 |
Comments |
|
 | Tuesday, July 7, 2009 at 7:18:12 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Jeff Montgomery
E-mail: jamontgom(at)hotmail.com
URL: http://funwithgravity.blogspot.com
I think Starbucks' store brews tend to contain dark roasts, so I don't care for them that much either. However, I've been home brewing their Sumatra for years; it's full-flavored and smooth. Coffees from the South Pacific region are my favorite in the world, hands down.
Other than possible ties to bad political organizations, what would be the down sides of "fair trade"? |
|
| Tuesday, July 7, 2009 at 11:35:24 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Faye
I think the downside of a "fair trade" policy is philosophical. It implies that trade is normally unfair or immoral. Of course, companies participating in fair trade are willingly paying more than the market price for goods and services (as I understand it), which isn't a problem per se. I think they also make sure that the work practices of the companies they do business with meet certain standards which, again, isn't an issue as far as I can tell. The idea that you have to qualify the business you do and the profits you make is what's wrong.
I would be interested to know if there are also some unintended economic effects of companies willingly paying more than the market price for goods or services. Anyone know about that? |
|
| Tuesday, July 7, 2009 at 16:52:31 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Park Jennings
E-mail: ceasar911(at)yahoo.com
Faye,
Well, it isn't really "willingly paying more than the market price" because they are able to "premium brand" their product; much the same as "organic food" or "clean energy." Both of those are invariably poof-ball, meaningless fluff terms that allow hippies, yippies, and environuts to practice their version of conspicuous consumption (think of the dreadlocked, hybrid-driving, organic-cotton-wearing tree huggers at the last Trader Joes you went to; what coffee do you think they drink?). I'm sure that the retailers compete for the lowest price amongst suppliers that can colorably claim to be "fair trade."
My main problem with "fair trade" products, and why I avoid them if at all possible, is that it is almost unerringly just double-speak for environmentalist, anti-globalist anti-capitalism. From my knowledge, "fair trade" means one of the following: pesticide-free, "organic," (again, a meaningless and undefined term) or non-large-scale, non-corporate farming, with the idea that at least most of the employers in the supply chain (farmers, packagers, processors, etc) pay a "living wage" or some other euphemism for above-market wages. Let's be clear, though, we're talking they get paid 75 cents instead of 55 cents per day; if you look at the actual numbers, you'd be surprised how little those bleeding hearts are actually bleeding. Or in the case of the non-large-scale-commercial farmers products, that the farmers/suppliers were small companies, families, or co-ops. Again, note the hypocrisy and meaningless of the term "fair trade," as the small scale (family farms, co-ops, etc) suppliers are invariably paid barely enough to scrape by, the exact opposite of the idea of a "living wage."
The other side:
With respect to the "fair" or "living" wages products: While I'm all for charging the highest price the market will bear, whether you are the worker or the employer, I think that such ideas are either foolishly misguided or just straight up altruistic "charity." The point of the higher wages part of "fair trade" is to improve the lots of impoverished third world workers. However, they are poor because they live in socialist, tribalistic tin-pot dictatorships that do not even know what human rights are, not because Americans are somehow too greedy to pay them their "fair share." It's the old "give a man a fish vs. teach him to fish" thing, or worse, old-school Engles/Marxism and "worker exploitation."
That's my 2 cents. |
|
| Tuesday, July 7, 2009 at 16:56:42 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Park Jennings
E-mail: ceasar911(at)yahoo.com
Clarification: on my "the other side" part, when I say "I think that such ideas...," I mean "fair trade" ideas of "fair wages" or whatever other euphemism is used for higher wages paid in contradiction of market supply & demand. |
|
| Tuesday, July 7, 2009 at 17:58:37 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Don Kenner
E-mail: dbkenner(at)gmail.com
I saw an article a year or so back that alleged that the organic farms and fair trade markets had a horrific record in terms of the treatment of their employees; treatment that was given cover by exalted status they receive under the fog of "organic" or "fair trade." Sort of like when PETA was caught destroying puppies. I agree with most of what's been said here on this subject, but I would offer two points:
1. Disliking the ideology or politics behind a movement doesn't NECESSARILY mean it has nothing valuable to offer. I get my milk from a "christian farm" that produces raw milk, free-range eggs, and grass-fed beef. The woman who greets me inevitably speaks of food produced "the way God intended." Her children (all adorable) have names like Malachi and Sarah and wear those long-sleeved, full-length, Amish-style clothes (in the Texas Summer!). Same thing with fair trade: there are some coffees that only seem to be produced in a "fair trade" variety.
