Food For Good by Michael Heasman

Ensuring Fair Labor For Florida Tomato Pickers

The plight of 'slave' tomato workers in southern Florida is a disgrace that should see the U.S. food industry take the moral high ground and end these practices through their buying power over growers.

Federal civil rights officials have prosecuted seven tomato slavery operations involving 1,000 workers in Florida's tomato fields since 1997, the last successful prosecution as recently as December 2008. One Florida prosecutor was reported as calling Florida: "ground zero for modern-day slavery".

The Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW), a community-based farm worker organization with over 4,000 members, has been instrumental in bringing to public attention the conditions of many migrant tomato pickers and in campaigning for fundamental farm labor reforms and more humane labor standards for Florida's tomato pickers. 

But there is some good news, a few companies are demanding changes from tomato growers. The latest food company to step up and demand more is the Bon Appetit Management Company which announced yesterday it is becoming the first food service company to establish what it calls 'game-changing' fair labor requirements that integrate minimum fair wages, worker empowerment, worker safety, and third party monitoring of suppliers. 

In addition, Bon Appetit plan to reward growers who treat their workers more fairly with more business, but also says it is prepared to cease buying tomatoes altogether from growers who don't follow the code of conduct now being adopted by Bon Appetit. The agreement for labor standards has been put together by Bon Appetit and the CIW. 

The agreement is important in other ways: it shows what can be done and how straightforward it is for buyers to take action.

As Fedele Bauccio, CEO of Bon Appetit, says: 

"When I met with workers in the fields and saw first-hand how difficult their lives are, I knew  I could not, in good conscience, contribute to such a system. we buy almost 5 million pounds of tomatoes a year. I decided to use that power to make a real difference in the supply chain".

I find it hard to grasp that there is the continuing need to fight modern day slavery, not least in the United States, since it feels like so little progress has been made in our so-called modern food system. So more power to Bon Appetit (and other companies taking action), the CIW, and to those tomato suppliers willing to clean up their industry.

The Food Angle On Swine Flu Outbreak

While attention is naturally directed towards the individuals affected by the new outbreak of swine flu and the growing public health crisis, an increasing volume of comment and analysis is appearing on the relationship between intensive livestock rearing and meat industry practices and the outbreak of the new flu strain.

One of the better informed (yet angry) articles is this piece from Mike Davis, Professor of History at the University of California, Irvine that appeared in Monday's Guardian newspaper in the UK.

Surely an open and transparent public enquiry into meat industry practices and human health can not be avoided after this incidence?

 

Nestle Raises Its Profile In Social Responsibility

The world's largest food company Nestle took an extraordinary step yesterday to raise its social responsibility profile with the launch of three new initiatives as part of its own brand of CSR which it terms Creating Shared Value. 

The announcements came as Nestle launched a two-day forum on Creating Shared Value in New York in collaboration with the United Nations Office for Partnerships and the Mission of Switzerland to the UN.

The three initiatives are: 

- the Nestle Healthy Kids Global Programme; 

- the Abidjan Research & Development Centre in Cote d'Ivoire; and

- the Nestle Prize in Creating Shared Value. 

The last will be awarded every two years and provide financial support of CHF500,000 (around $461,000) to individuals, NGOs, or small enterprises offering innovative solutions to nutritional deficiencies, access to clean water, or progress in rural development.

In a press release describing the three initiatives, Nestle chairman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe summed up the company's Creating Shared Value philosophy:

 "...if you fail to work on behalf of the public interest and take shortcuts that place the public at risk, you will fail your shareholders. We believe that to have long-term business success you must simultaneously create value for shareholders and for the public". 

Nestle is a reminder of our global inter-dependence in food systems. The company has half its factories and employees in the developing world and is reliant on world farmers and suppliers to fuel its processed foods manufacture. 

To this end Nestle works directly with around 600,000 farmers throughout the world and 2.4 million people in developing countries earn their livelihoods from the Nestle supply chain. 

So Nestle notes: "...the health of the communities from which Nestle draws its labour and raw materials are vital to its success as a business and to its shareholder value".

So there it is: one of the world's leading company's clearly linking its business ethics to the relationship between its public and their communities to its shareholder value. 

Surely now is the time to bury Milton Friedman's much quoted axiom that (and I paraphrase) the only ethical duty of a corporation is to shareholders.

But as alluded to by the Chairman there are hard-nosed business reasons behind these shared value initiatives. For a start, Nestle does not have the most shining reputation in children's nutrition - whether from its marketing of baby milk powder in the developing world to the on-going criticism of the marketing of kids products such as confectionery and cereals of poor nutritional value in the developed. 

