indigenous communities with the collusion of the police and authorities. Previously self-reliant families, who were able to meet their own needs from the forest around them, complain of being tricked into giving up their land with the promise of jobs and new developments.

Instead they end up locked into debt and poorly paid work, while the bounty of the rainforest is replaced with monotonous oil palm plantations. Pollution from pesticides, fertilisers and the pressing process is also leaving some villages without clean water.

The European Commission has recently proposed a target for 10 per cent of road transport fuel to come from biofuels by 2020 in an attempt to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, despite mounting evidence that biofuels fail to deliver such reductions.

Hannah Griffiths, Friends of the Earth biofuels campaigner, said: 'This report shows that as well as being bad for the environment, biofuels from palm oil are a disaster for people. MEPs should listen to the evidence and use the forthcoming debate on this in the European Parliament to reject the 10 per cent target. Instead of introducing targets for more biofuels the EU should insist that all new cars are designed to be super efficient.'

Eighty-five per cent of the worlds Palm Oil is produced in plantations in Indonesia and Malaysia. According to local government plans Indonesia alone plans a further 20million hectares of plantations by 2020 - an area the size of England, Holland and Switzerland combined.

Serge Marti from LifeMosaic, author of Losing Ground, said: 'The European Commission is proposing sustainability criteria for biofuels but they do not include any attempts to address the social impacts of biofuel production. This means that the EU's increased biofuel use will lead to more of the types of problems exposed in Losing Ground as more land is converted to meet the increased demand for palm oil.'

More at www.newconsumer.com

Divine responds to Unfair Trade report

New_Consumer — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:09:25 GMT

The ?Unfair Trade? report from the Adam Smith Institute (ASI), marked the start of Fairtrade Fortnight by claiming there are a number of ?inconvenient truths? about the Fairtrade certification scheme.

We caught up with Divine, the Fairtrade Chocolate Company co-owned by the cocoa farmers cooperative Kuapa Kokoo in Ghana, to ask what it thought of ASI?s criticisms of Fairtrade.

ASI claims that a ?very small number? of farmers benefit from a higher price for their produce through Fairtrade certification, and that this comes at the expense of many other farmers who, unable to qualify for Fairtrade, are left even worse off.

Divine says: ?Worldwide seven million people (farmers and their dependents) are now benefitting from Fairtrade - and Kuapa Kokoo alone, the cooperative that co-owns Divine Chocolate has 45000 members - a significant proportion of cocoa farmers in Ghana. These are not 'small numbers'. In addition, although 45000 are members of the cooperative, the benefits such as the wells, healthcare, sanitation and schools funded by the Fairtrade premium, benefit the much wider community.?

With regards to these benefits leaving others worse off, Divine says: ?It is not clear how, when some farmers are benefitting from Fairtrade, others who are not members of a Fairtrade organisation are worse off than they were before? There is no reason or evidence for this.?

The ASI report says ?the Fairtrade scheme does not aid economic development. It sustains uncompetitive farmers on their land, holding back diversification, mechanisation and moves up the value chain. In doing so it denies future generations the chance of a better life.'

In Divine?s experience: ?Fairtrade is about capacity building, and not just a fairer deal at the point of sale.?

?Cocoa is the second largest export from Ghana and so very important economically. Anything which improves the lot of cocoa farmers is therefore of benefit to Ghana as a whole - and this includes farmers being able to afford to send their children to school and therefore have opportunities to get jobs and contribute in other ways to the economy,? explains Divine.

With regards to diversification, Divine agrees it?s very important to introduce other income streams, but is something that needs capital and training.

?Kuapa Kokoo members have access to both - and both men and women are accessing the money and skills to be able to grow, process and sell other goods.? Divine continues to put ASI?s allegations in the shade: ?Regarding mechanisation - cocoa grows best in the shade of the tropical rainforest - an environment that doesn't lend itself easily to large vehicles or large equipment. Presumably if cocoa harvesting mechanisation was possible Cadbury's would have done it years ago in Ghana??

Regarding the value chain, Divine has created a business model where Kuapa Kokoo owns 45 per cent of the business. ?This ownership model places cocoa farmers higher up the value chain - ensuring they benefit from the lucrative market they are helping to create. This year Kuapa Kokoo received the first Dividend from Divine Chocolate - so this approach is succeeding in reality - not just in theory.?

?Unfair Trade? said one of the things that would most surprise consumers was that 'only 10 percent of the premium they pay for their Fairtrade products actually gets to the producer. The rest goes to people further along the retail chain.'

Divine explains how; ?whatever price the retailers sell Fairtrade products, the farmers have already received the Fairtrade price and premium for their cocoa.? It acknowledges that retailers put margins on Fairtrade products, as they do with everything they sell, but it doesn?t affect the premium already paid.

Despite businesses like Divine proving that Fairtrade has significant widespread benefits, the ASI report says, not just, that 'Fairtrade is not the only way to make a difference? but that ?it is not the best way either.'

As there are other ways to trade ethically, without Fairtrade certification, why was it the choice of Divine?

?The difference Divine and Fairtrade is trying to make is to make a significant impact on poverty in the developing world through enabling a fairer and more sustainable exchange for the crops farmers are growing. The alternative is aid which is arbitrary and not empowering,? explains Divine.

