It's All About the Benjamins

Jump to Comments On account of a lack of people that speak English, I’ve been spending a lot of time thinking lately instead of chatting with friends as has been my habit. One of the topics I’ve been mulling a lot is identity and consumerism, which is a rather broad topic with lots of stuff I have no interest ever going in to here, at my own personal Ministry of Auto-propaganda. (DA COMRADE!) But some things that have come up recently in some of my EU classes, about product quality in a common market (a race to the bottom?), and in a similar vein, European concerns about GMOs, which always involves a foray into discussing organic food.

I really want to gloss over some stuff here, to provide a general background of something I’ve copied here of my own from another location.

Basically, I just wrote a diatribe on an old Professor’s blog, that combined some of my long term thoughts about consumerism and brand-based self-identification, and about the fact that some of these sort of no logo–style movements, like organic foods and fair trade products and naturist* lifestyle are being productized and commercialized and package in a nice little consumerist box and everybody’s taking it. Well plus Dr Elrod, whose opinions I normally hold in very high regard, kept drooling over Java City — and we know what I think of those idiots. Enough was finally enough. See my “lame-o” attempt at a polemic after the break.

Using one’s money to support local businesses at home in addition to directly supporting the economic advancement of individuals in LDCs through programs like micro-finance or the sort of work the Peace Corps and the World Food Program does (or Heifer International, for that matter) seems like much better stewardship than spending money at at a corporate foodservice chain just because of the provenance-branding of their coffee beans.

I submit that both “fair-trade” and “certified organic” generally are nothing more than new brands in the very same consumerist paradigm where people form their identities and friend groups by product brands and labels. Touting a “fair-trade” or a “certified organic” product alone and without any other qualifications, therefore, has no qualitative difference from touting “Nike” or “McDonalds” or “Lacoste.”

To frame my position, I’d like to start first with “certified organic” products, which, while not the topic directly, provide more concrete examples of what I mean about “fair trade as merely a brand” which is a little more nebulous as “fair trade” is a (somewhat vague) economic qualification.

There is a dairy a quarter mile or so from my house that makes organic milk and other such products. It’s really good milk! I prefer it over just about anything else available for purchase. But the reason it’s good isn’t just because it has the “organic” label on the milk. Certainly the fact that it is a small, self-contained operation (they have their own pasteurizing and bottling equipment) means common-sensically that there is an enhanced possibility for higher quality control — The owner lives there, on the farm, and oversees the cows, the employees, the machinery, etc. and is sincerely interested in making a quality product. And I know that, because I live up the road.

Commercially-produced organic milk, though — I don’t know any of this stuff about it. I know that Horizon writes some nice things about happy cows or something on their milk cartons, and I used to buy it when I was still in the US, but it’s not as good as the stuff from that little dairy. There’s certainly no reasonable way for me to know if that particular cow that particular half-gallon came from was ‘happy’, or if the farm’s owner had that same interest and commitment in making a quality product. It’s certainly in Horizon’s interest to make me believe that this is the case, because as a large business it is it’s prime motivation to make money, no matter how many mission statements they write or how much marketing-speak they produce about “social responsibility.”

Or take that mainstay of the summer and every minor highway’s shoulder: the vegetable stand. Or the produce your aunt or uncle or grandparents grow in their garden. I don’t even like eating raw tomatoes, but the ones that come from those sources are so good even I can’t resist. Is it particularly harmful to the environment if these producers use a little bit of Miracle Gro in addition to compost? It would certainly exclude them from being organic products if chemical fertilizers were used. A lot of what makes these fruits and vegetables so good anyway one again is attention. These small producers have the capability to tend their gardens every day and have the capability to ensure that each and every one of their products is growing in optimal conditions.

Even the best-intentioned owner of a 1000-acre organic tomato plantation cannot do this, because there’s just not enough time in the day for him to walk the fields. Nor can his hired hands produce the same level of quality. I have done farm work and even though I as an individual want to do my best and do a good job at whatever I’m doing, I can tell you right now that there were days when I was just out in that field to get paid for that day and wasn’t giving my assigned tasks my best efforts. I posit that the bigger and bigger any business scales up, the less and less individual incentive there is for that individual to do a good job, as that individual becomes further and further removed from any motivation for a quality product, as that individual is no longer a stakeholder.

In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me that in certain aspects mass-produced organic products are actually categorically inferior to their “standard” commericial competitors because the the “standard” competitors have faced market pressures, which is the ultimate motivator, for 100 years or more. Regardless, at the commercial level, “organic” products can fetch a price premium even with a product inferior in certain aspects (doesn’t keep as long, etc), because the purchasers associate certain feelings with the “certified organic” nature of the product and not because actual quality of the product is demonstrably higher. How then is any different from consumers buying Product X over Product Y at a price premium because Brand X imparts some sort of feeling or sense of belonging to a particular group? Do you really think that the sort of huge monocultures required to commercially produce food products suddenly are good for the environment just because they don’t use chemical fertilizers and pesticides?

I find this reasoning applicable to the “fair-trade” logo products. Sure, there are benefits to this fair trade movement; my suite-mate Robin Crocker did his senior-level political science research on it and I was convinced of at least some of its nobleness. I’m not going to even consider any of the vagaries of the utility of fair trade per se to LDC farmers, as jonnyedwards points out The Economist has done a much better job than I ever could. For the sake of argument though I will take it as given that fair trade itself is beneficial LDC farmers.

However, does this automatically mean that any “fair trade” product should be bought over its competition? Why Should a local business with a small staff, who sources their product from another small-staffed local business that brokers directly with import companies be eschewed because its products are not “fair trade” logo products? Yes, there are certainly situations where this would be the case.

But in this situation, the “fair trade” provider is a branch of a large business, whose motivation, legally, is profit. This branch apparently even has a good, upright manager — I will take Dr Elrod at his word on the character qualities of Mr Stachan. But this does not mean that the employees are stakeholders in the reputation or quality of products produced by ARAMARK or Java City or that they even know the difference between a caffè latte and a cappuccino.

Why reward ARAMARK or its subsidiary or employees because it figured out a new brand to market? I assume it’s because you feel good that an extra fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a penny that you spent on your mixed caffeine drink went to the pockets of a coffee-grower in Central America or Africa. And while you feel that good feeling, much larger percentages of that purchase price are going into the pockets of people that may or may not even care about the plight of far-away people or about even doing a good job at the job they have been given to do.

If somebody is really interested in fixing global inequality there are a lot more effective methods than buying a latteccino at Java City. In this particular circumstance I really believe this “fair trade” logo coffee ends up being a lot more about feeling good about helping people than actually helping people. Buying that “fair trade” logo coffee may inspire images of poor farmers in some dusty place having an easier time providing for their (perpetually-smiling) children, but this a consumerist sentiment has no qualitative difference from the consumerist sentiment I get when I buy new socks from J. Crew.** Is the sentiment enjoyable? Sure. Does it mean anything? No.

So next time go walk a few hundred feet farther (out in the elements) and reward individuals that are actively interested in making a good product and a good atmosphere, even if it’s not “fair trade” logo coffee. While you’re there you can work on helping people in LDCs more directly and substantially than some infinitesimal fraction of a cent– like, use the free wireless internet to donate towards a laptop for African school kids.

*No I’m not really sure what I mean here either, but I don’t mean some sort of euphemism for nudist, at least. What I’m getting at is that sort of San Francisco, Napa Valley kind of lifestyle with this sort of laid-back, carbon-neutral, sustainable-development kind of attitude about life.
** “Oh that Ben-Lamb, he’s so funny and talks about his clothes and typefaces all the time.”