Nestle is also one of the world's leading manufacturers and marketers of branded bottled water and as water supply is become a resource battleground giant corporations will increasingly compete over securing supplies and reexamine their use of water. 

So expect a lot more on water in the future, especially from brands readily identifiable to water such as brewers and soft drink producers. 

And as one of the world's largest confectionery manufacturers you would expect Nestle to do something about supporting its West African cocoa suppliers livelihoods through sustainable rural development in countries such Cote d'Ivoire. Surely this is a business no-brainer. 

Yet it is a welcome step to see companies such as Nestle opening up to debate and greater transparency in the face of global economic and social challenges, especially on the connectivity between developed and developing world food systems. 

  

 

A New "Landgrab" Poses Ethical Challenges Over Future Food Supplies

"Landgrab" is a term non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are starting to use to describe the fast growing trend that is seeing governments and financial institutions scramble to buy up farmland to grow food as a hedge against the spiraling food security crisis.

This new 'landgrab' will also have significant consequences for rich world food supply, not least leading to increasing global food price volatility for basic foodstuffs such as wheat, rice, soybeans and corn.

"Landgrap" is shorthand to describe the recent rush, which increasingly took off in 2008, for governments and private investors to acquire the rights to or buy-up large tracks of fertile farmland in developing countries to guarantee their own food country's food supply, or for speculative reasons.

The irony of this growing activity is the 'landgrab' is taking place in many parts of Africa, such as the Sudan, and Asia that often have not worked out how to feed their own populations.

Key countries behind this new 'landgrab' are the Gulf States and China, but Japan and South Korea are also active as are a number of other countries. Private equity funds and financial institutions are the main type of private investors involved.

Countries around the globe are the targets for the 'landgrabers'. For example, GRAIN, one of the NGOs instrumental in bringing the 'landgrab' issue to public attention, documented more than a 100 cases of land grabbing for offshore food production in a briefing they published last year.

A key dynamic for the escalating 'landgrab' is the shortage of water. Writing in a personal capacity, Dominic Waughray, a senior director with the Geneva based World Economic Forum, says it is the failure of national governments and the international trade system to address the looming water crisis that is driving countries to buy up farmland in other places. 

His analysis shows when water availability drops below 1500 cubic meters per person per year, a country needs to start importing food, particularly water intensive crops. Saudi Arabia, for example, faces this problem; 20 other countries fell below this threshold by 2000 and another 14 will join them by 2030.

A further issue driven by water are water-related trade-offs. That is, governments choosing between water for agriculture and food or for expanding cities and industries instead - a particular challenge facing China.

The growth of the 'landgrab' trend was reinforced in a news report published by Bloomberg today which details new measures being taken by Japan to secure future food supplies. Japan is making available new money to help local companies invest in agricultural production and farmland overseas to help break Japan's dependency on global food markets. 

The Japanese plan will cover investments in Latin America, Central Asia and Eastern Europe for the supply of corn, soybeans and wheat. Japan is one of the least food secure industrialized nations and would need 17 million hectares of farmland to become 100% self-sufficient, but currently only has 5 million hectares devoted to farming.

What ever way you look at it the 'landgrab' issue will intensify. And rich countries will not be immune. Those outside the 'landgrab', but wedded to the idea they can buy future food security through the efficient working of 'free markets', might find this policy option fast evaporating and themselves victims to food price volatility or even food shortages in global markets. 

"Landgrab' is also becoming an ethical minefield: from the specter of a 'new agrarian colonialism' as some NGOs and activists already see the 'landgrab', to the role of capital and governments in reshaping global 'markets', to the rights of landowners and farm workers in developing countries. There will be a raft of 'landgrab' worries to contend with.   

Will Our Children See A World Without Seafood?

In my blog post of April 17th I highlighted the plight of the bluefin tuna fisheries in the Mediterranean and some of the irresponsible business and policy practices that are contributing to the collapse of the fishery.

Check out this new article by Andrew Purvis in the Observer Food Monthly magazine in the UK that gives a more detailed analysis of the crisis in the the seafood business in general and some of the international solutions being tried to save the world's seafood fisheries. But be warned: it still makes for depressing reading especially if you are seafood lover.

The Ethics Of Marketing To Children

A danger of writing this blog with its particular focus on food business and Corporate Social Responsibility is to appear to under-represent some of the more critical voices of our food system and of food business.

I was reminded of this by Professor Marion Nestle's latest blog post at the Atlantic Food Channel entitled For Giant Food Corps, Lip Service on Ethics. 