?Divine was born with the ambition to close the gap between producers and consumers and to address the inequity between the big chocolate companies getting richer and the farmers in the south being unable to afford the things we take for granted. Fairtrade is a certification scheme which consumers can trust because it is independently audited - unlike any other ethical endorsement.? No one, Divine included, is claiming that the Fairtrade movement can?t be improved, to the contrary: ?It certainly can and will be improved upon over the years - but it is working and it's working on a big commercial scale. And this is because consumers want it to work.?

Divine concludes: ?It is still small - but at a growth of 81 per cent in UK alone over the last year - it's proving itself robust and a real force for change and, importantly, it has made sure that trade issues have stayed high on the agenda and brought to the attention of consumers, business and governments alike.?

We hope the report doesn?t deter Fairtrade shoppers. It is true that there are farmers still affected by unfair trade, which is why the Fairtrade movement continues to expand to benefit more producers and their communities. The certification is a guarantee that your purchases aren?t exacerbating poverty and profiting already rich companies. If ethical trading was the norm there wouldn?t be a need for certification schemes, so it seems ironic to point the finger at those who are actually making a real difference.

More at www.newconsumer.com

Oxfam Warns of ?Food Mile Fantasy?

New_Consumer — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:04:12 GMT

Oxfam has expressed its concern that confusion around food miles could jeopardise the sale of Fairtrade products. The charity is appealing to shoppers not to fall for the over-simplified ?food mile fantasy? that promises to save the planet but threatens to make life worse for thousands of poor farmers around the world.

As Fairtrade Fortnight gathered pace, Duncan Green, Head of Research at Oxfam said: ?Buying green is rightly at the forefront of consumers? minds but rejecting foods on the grounds of how far they have travelled oversimplifies the issue, unfairly punishes farmers from poor countries, and may even lead to higher emissions.?

The concept of ?food miles? does not take into account the amount of carbon that is generated during the production and retail process, and is therefore a misleading indicator for consumers, as distance doesn?t necessarily equate to higher total emissions.

If consumers are genuinely concerned about lowering emissions to combat climate change then UK consumers should look closer to home. Food miles associated to the export of fresh fruit and vegetables from sub-Saharan Africa equate to only 0.1 per cent of the UK?s entire carbon emissions. Switching to low-energy light bulbs can reduce more emissions than rejecting fresh fruit and vegetables from Africa - and doesn?t affect the 1.5 million people in Africa who depend on agricultural exports to the UK for a living.

Green said: ?Oversimplified concepts about how to tackle climate change are not only failing to give consumers the whole picture, but jeopardising the livelihoods of people who are already facing terrific challenges due to climate change. They are the least responsible for climate change and should not have to pay the highest price.?

?The food miles debate needs to be looked at again to ensure consumers have the information they need to buy green without undermining the, often fragile, livelihoods of poor farmers around the world?, Green urges.

Buying Fairtrade goods means people can help poor farmers around the world while also being mindful of the environmental impact of their purchase. Fairtrade schemes also promote sustainable agricultural practices, and with Fairtrade premiums, farmers? organisations have the opportunity to invest in their own environmental programmes, such as recycling, tree planting, installing solar lighting and providing fuel-efficient stoves.

More at www.newconsumer.com

Sumatra?s Remaining Forests at Risk

New_Consumer — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:59:44 GMT

A new report from WWF and partners has revealed how the destruction of Sumatra?s forests is driving global change and species extinction.

The study found that 4.2 million hectares, or 65 per cent, of tropical forests and peat swamp have been cleared in central Sumatra's Riau Province, in the last 25 years. The forest loss, degradation, decomposition and fires, from just this one province are, on average, equivalent to 122 percent of the Netherlands total annual emissions - or 39 per cent of annual UK emissions.

Riau was chosen for the study because it is home to vast peatlands estimated to hold Southeast Asia?s largest store of carbon, and contains some of the most critical habitat for Sumatran elephants and tigers. It also has Indonesia's highest deforestation rate, substantially driven by pulpwood and palm oil plantations, including the operations of global paper giants Asia Pulp & Paper (APP) and Asia Pacific Resources International Holdings Limited (APRIL).

In the same 25 year period, there has been an 84 per cent decline in elephant populations, down to only 210 individuals, while tiger populations are estimated to have declined by 70 per cent to perhaps just 192 individuals. The study predicts that unless the last remaining patches of tiger habitat are connected by wildlife corridors, Riau will no longer have a viable tiger population.

?We found that Sumatra's elephants and tigers are disappearing even faster than their forests are in Riau,? said WWF International's Species Programme Director, Dr Susan Lieberman. ?This is happening because as wildlife search for new habitat and food sources, they increasingly come into conflict with people and are killed.?

A TRAFFIC report earlier this month exposed how Sumatran tigers are also being literally being sold into extinction, flouting existing laws aimed at protecting the species.

?The fragmentation and opening up of new forest areas also increases both the access and the opportunities for poaching?, explains Lieberman.

Both the Indonesian Minister of Forestry and the Governor of the Riau Province have pledged to protect the remaining forests. WWF is working urgently with the Indonesian government and the pulp and palm oil industries to identify and protect the forests that are home to elephants, tigers, orang-utans and rhinos. Sumatra is the only place on Earth where all four species co-exist.

?If the commitments by the Indonesian government are implemented, it will not only save its endangered species but actually slow the rate of global climate change through the carbon savings,? said Ian Kosasih, director of WWF-Indonesia's forest programme.