2. While terms like "organic" are fuzzy, it is beneficial to purchase food products because of what is NOT in them, such as hormones in milk. We simply don't know enough about the long-term effects of consuming this.
There are too many Marxists and Christians involved in the "alternative" food arena. Their ideologies obscure a rational discussion of the value many things, from hormone-free milk to pesticide-free veggies to Rwandan coffee. If these people really cared about alternative foods they'd lobby to have the government regulations removed that hinder such foods from competing in the marketplace. Then we'd have an organic economy that ran the way God intended :) |
|
| Tuesday, July 7, 2009 at 19:54:56 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Park,
The actual effect of a policy, however, may be different from the rationale that is given for adopting it. For example, the Rule of St. Benedict prescribes that monks should work with their hands, and that they should sell their products as a price somewhat less than the going market rate, as a demonstration of Christian charity. St. Benedict does not discuss price competition as a selling point or a method of effective competition, but of course it is! |
|
| Wednesday, July 8, 2009 at 5:22:33 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Park Jennings said: "My main problem with "fair trade" products, and why I avoid them if at all possible, is that it is almost unerringly just double-speak for environmentalist, anti-globalist anti-capitalism."
Yes, that's exactly my objection. |
|
| Wednesday, July 8, 2009 at 11:03:31 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Park Jennings
E-mail: ceasar911(at)yahoo.com
Mr. Kenner said, "...obscure a rational discussion of the value of many things, from hormone-free milk..."
The crusade against rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone, the genetically modified hormone that substantially increases the amount of milk a milk cow will produce), like that against DDT, is a breath-taking example of irrational, mindless, unthinking chicken-little-ism. The entire problems would be solved if people were instructed in the principles of a basic, high-school level course in basic molecular bio-chem. Complex chemicals and proteins such as DDT and rGBH affect a lifeform by binding on receptor sites. If there is no receptor site, the compound is unable to have any effect (except for toxicity: anything can be present in quantities so large that their mere presence inhibits normal function; think of marathon runners who die from drinking too much water). The receptor binding sites for rBGH, like DDT, are specific to non-human species. Only life forms in parts of the insect kingdom are susceptible to DDT, and only animals in the bovine family have the rBGH receptor. Humans have a similar process to be sure, but it's a different hormone; it's a round hole, square peg deal if you tried to cross the two. This is the same principle that allows you to use herbicides that kill certain weeds (i.e. dandelions), but not your grass; the receptor that the herbicide binds to is not present in the grass, but is present in the weeds.
This is born out by close, detailed reading of critiques of rBGH. The only threats that they can actually back up are that the increased milk production will possibly increase the incidence of opportunistic bacterial infection of the cow's teats, which would result from increased milking due to the higher milk production. Increased milk production will also increase the physical stress on the milk cows, but I hope we aren't talking about a cow's feelings. There is also the (easily dismissed) "precautionary principle" that we haven't disproved all potential negative effects. Any argument based on the "precautionary principle" are, of course, arbitrary assertions calling for the proving of a negative (double your logical fallacies, double your fun).
-Park |
|
| Wednesday, July 8, 2009 at 13:34:05 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
From what I've heard from vets specializing in dairy cows, rBGH dramatically increases the incidence of mastitis (udder infection) in milk cows. So its use in cows producing raw milk for consumption qua raw milk is exceedingly dangerous: the milk is likely to be infected with nasty bacteria. And, as readers know, I vastly prefer raw milk to to pasteurized milk for all kinds of reasons, including taste. (I don't drink pasteurized milk, except about once a month in a latte.) I wouldn't even dream of drinking raw milk from cows treated with hormones; it's dangerous.