I was going to write a post myself about the Ethisphere 2009 list of the 99 most ethical companies that she alludes to (published last week), but decided not to as it had received such wide media coverage. 

I am also becoming a little skeptical myself about the current proliferation of lists of 'most ethical companies' that seem to be appearing and are becoming a growth industry in their own right (although I often refer to these this lists as I see fit!)

One ethical area Marion Nestle singles out however, is one where many food and beverage corporations have fallen short and this is in their marketing practices towards children. This to my mind remains one of the most ethically contentious areas of food marketing.

Many food and beverage companies have now been forced by consumer, public health or consumer activism outrage to modify their marketing to children (and by the growing threat of regulatory action to curb marketing) or are reassessing their marketing to children themselves.

Yet children remain such a lucrative market of 'super consumers' that ethical boundaries will continue to be blurred. This will be particularly apparent as food and beverage companies continue to exploit the new digital media that is revolutionizing advertising and marketing more generally, to target children.

This short trailer for the 2008 U.S. documentary Consuming Kids: The Commercialization of Childhood gives a little taster of the concerns and issues about the manner in which business markets to children and why this is such an ethically charged arena. 

 

Syngenta's Annual Review: Corporate Responsibility As An Integral Part Of Business Strategy

In my blog post a few days ago (April 21st) I directed you to a link that showed an interview with Jeremy Rifkin at the G8 meeting of agriculture ministers in Italy and his forceful critique of current industrial agriculture. 

Today I read Syngenta's Annual Review, published this week, which as a global business at the heart of industrial agriculture offers a different slant about the solutions needed for agricultural sustainability and feeding the world. Side-by-side the two neatly capture the core policy and business challenges for the future of global food security.

Syngenta's latest Annual Review is the first time the company has integrated its reporting on both its business activities and corporate responsibility performance. The company started producing stand-alone CSR reports from 2004, but now says it is combining reporting because its Corporate Responsibility (CR) is now an integral part of what they do.

What Syngenta does is provide crop protection - that is, make and sell products that help growers control weeds, prevent disease and protect their crops from insects - and sell seeds (in GMOs it is one of the top three companies in the world). Syngenta sales in 2008 were $9.6 billion for crop protection and $2.4 bn in seed sales. The company, headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, employees 24,000 people and is active in more than 90 countries.

In aligning CR to its strategic goals, Syngenta lists five core areas for its CR reporting, these are: sustainable agriculture, product stewardship, people and communities, environment, and business ethics. Its CR and business activities are presented as one platform - there is no way Syngenta can be accused of making its CR practices a 'bolt-on' activity.

Their corporate mission is presented as nothing less than that: a mission. In this sense Syngenta see themselves as contributing to society through their ability to assist farmers worldwide in using their land efficiently and responsibly. 

They situate this 'mission' as I am calling it, in the context of global food security challenges. These Syngenta identify as: 

- population growth

- expanding urbanization as more people move into cities

- dietary change, especially the rise in meat and dairy consumption

- rising global energy demand and the potential for alternative energy sourced from plant crops

- increasing soil erosion

- the fact that per capita farmland is decreasing, and

- pressures on water supplies since 70% of global water is used in agriculture

Thus Syngenta are in the business to: "...help growers do more with less" and to do this in an environmentally sustainable manner. And, as Martin Taylor, Syngenta Chairman, says: "This challenge is also, of course, a significant opportunity and underpins the long-term growth potential of our business".

But for its CR performance, while the company provides data on annual activities and impacts, the Annual Review provides little insight on future targets or where the company is heading or what its priorities might be. In this respect the 'integral' strategic nature of Syngenta's CR is hard to determine.

But in the bulk of the review where Syngenta sets out its business activities in some detail, it puts forward strident arguments, supported by facts, that portrays a convincing vision for its version of sustainable agriculture. This approach in my opinion challenges critics of Syngenta's particular vision to feed the world to provide equally convincing alternatives with similar global reach.

Reading Syngenta's Annual Review I am as convinced as ever there are still two distinct 'paradigms' for the future of food and agriculture along the lines I spelt out with Professor Tim Lang in our book Food Wars (2004, Earthscan) except Syngenta have taken their vision to a new level that we only began to outline.

Fairtrade Unleashes Global Marketing Strategy

Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International (FLO) has a strategic problem: how to respond to the spectacular double-digit global market growth Fairtrade certified products have been experiencing for the past five years.

So April saw the official launch of FLO's new global strategy for Fairtrade. Over the next two years the new global strategy will aim to strengthen, broaden and deepen Fairtrade to create what FLO says will become a unified global system.