The full report, ?Deforestation, Forest Degradation, Biodiversity Loss, and CO2 Emissions in Riau, Sumatra, Indonesia,? is available to download on the WWF website.

More at www.newconsumer.com

Vatican Suggests Seven Modern Sins

New_Consumer — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:54:40 GMT

Thou shall not pollute the earth, thou shall not violate human rights. . .These, and other, sins of our times could be reflected in a new set of seven modern sins.

Archbishop Gianfranco revealed in an interview with the Vatican newspaper, L?Osservatore Romano, that seven modern sins should be added to the traditional sins, to encourage the practice of confession again. It seems the Vatican thinks we?re more likely to confess to sins such as pollution over pride, or environmental pollution over envy.

The modern mortal sins are:

Environmental pollution

Genetic manipulation

Accumulating excessive wealth

Inflicting poverty

Drug trafficking and consumption

Morally debatable experiments

Violation of fundamental rights of human nature

Gianfranco said: ?Within bioethics there are areas where we absolutely must denounce some violations of the fundamental rights of human nature through experiments and genetic manipulation whose outcome is difficult to predict and control.?

It looks like we?re all sinners in way or another, it?s unlikely there?s any of us that escapes the environmental pollution sin. What do you think? Do they reflect the ?sins? of our times? Are you about to readily confess your guilt ? are you less likely to pollute if its categorised as a sin?

More at www.newconsumer.com

Are You Part of the Refund Nation?

New_Consumer — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 12:48:12 GMT

Do you shop on impulse, excusing it by thinking you can always take it back if you change your mind, and often do? If so, you?re not alone.

British shoppers receive a whopping �119.2 million worth of refunds a week - or �6.2 billion a year, according to a new report published today on the UK?s spending habits.

The research, commissioned by TOTAL UK, found eight of out ten shoppers have a non-committal spending attitude, and nearly 22.8 million Brits would bend the truth to get their cash back.

Of the top five most common refund behaviours, the most classic ?reason? is pretending an item was a gift.

Next, we?ve all bought something one time or another only to see it in the sale a week later - but have you returned the full-price item? This is the second most common refund practice, to return it and then go back and buy the same item at a discount.

Buying two sets of clothing (e.g. bikinis or footwear) and then returning one item of each size, pretending they were mismatched at purchase, is the next most common.

Then it?s deliberately damaging an item. Ahem, if it is this common there must be some interesting confessions out there?

And in fifth place is altering an item of clothing to fit, then returning it (e.g. Shortening trousers). Er, just how exactly do you get away with this?

While this is a light-hearted look at shopping habits the results point to what you probably already know, we?re shopping mad. A massive 2.9 million of us back up this theory by admitting they cannot afford to shop, but enjoy it so much they often buy an item only to get it refunded later.

Joanna Briggs, a 23 year old graduate, living in London admits to being a compulsive returner: ?Usually they are impulse buys that I change my mind on when I get home. I once bought a dress that I knew I couldn?t afford, wore it to a birthday party with the label still in it. The next day I gave it a good airing and a splash of Febreze, before taking it back to the shop.?

Briggs didn?t feel guilty about hiring the dress for a fully-refundable deposit: ?I?m sure the shop put it back on the shelves so didn?t lose out,? she says: ?Besides these are massive retailers who make a lot of money from us by putting a huge mark up on items. I don?t think anyone should feel guilty about taking anything back for a refund.?

While refunds can be a sign of savvy shopping, for example 2.4 million Brits returned at least one unwanted Christmas gift in January 2008, preventing them cluttering up homes or landfills, this flippant approach to shopping can also mean you end up with more unwanted stuff. Knowing you can return something makes impulse buys all the easier, but then perhaps you can?t be bothered to take it back even if it?s not right.

Three out of ten Brits admit they simply ?can?t be bothered? to return genuinely faulty items, with 53 per cent of under 34s not bothering to return a faulty item at some point.

How does the refund rationale work for you? Does it mean you have more stuff in your wardrobe that should be returned? Or does it provide you with an opportunity to get the buzz of a spree without any actual expense, as you stick the cash back on your card?

How often do you take things back? Is this a good or bad habit? How can we change our habits?

Go on, share your stories of refund shame with us. Splurge away.

More at www.newconsumer.com

Where Now for the Fair Trade Movement?

New_Consumer — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 16:05:29 GMT

The huge variety of Fair Trade coffee brands which leapt out of the shelves as I trudged round Morrison?s supermarket brought a smile to my face. I picked up a packet of Union Hand-Roasted coffee from Rwanda which I hadn?t seen before. ?Taking Poverty out of Genocide? the packaging proudly announced as it explained that the coffee came from a cooperative formed in Rwanda following the horrific civil war.

As I stood in the checkout queue I reflected on just how far the fair trade movement had come. Most supermarkets now stock a wide range of fair trade goods with some like Marks and Spencer refusing to sell coffee which doesn?t have a fair trade label. Consumers are engaged and aware while the retailers seem genuinely keen to promote and sell fair trade goods.

And the fact that we now have something like a Rwandan Fair Trade coffee is testament to just how far we have come. It makes you feel really good and I am proud to have been part of the wider movement to promote the concept of fair trade.

