First middle of town Starbucks - opinions?

Freelancer · 25-11-2005 9:50pm

billyblanks wrote:

That is the sort of accusation that can get out of hand. Nothing I have said is Libelous and if you want to Say different there are other avenus we can take.

Are you reading? I mean english? Seriously?

I said you were saying potentially libelous to the fair trade foundations.

billybanks wrote:

fair trade-certified cooperativeshave still have problems of child labor, less pay for women, inadequate medical care, use of dangerous chemicals, and nonpayment of minimum wages. so its not all rosey for the fair trade farmers.

Thats libel (we'll come to the chemicals in a bit) but I've repeatadly asked you to back up this assertion. WHERE DOES THE PREVIOUS QUOTE COME FROM AND WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.

I dint know where to begin with this.....you are grasping a straws, I'm not even too sure what you are trying to get at? Your argument makes no valid point.

You consistently twist and change your point and argument. You start by saying one thing and when challenged on it you change your postion.

You still have no answer to my question......How can Starbucks change to fairtrade coffee only when the supply is just not there? Simple answer please.

Okay simple point billybanks. Where exactly have you asked this question? I cannot answer a question you haven't posed.

Now tell me this, what evidence to you have that starbucks want to change to entirely fair trade? Asking me "how can starbucks change to fairtrade coffee" when you haven't demostrated that the want to but are limited by supply?

I've simply and clearly stated that it's hyprocritical for starbucks to offer fair and non fairtrade coffee, if you show me any evidence that they want to change their coffee to entirely fair trade you have a point. An entirely new point. Don't be outraged that I haven't answered a question you haven't asked until this post.

Originally Posted by coffeereview.com article posted by billybanks[/quote
Based on our ratings, the average score for Fair-Trade coffees reviewed in 2004 was 87.3, whereas the average for non-Fair-Trade certified coffees was 86.8. A half-point difference in favor of Fair-Trade may not be statistically significant, but it certainly dashes any claims that Fair-Trade coffees are in any way overall inferior to non-Fair-Trade.

I'm glad you got a hoot....and a half.

I got a hoot and a half out of this article......

On the other hand, an argument could be made using the same sources that Fair-Trade may not produce quite the percentage of truly exceptional coffees as generated by the larger world of non-Fair-Trade production. For example, 12.5% of the non-Fair-Trade coffees we reviewed in 2004 scored 90 or better, to 10.5% for Fair-Trade coffees. Not an enormous difference, certainly, but one that could be seen as reflected in this month's cupping, where several excellent Fair-Trade coffees appeared on the table, but none leapt off and rang the bell

Thats really nice billybanks but lets be honest here this isn't so much a question of you goalpost shifting as completely changing the point. Your original point was that all fair trade coffee is inferior to ordinary coffee.

billybanks wrote:

There are two problems with Fair Trade, 1 you are not guaranteed top quality coffee and 2. it is more expensive!

as quality goes fair trade is not as good quality, thats a fact!

Fairtrade = good, non fair trade = better. Simple enough for you? Fair trade can and do make good quality coffee, but on the whole non fair trade make BETTER Quality coffee.

the bit you're trying to use to justify yourself wrote:

that Fair-Trade may not produce quite the percentage of truly exceptional coffees as generated by the larger world of non-Fair-Trade production. For example,12.5% of the non-Fair-Trade coffees we reviewed in 2004 scored 90 or better, to 10.5% for Fair-Trade coffees. Not an enormous difference, certainly, but one that could be seen as reflected in this month's cupping, where several excellent Fair-Trade coffees appeared on the table, but none leapt off and rang the bell

That pretty clear you're suggesting the fair trade coffee is always inferior to all non fairtrade an article. You then post a article which states quite clearly that on the whole fairtrade coffee is slightly superior to non fairtrade coffee.

I mean those are your exact words "on the whole non fair trade coffee makes better quality coffee"

your article wrote:

the average score for Fair-Trade coffees reviewed in 2004 was 87.3, whereas the average for non-Fair-Trade certified coffees was 86.8. A half-point difference in favor of Fair-Trade may not be statistically significant, but it certainly dashes any claims that Fair-Trade coffees are in any way overall inferior to non-Fair-Trade

Thats pretty clear overall fair trade coffee is just as good if not slightly better than most coffees.