It is good news: another example of how an ethical approach within food business is finding consumer favor. The global market for Fairtrade certified products was US$3.5 billion in 2007 (the latest figure), a 47% increase over 2006, and continues to grow.

The new global strategy aims to support producers with easier access to technical, financial, and marketing advice. FLO also plan to make going Fairtrade easier and will be providing certification for a wider range of products. They will encourage those producers that want to, to expand their business.

In short it is all about scaling-up Fairtrade. To this end a particular emphasis will be on marketing.

As well as responding to market growth I can't help thinking FLO's new global business plan is also about having to respond to increased competition from competing food business ethical labeling systems. There are in effect two ethical 'market leaders' in global consumer ethical food certification: the Fairtrade label and the Rainforest Alliance logo. 

It is great to see the emerging new food world where we can witness ethical labeling systems compete against it each due to consumer demand.  

And the Fairtrade label certainly appears to have the market edge. FLO also released April new research showing that support for the Fairtrade mark in on the rise internationally. FLO's first-ever global survey shows that shoppers increasingly expect companies to more accountable and fair in dealing with producers in developing countries. 

The survey, conducted by GlobeScan on behalf of FLO, sampled 14,500 people in 15 countries. The survey found "active ethical consumers" made up more than half the population (55%) in the countries surveyed. And this is being translated into market place sales. Fairtrade label sales were up in 2008 (compared to 2007) by 24% in Austria, 40% in Denmark, 57% in Finland, 22% in France, 75% in Sweden, 43% in the UK, and by 10% in the United States.

The research found a particular strength of Fairtrade, and keeping its sales robust in an economic downturn, is its word-of-mouth grassroots consumers. In effect the sort of business model most food companies can only dream of in the new social networked economy. 

If FLO treasures this grassroots consumer movement - and its new global strategy appears to do just that - Fairtrade can only continue its upward trajectory and to benefit the producers involved. 

Green Innovations in Food Business

It is Earth Day today, so a time to celebrate food business 'green' success stories. The just published Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) Innovations Review 2009 provides a number of food-related examples.

My favorite is the Low-Carbon Diet program from the Bon Appetit Management Company, a company which provides onsite restaurant services to more than 400 corporations and colleges, serving 80 million meals a year. 

Bon Appetit's Low-Carbon Diet program has specific low-carbon goals for its food business. For example it will: reduce beef by 25%; cheese by 10%; source all vegetables, non-tropical fruits and bottled water from North America; eliminate air-freighted seafood; reduce food waste by 25%; reduce coffee purchases by 10%; and reduce packaging by 10%.

The Low-Carbon Diet program poses a challenge to food business: why aren't we all doing or planning our own 'low-carbon'  food business with measurable targets?

Another no holds barred example from the EDF report, but in a totally different food business context, is the work of the Coca-Cola Company which has set itself the target of recovering 100% of the plastic bottles it puts into the U.S. market place. Coca-Cola says it is taking responsibility for the entire life-cycle of its products, from production and shipping to recovery. Again the 'life-cycle' concept is another challenge for all food business getting serious about sustainability.

A third example from the EDF report is the way soybean farmers in Iowa are using new technologies to collaborate in a bid to reduce their use of nitrogen fertilizers. Members of the Iowa Soybean Association, which represents 6,000 growers, share data and information so they can apply the least amount of nitrogen for best economic and environmental results. Growers have reduced their use of nitrogen by 30% without reducing their profit per acre. 

Many businesses now use Earth Day as a platform to tell the world about their 'green' products. But it started as an environmental protest movement in 1970 after an idea by Gaylord Nelson who was then a U.S. senator from Wisconsin. That first Earth Day protest helped lead to the creation of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the passage of the Clean Air, Clean Water, and Endangered Species Acts.

The EDF which produces the green innovators report, is a non-profit with 500,000 members; it was founded in 1967 to work on solutions for environmental problems. 

A Critique Of Industrial Agriculture

Every wondered what the fuss is all about over sustainable agriculture, feeding the world, why livestock is bad for the climate, GMOs, and what to do for the future?

Well with one day to go until Earth Day brace yourself listen to this critique by Jeremy Rifkin, the internationally renowned economist, social critic and best-selling author, who in a 30 minute interview spells out why our current model of producing food needs to change.

Find it here.

It is an excellent summary (he speaks in English, although it is an Italian interview) of the main arguments against industrialized agriculture.

He gave this interview while attending the first ever G8 meeting between agriculture ministers held in Cison di Valmarino, Italy, from April 18th-20th where the G8 ministers called for more private and public investment in sustainable farming to boost food supplies and ensure global food security.