But what next for Fair Trade? Is it just a question of creating more brands with a fair trade label so that our choice of fair trade goods is increased or is deeper thinking required? Some producers believe that the next stage should be ?Fair Trade Plus? where a much greater proportion of the total income raised goes back to the producer country. They believe they should be involved in the packaging and marketing, for example, and that the percentage of the total income from the sale of goods currently remaining in the rich western countries is far too high.

No-one has ever claimed that Fair Trade was the answer to everything but it does lift thousands of people out of poverty and it does empower consumers in the rich West who feel powerless to change a world where the rich get rich and the poor get poorer. It raises consciousness and just by changing shopping habits consumers become involved in a call to action.

But the concept of Fair Trade can actually challenge the whole global economic system if it is moved on. The same bold and imaginative entrepreneurialism which was behind the founding of the fair trade movement now needs to be applied to the next stage.

So, by way of illustration, let?s look at the ?Fair Trade Plus? notion which some of the producers want. When you buy any product from a retail outlet, the mark-up will be around 100%. Therefore, the potential income from the increasing sale of fair trade coffee in any supermarket is potentially huge. Supermarket chains make massive profits. Let?s imagine a Fair Trade supermarket where the shareholders are the producers. It means that they are not only getting income from the sale of raw materials but they are receiving significant revenue from the sale of the finished product.

If you take this illustration on further then you end up with fair trade shipping, fair trade packaging, fair trade wholesale and fair trade retail up to a point where the whole supply chain from the planting right through to the sale is underpinned by the values of Fair Trade and controlled and owned by the producers in the poorer countries linked to social enterprises or cooperatives in the West.

What the fair trade movement has done to date has been brilliant but if we want to change the world completely and really eradicate poverty then we have to tackle the current global economic system by taking really bold steps and building on the foundation which has been created already. It is time for the Fair Trade Supermarket.

Mel Young, Founder, New Consumer Magazine

Beads Bonanza

New_Consumer — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:19:31 GMT

JEN MARSDEN WRITES:

We?ve seen Kenya hit the headlines this month with violence and unrest. Behind the politics, small businesses have been helping create a better life for their workers ? with that smallest of trinkets, the bead.

Nani Croze set up a glass production company in remote Kitengela when she realised planting trees next to her basic mud hut would not pay her children?s school fees. Instead she taught herself stained glass window-making in three weeks.

Nowadays Nani and her local team of fifty staff are producing 300 glass beads per day in addition to a booming glass blowing business using traditional 200-year-old techniques on a 30-acre plot. The pieces, sold all over the world ? including the reputable Shared Earth shops across the UK ? are brimming with creativity and enthusiasm.

?People?s attitudes are most definitely changing towards the types of beads, with less gold and silver. Glass beads for fashion jewellery is far more popular,? says Croze. As a bead-maker she has noticed increased demand from local and global markets.

Raymond Goes, General Manager of local firm Kazuri Beads, agrees. ?People are moving away from gemstones, gold and silverware. Someone could have been shot just for the sake of a diamond. Do you want to buy something that could have cost someone?s life? Move away from that ? do something cheaper, less dangerous. You don?t have to worry about the insurance. Look colourful.?

Kazuri, meaning ?small and beautiful? in Kiswahili, was set up in 1975 by philanthropist Susan Wood who noticed the struggles of single women in the slums of Nairobi. The simplicity of Kazuri?s hand-crafted, hand-painted clay beads has led to success ? they recently reached production capacity on their original site. Despite the recent death of their chairman, plans to open a school for the workers? children locally, building another factory elsewhere in the city, and expanding their twenty plus retail outlets are just some of the targets on the cards next year.

Staff numbers have been increasing by about 60 every year (from 80 to nearly 350 staff in just four years), and Kazuri get a gold star for fair wages - earning approximately $7 a day compared to the Kenyan minimum wage of $2. However to these working single mums it?s more than just the salary ? you can tell by the mischievous grins on faces as you wander around the jubilant premises. Free health care from an on-site nurse, supplies of washing powder and sanitary towels, transport to and from work, regular tea breaks, a pension scheme, extended annual leave and bonuses from profits are just some of the perks.

There?s also career development potential, a seriously lacking aspect of jobs in Kenya. Eight of the management team and all the local retail staff started on the factory floor making the beads, due to the forward-thinking company philosophy of ?you?ve got to get your hands dirty? to truly understand the product.

Kazuri produces some 30,000 beads within the seven and half hour working days, with a variety of over 12,000 pieces that are exported to over 30 countries, including the UK. A whopping 75% of their total sales are from overseas (of which approximately 25,000 go to the UK), which sell for about $13-16 a necklace. Whilst an eyebrow may be raised for the shipping in of the high quality clasps and nickel-free glazes from the US, UK and South Africa, this is to ensure they conform to EU standards required for the export market.

Most recently, new gem on the block Made was set up to employ over thirty disadvantaged youths from Kibera, the largest slum in Nairobi. The brainchild of another ex-pat, Italian-born Cristina Cisilino, Made proudly uses traditional, local materials such as brass and bone, scavenged wood and recycled glass. As their values state, ?you can?t eat money or make bracelets from bank notes?. Workers are paid similar wages to those at Kazuri, with free hot meals, health assistance and transport.

All the workers own a stake in the workshop in the hope that Cisilino can take a back seat in the near future. Already they are empowered in deciding where to spend 5% of their net profits for community projects that may improve sanitation, healthcare and local schools within the slums.

