Fair trade about making ethical choice
Dear Editors,
RE: “Fair trade campus unfair to consumers” (Journal, Feb. 3, 2006).
In his letter to the editors, Cory Bloor has made several illogical arguments and untrue statements. He writes that students should have a choice between fair trade and non-fair trade coffee. He makes it seem as if fair trade coffee is a certain brand or type of coffee, or that consumers will be able to differentiate between a fair trade and non-fair trade option beyond the label. Fair trade coffee is not a different product than non-fair trade coffee. Fair trade pertains solely to the conditions under which that coffee travelled from a farmer’s field to your coffee cup, and ensuring it was done in an equitable and sustainable manner. The assertion that Tim Hortons is making a concerted effort to find a supplier of fair trade coffee is also very misleading. If Tim Hortons feels that the suppliers out there who are currently fair trade certified do not meet their “enormous quantities of single blend” then they can do something very simple: help their existing suppliers become fair trade certified. Since certification refers to the standards under which the coffee was produced, ensuring growers received a fair wage for their coffee, that environmentally sustainable practices were used and that investment is being made into the social capital of the community, Tim Hortons should have no objection to encouraging that type of environment with its suppliers. In addition, a fair trade purchasing policy would not act retroactively on contracts already established; rather, when Tim Hortons’ contract was up for renewal they would be given to opportunity to abide by this new policy or choose to leave.
Mr. Bloor alludes that there are some legitimate reasons to oppose fair trade; it is convenient for his argument that he does not include any examples of what those might be. Do students need to have the choice to purchase goods which are in violation of people’s rights to a decent standard of living? Does Mr. Bloor have a problem paying a fair wage to the people that grow his coffee? I would hope not. An exclusively fair trade campus is not about stifling consumer choice, it is about helping consumers make an ethical choice.
Amanda Wilson
ArtSci ’07
Locally-grown food an important issue
Dear Editors,
RE: “Campus groups lobby for fair trade campus” (Journal, Jan. 31, 2006).
Recent writing and dialogue on fair trade and sustainability are a welcome change. However, I feel that both issues are forgetting how the two goals can meet in the most obvious fashion: our food.
Certainly, fair trade and sustainability are loaded and we should be cautious when applying them to Queen’s campus or anywhere for that matter. While Principal Hitchcock is making efforts to engage the global community and many groups make valiant efforts to bring socially and environmentally acceptable goods to campus, we seem to have forgotten the local—and this is where we can have a noticeable change in of sustainability, fair food practices and innovation.
Currently, Queen’s is bound by three contracts with food service providers: Sodexho, Brown’s and Coca Cola. Contracts such as the one with Sodexho span a decade and leave little room for student action. The Common Ground and new Tea Room are steps in the right direction. However, universities such as Portland State in the U.S. and the University of Toronto are beginning to recognize the importance of active interest in what is going in their bodies—and they demand change. Portland students demand provisions in their food contract with Sodexho that guarantee a percentage of foods must come from local sources, for instance. Is it not ridiculous to eat a meal originating from 2,000 kilometers away when our own region, our own city is capable of getting food on our forks instead?
If Queen’s has such a provision, I am not aware of it. I want to know where our food is coming from and from what farm and if I am ingesting pesticides with my lunch. If so, I also want to know how to change it so that we not only have the option to local growers and regional processors, but also the option to show corporate food providers that Queen’s students will not settle for food that is harmful to human, ecological, social and economic health.
We all complain about the taste, occasionally even the selection, but when will we value making trade fair at the local level, when will we be fed up enough to ask for more? If you are fed up with Queen’s food, there is something we can do. Interested individuals are urged to the movement towards re-localizing our food—and the Green Your Eats project is gaining momentum to work towards this goal. We are starting to ask the big questions and need your help, your opinions. Look for information on our website soon about the next meeting.
Sure, some cafeteria food makes you green. Why don’t we try eating something green instead? Let our stomachs be our voice. For more information see freewebs.com/greenyoureats or e-mail [email protected].
Kate Loynes
Green Your Eats coordinator, ArtSci ’06
Article blighted by subtle heterosexism
Dear Editors,
RE: “Reeling in the best films” (Journal, Feb. 2, 2006).
While I am thrilled with the coverage the Queen’s Journal has given to the Reelout Film Festival over the past two weeks. I would like to make a small but very important criticism based on the article by Fiona Collie entitled “Reeling in the best films.”