Now suddenly thats not good enough for you.

the bit you're trying to use to justify yourself wrote:

that Fair-Trade may not produce quite the percentage of truly exceptional coffees as generated by the larger world of non-Fair-Trade production. For example,12.5% of the non-Fair-Trade coffees we reviewed in 2004 scored 90 or better, to 10.5% for Fair-Trade coffees. Not an enormous difference, certainly, but one that could be seen as reflected in this month's cupping, where several excellent Fair-Trade coffees appeared on the table, but none leapt off and rang the bell

Suddenly fair trade doesn't produce "truly exceptional coffee (which your own article adds the prefix "may not") It admits that the difference is slight. But thats not your point. Most coffee isn't truly exceptional coffee, and you were saying that fairtrade is always inferior to ordinary coffee. Now it doesn't produce enough truly exceptional coffee.

You've gone from saying that fair trade coffee is always inferior and always over priced and when challenged on this you present an article that says actually its just as good but may not match the quality of amazing coffees.

Thats goalpost shifting. You said three times fair trade coffee isn't as good in general to ordinary coffee and when this assumption proves false you then hold fair trade up aganist the best coffees in the world, and sneer at fair trade.

So which is it?

OH MY GOD......am I talking to a child? are you foreign? do you have problems understanding English? I am amazed how you try to twist things. all you are trying to do there is hid ethe fact that you didn't/don't understand that fair trade coffee and organic are different.

I never suggested your ORGANIC fair trade coffee had any chemicals on it.

No you made a series of assertions

I quoted from an article say "Dangerous chemicals can be used on fair trade coffee" you replied with "and seeing as my coffee is certified organic I'm sure you'll be able to point me in the direction of what exactly are these dangerous chemicals they use."

Fair enough your fair trade ORGANIC coffee does not have any chemicals on it, but not all fair trade coffee is ORGANIC.

Well thats one thing you've admitted your wrong on, now care to offer any evidence to support your claims about

billybanks wrote:

still have problems of child labor, less pay for women, inadequate medical care, and nonpayment of minimum wages. so its not all rosey for the fair trade farmers.

I mean please point what article says that?

Freelancer · 25-11-2005 9:51pm

Do you not understand that organic and fair trade are different????

Yes I do. however I drink an organic fair trade coffee and you've made this claim about all fairtrade coffee.

fair trade-certified cooperativeshave still have problems of child labor, less pay for women, inadequate medical care, use of dangerous chemicals, and nonpayment of minimum wages. so its not all rosey for the fair trade farmers.

When asked to provide evidence of the above you go off on an inane tagent about organic verus non organic and accuse me of being a simpleton.

You make generalisation in the above about all fairtrade coffee. Including my organic coffee.

This article might help you understand some of the problems with fair trade and point out the difference between Fair Trade and Organic. And yes I do realise it is pro fair trade, as am I! but it does highlight some problems.

http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/fairtradecoffee.htm

And again I aware of the difference however yet again

billybanks wrote:

fair trade-certified cooperativeshave still have problems of child labor, less pay for women, inadequate medical care, use of dangerous chemicals, and nonpayment of minimum wages. so its not all rosey for the fair trade farmers.

You've yet to provide a link to prove this assertion.

"As time goes on a search for fair trade coffee is more and more likely to turn up non-certified “fair trade” coffee, which is most likely just a marketing rouse to attract ethical customers. In a recent search of ebay for fair trade coffee 90% of the results were not third party certified, and upon further examination most looked very suspect."

Thats great and all (and as pointed out by myself already i am aware of the dubious "fair trade" brands. How does this prove your point?

You want me to prove that chemicals are used on some fair trade coffee? you prove they are not!

This is where you enter the realm of bulls*it. You make a claim the onus is you to support the claim.

I gave you a quote, they seem to be the word of God to you, or is only stuff you qoute relavent? ......do you want me to get on a plane fly to south America and hide in abush with a video camera?? I can only quote what I read.

You gave me this quote

fair trade-certified cooperativeshave still have problems of child labor, less pay for women, inadequate medical care, use of dangerous chemicals, and nonpayment of minimum wages. so its not all rosey for the fair trade farmers.

And I've asked you to provide where you read the above. A link. A magazine title anything you've spectularly failed to do so.

You see Freelancer alot of these articles are written with an objective view, not a blinkered view......they point out the good and bad of both sides, obvioulsy a fogeigen concept to you.

Those articles tend to use facts something that seems to elude you.

once again it is like talking to a child, you obviously woke up one morning and decided "right everybody should sell fair trade coffee", got up out of bed, put your blinkers on and looked for a target.....starbucks.

Oh look is that the same kind of tactic that evoked your last bout of backpeddling. Attack the post not the poster. I'm sure in this case you meant "you" as in "you're like one of those"

Ok.....back to the main point. You want starbucks to only serve fair trade coffee. I said it is not realistic to expect a company like starbucks to change overnight due to supply and quality issues.

