Green Daily

Thanks for this article.

Certifications that lack standards and audits are not certifications at all, and such was the case with "Shade Grown." Various state and regional chapters of the Audubon Society had offered what many considered a certification, yet these certifications required little if anything more than a signed letter of best intent and a donation. Did one shade tree per acre satisfy shade grown? This was unclear. Was a micro roaster able to rely on any sort of audit trail that reached back through brokers, importers and mills to the producer? No.

The Audubon Societies have done well to draw attention to the practices of many large scale coffee plantations. These green deserts are tended by workers in gas masks and bare feet as they spray pesticides on clear cut fields of coffee plants. Nothing but direct sun and poisonous chemicals for miles. Everyone suffers under these conditions, including migratory birds. The Audubon Societies have also done well to withdraw shade grown certification, since without standards and audits it risks diluting real certifications such as Organic and Fair Trade in the minds of consumers.

While the Audubon's efforts around shade grown certification were misguided, my sense is that their intent was noble. There are other much more damaging activities and claims in the certification arena.

There are unscrupulous companies that ride the coattails of the Fair Trade movement and its certifying agencies. These companies use phrases such as "fairly traded" to encourage the impression that they participate in the Fair Trade system when in fact they do not. They do not pay Fair Trade premiums, they have not registered with a certifying agency and there is no third-party audit trail for their transactions.

If a coffee company is making "fairly traded" claims without displaying the Fair Trade logo, if it is based in the USA yet not listed as a licensee by TransFair USA, then you have to ask yourself if you want to do business with them.

Reply