Amidst cries of ?air-miles?, is there a good argument for exporting Kenyan jewellery? Kazuri?s Raymond Goes thinks so. ?The Western world needs to be made aware of the unemployment in Africa. There?s a lot. People need steady jobs. If we do not export there is no awareness.?

Croze also admits, ?We?re moving too much of one thing to another place?if it?s cranberries from Canada, then I think that?s really going over the top and completely wasteful and unnecessary, however if it?s craft items from Africa then I think it?s worthwhile.? The perfect rationale for buying these enchanting charms.

More at www.newconsumer.com

The Queen of Fairtrade

New_Consumer — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:37:46 GMT

Tanis Taylor meets Harriet Lamb, Director of The Fairtrade Foundation and leading light in the fight to make trade fairer for everyone in this world

In the late Seventeen Hundreds the British public were shifting, uncomfortably, in their seats. Slavery made their lives easier, yes. It was economically beneficial to the nation, granted. But increasingly it sat wrong with right-thinking folk. When in 1783 slaves themselves began publicly detailing the human cost of enslavement the matter went from being uncomfortable, to being unacceptable. Today we have some seat shifting of our own to do. A similar injustice is blighting our time, explains Harriet Lamb - the villeinage of millions of farmers, producers and their families, denied dignified livelihoods so that we can buy cheap bananas. Capitalism is as cruel as any slave-driver and the shackles of free trade bite just as deep. Again, just as in 1783, Lamb believes that it is the public that hold the key to its abolition.

2008 will be the year, Lamb hopes that we tip from the uncomfortable to the un-acceptable. The Executive Director of the Fairtrade Foundation since 2001 she has seen the organisation grow from a handful of employees with three capsule products to an international player with 70 employees and global reach, contributing to the livelihood of seven million farmers, workers and their families and putting chocolate bars, wine, tea, spices, even school shirts (�16 from M&S) on our supermarket shelves. The Fairtrade mark gives the public a living alternative to food that is processed - and oppressed- by guaranteeing the producer a good wage. And if profit margins are any indicator of public support then we are �300m per annum behind it.

Lamb is a lioness. A handsome woman in her mid forties she makes an unshakeable argument for Fairtrade, on a daily basis - to government, supermarkets, the public, anyone who will listen (during Fairtrade Fortnight she will be conducting the UK-wide Fairtrade bus). She arrives to our interview with Powerpoint presentations of UN food commodity figures and a patter peppered with anecdotes from far flung lands ? of Jorge of El Buabo, Amos in Dominica, Ganga in Andhra Pradesh. She is driven by what Dr Martin Luther King called the ?fierce urgency of now?; she talks passionately, animatedly, as if she's running out of breath. While my tea has barely cooled her coffee is long since finished yet her sentences are thoughtful, measured, poetic; of how the Windward Isles stared 'ruin in the face' and how Fairtrade's 'ambitions are as big as the needs are huge.' When she laughs, which is frequently, she throws her head back, creases her eyes and collapses into gales of schoolgirl giggles.

Lamb explains that, since the Seventies we have been experiencing a commodity 'crisis'. The price of our staples ? jute, coffee, cotton, sugar, tea, bananas ? have been steadily falling so that where, in the Fifties, we spent a third of our family income on food, today it is just a fifth. Everybody loves a bargain, she admits, but the price of our bananas have fallen by forty per cent. 'And you can't have that kind of price cut without someone, somewhere paying the price.' Usually it is the most vulnerable people at the end of a very long supply chain who are squeezed to the point where they cannot afford the basics ? food, shelter, education, safety.

One solution says Lamb is Fairtrade. She cites me an example. On the Windward Isles in the Caribbean farmers had all but given up growing bananas; there was a brain drain, gangs were forming, guns appearing, 'Chaos loomed and social breakdown threatened.' Ultimately the downturn was reversed through a hard-won Fairtrade contract. Natives returned, crops replenished, there was hope for the future, the first premium was used to buy a lawnmower and create a football pitch, the second to install street lighting. With the gang lords in goalie and security restored the island?s economy recovered and Fairtrade was attributed, by the President of Dominica, as its salvation. It?s a microcosmic example, duplicable on a global scale.

That's the heartstring pitch for Fairtrade. If you want a self interested one then, it?s worth recognising that a divided world is a dangerous place to live. That ?to have an increasing gulf growing up amongst over opulence sitting absolutely alongside incredible poverty threatens peace.' For stability, you need to tackle said injustices. And pay more for your coffee.

So what are the next steps to making Fairtrade truly sustainable? Is it Government intervention, regulation, Fairtrade supermarkets to follow in the footsteps of the Fairtrade Town, Universities and faith groups? What would Lamb do if she were in Number Ten? She settles, magisterially into the swivel chair. 'If I was the government I would put a lot of support behind Fairtrade because it is the one game in town that tackles poverty through trade.' She says. 'Government are failing in the World Trade talks, trade is a catastrophe in terms of delivery for development and Fairtrade is a scheme that offers them a way to help trade tackle poverty. I would say let's use this model, and I would finance it to really take it to scale.' Would you regulate the scheme, ensure all producers sign up to a FT mandate? 'Nnno.' She says, 'No. We wouldn't be in favour of regulation because the temptation then is to set the bar very very low.' Big business will lobby, whips would whip and the mark would become diluted. As it is, the mark is a voluntary scheme, owned by the producers, driven by the public with integrity and credibility. In a recent piece of research DFID identified the Fairtrade mark as the most recognised (and ergo trusted) ethical label. Their rigor and neutrality is their strength and Government should recognise that. Besides, she says, if she was our Premier there would be other, pressing items on the agenda. Big, structural changes that would see our government joining up with the whole of Europe and members of the World Trade Organisation to hammer out the much vaulted, long talked about zero delivery development deal of trade.