There is an unfortunate, pervasive attitude from journalists that their readers are all heterosexual. The article included an interview with filmmaker Cassandra Nicolaou who was in town to present four of her films, all of which deal in some respect with lesbians, lesbian life, or lesbian issues; however, the writer of the article on more than one occasion expressed to the readers that Cassandra’s feature film Show Me was not in fact a “gay” film.
Collie goes on to quote Nicolaou defending the film’s central conflict as representing queer issues. Collie then goes on to suggest that not all of our programming deals solely with “queer issues” and, again, uses Nicolaou’s film as an example. I won’t go on about what constitutes a queer film but I will go on record as the programming director that every film we show at Reelout somehow or in someway deals with “queer issues.” That is the whole point of the festival. The context of Show Me is that it is a subversively queer film being shown with three of Nicolaou’s earlier short films that feature women having and speaking frankly about sex with each other.
And the last line of the article states: “So head on out to The Screening Room this Sunday. You never know, you just might like it.” What exactly does that mean? Is that suggesting that because the feature film is not really “gay” that people “might” like it? Are you also assuming that everyone reading your paper is straight? I think that heterosexism should be addressed now rather than after these young, hardworking journalists go off into the workforce to perpetuate the same attitudes in the mainstream.
Matt Salton
Reelout Queer Film and Video Festival programming director
Fair trade about fairness for producers not consumers
Dear Editors,
RE: “Fair trade campus unfair to consumers” (Journal, Feb. 3, 2006).
Looking through the letters to the editors in the Feb. 3 edition, I found Cory Bloor had decided that he would write a hollow, rhetorical letter to take a shot at fair trade. Under the auspices of fairness (how ironic!), Bloor makes sweeping and unsubstantiated claims about the rights of Queen’s students. Confusion set in as it became obvious that Bloor had not done any research into the topic of fair trade, yet manages to decide that Queen’s students would be getting a raw deal. This lack of research seems to be the root cause of his skewing of the definition of “fairness.”
Bloor’s proposition is that it is “unfair” to have to force people into the situation of having to buy fair trade coffee if they do not agree with it. Had Bloor done a little research into the topic he would have found that on the international market, coffee prices have plummeted to around $0.70 per pound. Consequently, coffee farmers cannot realistically acquire minimum wages (meaning the minimum wage in order to survive and not fall into malnutrition and/or starvation). Fair trade certification demands that farmers be paid merely $1.26 per pound. So now, with a little information, I think Bloor’s definition of the word “fairness” can be properly dealt with.
Bloor maintains that it is “unfair” to force people to buy fair trade because “there are some legitimate reasons to oppose the fair trade label.” Really? Pray tell, Mr. Bloor, what would these be? Maybe because Tim Hortons is having trouble balancing their finances? Well this couldn’t be, as Wendy’s Corporation (owners of Tim Hortons) actually made a $30-million (USD) profit in 2005, which was sparked by a surge in sales at Tim Hortons. So maybe the “legitimate reasons” can be found in the consumer cost of fair trade coffee? Well this seems obviously wrong as well, since Common Ground does perfectly well with only fair trade coffee, and furthermore I am sure that most people at Queen’s can afford the extra couple of cents (since we pay more to be here at Queen’s than any coffee farmer could hope to make in a year). It seems that the only “legitimate reasons” could be because we at Queen’s ought to make exceptions for ourselves. I mean, why pay more for a cup of coffee if some poor farmers in South America can starve instead? So I suppose Bloor would say [as he did in his letter] “we should allow people with their own opinions to choose”—regardless of whether people eat. I suppose that it is “unfair” for Queen’s students to do their part in minimizing world poverty, or possibly to take responsibility for being born into privileged lives. Instead, Queen’s students ought to forgo these basic moral standards and be able to choose whether people live or die. I am assuming that by “fairness,” Bloor meant this utterly delusional rendition of the word. We may also conjecture that this is the way we ought to interpret Bloor’s talk of “high ethical standards.”
Seriously though, Mr. Bloor and other “oppressed consumers” ought to comprehend that fair trade should be universal because it is not meant to cater to those who wish to buy it. Indeed, fair trade is meant to those who are less fortunate; it is to stop oppression and exploitation of the developing world by the developed world. Fair trade is used as ammunition to campaign against oppression; it is a small acquisition for the limited arsenal to fight those who have an illusory entitlement to the riches of the world.
Peter Saczkowski
ArtSci ’07
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].