That's not such a problem with pasteurized milk, of course. The pasteurization process kills the bacteria in milk produced by cows with rBGH-induced mastitis. However, I think that's disturbing. Personally, I don't find the prospect of drinking cooked cow puss with my cooked milk particularly appealing, even if not a health risk. (But -- in this case -- to each his own!)
Moreover, I would imagine that almost all dairy cows treated with rBGH are fed grains (and other crap) in confined spaces. In other words, they aren't on pasture. That means that the milk will be nutritionally deficient with respect to CLA, K2, etc. See, for example, this study on CLA: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/isez/fb/2005/00000053/A00104s ...
Hence, if I'm going to buy milk, I will choose to buy milk from cows not treated with rBGH. If that means the cows are happier too, that's great! Animals that provide a useful service to humans -- whether as pets, livestock, or wildlife -- are a value to me, and they're not mere automatons. Even with them, I prefer a kind of trade rather than mere exploitation. That's the kind of person that I want to be, and I value other people who adopt the same approach. For example, a person who would run over my dog, then leave it by the side of the road because it's not their dog is a person that I want absolutely nothing to do with. Similarly, the kind of person who would swerve on the road to hit a crossing turtle for the "fun" of killing it -- as my mother once saw someone do -- is not a person that I would ever wish to interact with in any way, shape, or form. Moreover, I could not feel the kind of intense attachment to my own beasts that I do if I were indifferent to the welfare of other living creatures, particularly sentient, domestic animals.
So yeah, I care about the "cow's feelings," to put the point in Park's dismissive terms. I like to get my milk from contented cows. To do so is not a sacrifice for me: it's an all-around win-win. |
|
| Wednesday, July 8, 2009 at 14:01:24 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: alicehb
E-mail: alicehawley(at)gmail.com
I read the abstract for the study you quoted. It appears that the difference in CLA between hay fed and maize fed cows varied between a 2% difference (150 vs. 153) and 28% (303 vs. 415).
The question is if these differences, while statistically significant, are really significant/relevant with respect to the amount of CLA needed for good health (which I don't have time to track down).
Just something to consider when interpreting these types of papers. |
|
| Thursday, July 9, 2009 at 10:33:51 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Park Jennings
E-mail: ceasar911(at)yahoo.com
Diana said: "From what I've heard from vets specializing in dairy cows, rBGH dramatically increases the incidence of mastitis (udder infection) in milk cows. So its use in cows producing raw milk for consumption qua raw milk is exceedingly dangerous: the milk is likely to be infected with nasty bacteria."
Mrs. Hsieh,
First of all, that sounds a little vague. There is no inherent property of rBGH that leads, in and of itself, to bacterial infections. rBGH is linked to an increase in bacterial udder infection or bacterial transmission solely because the increased production of milk requires more frequent or longer milking. Farm animals, of course, have lots of bacteria on them, and a milk cow's udder is no exception. It's just a hazard of the trade that such bacteria get into the milk being extracted from the cow. Given that bacterial contamination of milk is practically inescapable, something that increases the number of times or duration of milking increases opportunities for such contamination, i.e. increases the risk of bacterial transmission.
Also, the milking process can cause the udder to become infected, or mastitis, because of the vigorous physical contact inherent in milking (again, cows' udders frequently have bacteria on them). This occurs at some level of incidence in both rBGH and non-treated milk cows. Thus, the higher rate of biological production of milk caused by rBGH "leads to more risk" of bacterial infection in non-pasteurized milk b/c of the resulting increase in milking (either frequency or duration, transferred to the milk itself or infecting the cow).
Furthermore, as you pointed out, almost all use of rBGH is in large-scale agribusinesses, which (from what I know) universally pasteurize and homogenize their milk. So, any increase in the possibility of bacterial infection is totally moot for such products; it's a total red herring/straw man. (That's addressing the broader discussion, not just Mrs. Hsieh's comments).
-Park Jennings |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
Comments