In the absence of a coup we, the public, have a job to do. To buy Fairtrade. To ask for it in shops and cafes, request it at school, insist on it at work and to never take our 'foot off the pedal.' To buy Fairtrade, not just because we?re dappy for Green & Blacks Dark & Almond, but because by doing so we are giving government a clear mandate that says we, the public, want you to be very brave in world trade negotiations. We want you to put the interest of developing countries further forward because we're doing it, every day, in our household budgeting. 'I think that's the really critical thing about Fairtrade. Is that it?s sending a positive message to government. We are creating a political space in which government can make big bold decisions about trade.' Naturally they will be nervous, such decisions may not be in our short-term economic interest, and run counterintuitive to the corporate appetite but government will rest assured that they have the public firmly in their corner, as evidenced by our every day shopping practises. 'We' says Lamb, 'have got to create the mandate for them to do it. And make it difficult for them not to.'

Back in the Seventeen hundreds Britain's economists were in a fit of pique. The abolition of slavery, they explained, would signal a catastrophe. Our entire economy depended on it, they trilled, the entire British Empire will collapse! Which, as it happens, it was going to anyway, and which, interestingly, is what today's doomsayers say about a fair deal for the developing world. Ultimately, back then, it was the masses not the mathematicians that proved decisive. Once people knew about the injustices of slavery it became impossible to un-know it again. Just as once you know the people who are growing your produce work unbelievably hard and don't get a fair wage you can't un-forget that again. ?Once upon a time it was fine that there were slaves, and then became unacceptable. In the same way the huge injustices of world trade, once exposed should be unthinkable.' It will be our leaders that follow us. But it is we who need lead the charge.

Kicking It with Colin Farrell

New_Consumer — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:24:59 GMT

Written by Homeless World Cup

This Saturday, Kicking It, the documentary about the story of the Homeless World Cup, premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in Utah. Narrated by Colin Farrell, the film chronicles the lives of seven players taking a once in a lifetime opportunity to represent their country at the Cape Town 2006 Homeless World Cup. Najib from war torn Afghanistan; Alex from the slums of Kenya; Damien and Simon from the drug rehab clinics of Dublin, Ireland; Craig from the streets of Charlotte, North Carolina; Jesus from the overflowing public shelters of Madrid, Spain, and Slavan from the shadow culture of the illegal rural immigrants to the big city of St. Petersburg, Russia.Colin Farrell was up for a chat about his thoughts on the film, homelessness and football. Warm, disarmingly open and honest, with a sincere heart and genuine concern for the players and the global issue of homelessness, these are his football poet lauret words that he had to share on the matter:

What moved you to be part of Kicking it?
I was shown the documentary and it's undeniably moving. It represents a truth on the screen and anyone open enough will see elements of themselves in the players. It has every emotion - hope, fear, love, strength, generosity - every emotion that we feel as people. So I wanted to be involved for selfish reasons, I think its an important story that needs to be told. Just the opening screen - one billion people are homeless without access to a basic human need - that is shocking, that's a sixth of the population.And the part of the movie that stays with you the most?
I'm moved by Najib's innocence, it's a beautiful innocence, by his strength and acceptance of the amount of pain and loss in his life. And yet he has a hope, a belief that the universe will conspire to help him. And of course by Simon's loss of life. You get to know the players, you have a relationship with them and get close to them. His loss is heart-breaking as he looks like one of the strongest, and as he said he had paid his price.

What do you think to the Ireland boys in the film?
You swell with pride. When you see them coming out at half time on to the pitch for the Ireland game against Holland, you just swell with pride.

And your own experience of football?
I played football until I was 15 but I wasn't as good as I thought I was (laughing) and I then I discovered girls and going out and the like. My Dad and Uncle both played for Shamrock Rovers. They told me I wasn't hungry enough. They were right, I thought I wanted to be a footballer but I can't have wanted it enough.Now when I play, if you chucked a football in here right now, then I'd get giddy, i'd be running round the room. It puts me back to a time in life when everything was more simple. When there was a sense of community. You know it was great, you would get your tee shirt off to make the goal and you just run around having a game, I loved it.

What football team do you support?
I don't have team. My Dad always told me - support the game not an individual team, which is a stupid thing to tell a 10 year old, and by the time I realised my Dad was wrong who was I supposed to support. Liverpool because they win? Grimsby Town? No.

Where shall we have the next Homeless World Cup?
Fiji. No, really it has to go to Dublin.

What message would you like to send to the players?
Keep doing what you are doing. Keep on reaching.

Colin Farrell on Kicking It:"Is a roof over one?s head, a place to call home, a sense of belonging and community a lot to ask? These basic human rights are a mere dream to over 1 billion homeless men and women of our planet. Too many of our own live on the fringes of acceptance, exist beyond the boundaries of societal respect, they are not without hope, often without help. The documentary KICKING IT doesn't just imagine but presents and makes real a world where many of society?s lost children are re-finding themselves through sport. Through the simple and beautiful game of football the complex struggle to find meaning and purpose in life is being won by over 20 thousand homeless people all over the world. Football is a poem that beats in the heart of those who play it, a universal language experienced by so many and potentially a cause of great change. KICKING IT is a call to the possibility of this change. It is now our turn to listen and act. I am humbly honored to be part of not only this project, but its message which is more important than most of us can imagine.? ? Colin Farrell

Make a difference - www.globalgiving.com/kickingit
More at www.newconsumer.com

Ethical Brands Worth Looking At

New_Consumer — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:57:37 GMT

As you're probably aware, we exhibited at the Clothes Show Live '07 as the event organisers created a section devoted entirely to ethical fashion (hooray!).

Being at the show was a great chance for us to meet the people behind the hottest brands in ethical fashion. There were many, many organisations there - but a few really stood out for me. And quite frankly it would be wrong of me not to let you know about these little gems...

The first people I met were the folks behind The Earth Collection. I want to point out that this is a truly remarkable brand in more ways than one. Firstly, all of their range is extremely high quality - much of it is part-made with silk so it is very soft to touch. Secondly, the reasonable prices will blow you away! It really isn't expensive at all (with tops starting at just �14) which I was really surprised at, considering the high standards. It just goes to show that it doesn't cost the earth to save the earth, and making the switch to ethical clothing needn't break the bank.

Another brand which stood out for me was THTC. I really love what these guys are doing with their designs - kind of graffiti art with a political message. Very clever. Their clothing is made out of hemp which is a much more versatile crop than cotton, and provides farmers with a lot more than just a source of income.

And lastly (but by no means leastly) I need to tell you about the world?s best bag which I found on the Good One stall. The Good One Bag shopper is genius in its purest form - it gets an important message across in a seriously cheeky way. It's good because it speaks to people quite starkly and it certainly doesn't beat around the bush. I love the sheer insolence of it - so much so that I bought one.

A Decade Since the First Sweatshop Headlines, Dirty Fashion is Selling Faster Than Ever

New_Consumer — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:21:24 GMT

It's been over 10 years since we discovered our clothes were being made in sweatshops. More than a decade since the likes of Nike and Gap were exposed for filling their factories with young children working in slave-like conditions in order to maximise company profits.
Clothing manufacturers would have you believe things are different now - ethical fashion is firmly on the agenda, every other shop has an organic clothing range, and companies have signed up to all manner of trading initiatives - but, according to those in the know, very little has changed.
Simon McRae is senior campaigns officer with anti-poverty campaign group War On Want. He says that while factors such as hours of work and safety might have improved, when it comes to poor wages and the rights of workers to form unions and campaign for better wages and conditions, 'there has been no progress at all'.
In fairness to the stores, at least they acknowledge the problem. When activists first accused Nike, Wal-Mart and Gap of running sweatshops, they denied it, even pleading innocent when images of child labourers in a Bangladeshi factory were revealed. But as pressure increased Amnesty International ran a postcard campaign against Nike, college sports teams stopped wearing the label, and even company spokesman Michael Johnson made it clear Nike had to address the issue - they realised they had to take action.

NO INNOCENTS
Yet that action has not been enough. Asda is currently investigating 80 of its factories in Bangladesh after being accused of breaching labour standards. The Observer recently exposed the fact that Gap's clothing had been made by children as young as nine. The company might have an anti-child labour programme in place but that did nothing to stop the factory it had commissioned outsourcing work to another factory, namely one that employs children.
The United Nations estimates there are 55 million children aged from five to 14 in employment in India, contributing to 20 per cent of its gross national product with. That's despite it being illegal in India to employ children under the age of 14.
"There are no innocent people in this", says McRae, adding that often top designer goods are produced in the same factories as high street ones, yet because they cost so much we don't automatically question how they have been produced.
Bad news for shoppers who desperately want to be ethical, but want to look stylish too. Is this proof that you can't have the best of the both worlds? Will you always have to choose one over the other?
According to McRae that is exactly the case. Shoppers can't have principles if they want to be fashionable. "There is a niche market out there, a demand for products from labourers that are treated ethically, and there are a number of small companies, but not the choice that people want from fashion", he says. "There is stuff out there, but whether it appeals to taste, I'm not sure."
Lauretta Roberts is editor of fashion industry bible Drapers. "It is a complicated issue", she says. "It is not a case of ethical versus fashionable, you can be both but if you wish to be both you have to be prepared to pay that bit more for your clothes."
"Most people, if they saw something with a Fairtrade label, or an organic cotton label or some other badge that promised it was made ethically, would buy it", she says. "But where it falls over is that people are not prepared to pay more. If it was sitting next to something that for all intents and purposes looked the same but didn't have such labels and was a few quid cheaper, they would be quite likely to buy the cheaper option."
"You don't have to pick between ethical and fashionable but you do have to put your money where your mouth is but there are some people who won't."
Tracy Pritchard is head of BA Fashion Design and Fashion Promotion at Glamorgan University in south Wales. She's on a personal mission to get her students - the fashion movers and shakers of the future - to think about the ethics of the clothes they are making.
"They grew up in the 1990s", she says of her current undergraduates, "a terribly disposable culture, and clothes have never been so cheap. I try to re-educate that cultural mindset; that is my goal. They've never had to think about it before, but as soon as they do, they take it on board."
Alongside projects based on recycling and re-purposing clothes, she teaches them to swap their love of fast-fashion for purchases that will last. "I tell them let's not go and buy something for the weekend, let's save up and buy something that will last for the season."

QUICK FIX CULTURE
"We have adopted that American mindset for quick fixes; we have to have everything in an instant. We need to latch onto the Italian and northern European mentality of buying pieces that last."
"We have to get rid of the celebrity thing and mass market, get key people wearing the same clothes and looking good and get known for it."
It's a sentiment Lauretta Roberts from Drapers agrees with. "Fast fashion is driven by the media", she says, pointing to the recent explosion of weekly women's magazines such as Grazia and First, and newspapers running daily fashion spreads, telling us that we are no one if we are not wearing the latest trends. "Trends come and go within the space of a week", she says. "They trend spot, big it up and then kill it so people are dashing about trying to get things. Grazia is probably more influential than Vogue because it is fashion for real people. They'll put something in and it will sell out in days."
"A lot of it is about getting a certain look for less, whether it's designer or celebrity, and new trends", she adds. Saying your new outfit cost you just a few quid from Primark or George at Asda has become a badge of honour, a sign that you are a savvy shopper.

WHAT'S SCARY ABOUT ETHICS?
Faced with this new weekly competition, the monthly magazines are taking matters into their own hands. Marie Claire has always billed itself as having both style and substance, and the last issue of 2007 was an ethically-themed one.
"We expect the latest fashion at the keenest prices but we want to be sure no one keeled over for the sake of our wardrobe", says Marie O'Riordan in her editor's letter in the magazine.
The magazine outlines its ethical policies, such as recycling, printing the magazine on sustainable paper, informing readers about fair and ethically traded products, and attaching cover gifts to the magazine using biodegradable plastic.
In this issue, the free gift was a tote bag in support of the 'anti-plastic retail campaign'. It was made by We Are What We Do, the people who worked with Anya Hindmarch on the �5 'I'm not a plastic bag' shopper.
However, is Marie Claire as worthy as it suggests? Their fashion pages are full of the latest clothes from both the high street and the top designers. Yet, with the odd exception from Stella McCartney, a strict vegetarian who does not use leather or fur in her designs, ethical and mainstream rarely meet. Instead they're pushed onto their own page, 'Small steps' to change the world. Fashion shoots in this edition took in Paris and the Caribbean, rather than say, a London studio, or somewhere else that didn't involve flying a whole team half way across the world. Incidentally, no-one from the magazine was available to speak to New Consumer on the subject of fashion and ethics because they were away on such shoots.
One might question whether what we need is 'big steps' to change the world, rather than small ones, but as Tracy Pritchard points out, as one of the few glossy magazines to take a socially responsible stance, they have to tread carefully. "They are doing small steps so they don't frighten people too quickly", she says. "They are right to take it forward but they have to be very careful. We need small steps in education."
"We know there are politics", she continues. "They can't do that big sweep with a brush as it will frighten off all their readers and no one will buy their magazine. You have to drip feed it little bit at a time. People wouldn't like it if it happened suddenly."
Lauretta Roberts agrees. "I suspect you'll see a change before long. Magazines will be tuned into the consumer psyche and if they get the feeling consumers are looking for something more ethical, then they will do that too."

LAST CALL FOR THE HIGH STREET
We are seeing the same shift on the high street, with everywhere from Oasis and Topshop to Next and Marks & Spencer introducing clothes made from organic cotton.
Other chains are attempting to going further. Gap - the chain that was originally slammed for its poor production practices - is now working on plans that would see products being labelled 'Sweatshop Free'. If other shops followed suit, it could be as successful as the 'RugMark', which has virtually ended child labour in India?s carpet industry.
The big boys still have a long way to go, however, before they match the likes of Howies, which not only uses organic cotton, but once a week staff use their lunch hour to clean up the beach in Cardigan where they are based. Their latest catalogue was photographed along the Teifi River, where they also monitored pollution levels.
As company co-founder David Hieatt says, "One of the worst things you can do for the environment is make something that no-one wants to buy. That is why design is important."
"Man is hardwired to consume. But in these times of limited resources, we will have to learn how to be better consumers and we will have to learn how to be better manufacturers. Going forward, we will share the responsibility for our consumption. For me, to be successful we will have to sell our principles and our good sense of design."
For Simon McRae, placing the responsibility on clothing manufacturers is not enough. He says the changes need to come from much higher.
"We are campaigning the government to introduce regulation of the market", he says.
"It is about how we make the Topshops and the Primarks and the Tescos treat their workers abroad better. And we don't do that by having a small ethical section in a shop."
Boycotting such stores is not the answer, he says. Instead, we need to be more proactive. "Ask the store about its factories" he advises. "They are sensitive about these things. Ask them why there isn't there anything that tells you about the conditions the garments are made in."
"Support groups like ours", he adds. "On our website, you can lobby the government and encourage people to regulate the sector and treat workers overseas the same as workers here. We support people going in on the ground in the factories trying to teach workers their rights."
"It is not about people buying something that is ethical - that's great, I wouldn't discourage that, but it doesn't help the millions of garment workers, 99% of whom will never have the opportunity to make fairtrade clothes."
"In terms of our conscience, it's nice to say it's about shopping smarter, and you definitely can do that, but why shouldn?t people be able to buy fashion that is ethical?"
"After 10 years, it is about time the British companies were held to account."

More at www.newconsumer.com