Really billyboy? You did? Where. You seem you constantly change your argument when did you say that starbucks should change overnight? You've said that its acceptable for starbucks to offer both "give the customer what he wants", you've never said the above.

Plain and simple. you avoided this topic in all of your respones, you want it done now!! so what is your solution to the problem?

Billy seriously do me a favour. Actually go back and read your response. You start by saying

billybanks wrote:

If they have it as a choice on the menu then their customers are also indifferent to "changing practices to improve their workers lot." If everybody asked for fair trade coffee then it would be the only choice on the menu!

"Give the customer what they want"

then

billybanks wrote:

You say that Starbucks are unethical? but at least they are making the effort to sell fairtrade,

then

billybanks wrote:

But at the moment it is not realistic to expect massive company's to switch just because it is "ethical right" do do so. As far as fair trade coffee goes there are other companys out there a lot worse than starbucks.

See billybanks? do you see, you've not said that. You may have thought you'd said it, but you haven't.

I dint want quotes, I dint want twisted answers, I dint want a big long article arguing the ethical obligation of starbucks...just your answer the question?

And if you'd had asked the question before now I'd have answered it. You're twisting and changing your argument, and then telling me I've not answered questions about your position when your position is constantly changing.

My suggestion is to slowly change over time, introduce fare trade into their product range, as quality and supply improve and demand grows then they can begin to look at only selling fair trade. what is your suggestion?

Y'know seeing as you've changed your position so quickly and frequently I'll wait till your next post to see what your next suggestion is.

masteroftherealm · 25-11-2005 10:25pm

Oh god crash what have you done:v:
To the two people above I ask you both one question: You are both fighting over what is and isnt fair trade goods coffee standards etc. What relation to your arguments does what quality the fair trade coffee is have? The aim of fair trade is not to make good coffee but to help people get out of the situations that they are in(exploitation etc) I think you both have totally lost the point of Fair Trade and are arguing over what to me seems petty in comparison to the aims and aspirations of the Fair Trade ideals? No?
Maybe we should all take a step back and look at what the real point is here and I think all will agree: That Fair Trade is a very good initative and that we should all support it to the best of our respective abilitys..
Starbucks will NEVER change to comletly fair trade for many reasons but we should give them the credit of at least trying as it is more than what most would do.

billyblanks · 26-11-2005 6:29pm

Right, my head hurts after reading that. I agree with masteroftherealm.....it is crash_000 fault.

masteroftherealm......I agree, this has become a futile arguement about the quality of fair trade coffee.

Freelancer, That was one long response, I will pick out what I think are the relavent points.

Yes I do. however I drink an organic fair trade coffee and you've made this claim about all fairtrade coffee.

Try think of fair trade ond organic fair trade as two different coffees, which they are. For coffee to get the fair trade label it has to reach set criteria, ie...proper wages for farmers, good working conditions, health care and so on. but it doesnt have to comply to organic rules, ie no harmful chemicals.

So when I quoted froma an article saying Chemiclas are used on fair trade, I was talking about FAIR TRADE COFFEE not ORGANIC Fair Trade coffee

Please tell me you understand this?

I want to bring this discussion back to its original point. you said,

The fact that in the states anyway they offer you the choice of either fair trade or non fair beans just highlights their hypocrisy;

"Would you like your half fat mochachinco vanilla latte with the blood of exploited workers or without"?

As in the case of starbucks, they're admitting that the majority of their coffee is produced in an unethical manner, but rather than improve the lot of the majority of their growers they find a way to exploit another niche market.

I say Starbucks are making an effort. Your attitude is either sell only fair trade or dont!

In or out starbucks, either all your coffee is fair trade or none of it is. Can't have your frappicino and drink it

Ok lets forget about the quality issue for one minute, Starbucks are a massive company,10,000 stores world wide I think? I know thay had 8500 in 2004. The main resourcece they use is coffee. How can you expect them to fully change over to fair trade in a short peroid, ie overnight for you! So your solution is dont sell any fair trade at all.......how does that benifit anybody?

Surley it is better that they sell some fair trade coffee?

You make generalisation in the above about all fairtrade coffee. Including my organic coffee

Show me where I said anything about organic fair trade coffee having chemicals on it. Once again you are missing the point. You dont understand the difference between organic and fair trade!

Next

I said(quoted) fair trade-certified cooperativeshave still have problems of child labor, less pay for women, inadequate medical care, use of dangerous chemicals, and nonpayment of minimum wages. so its not all rosey for the fair trade farmers.

You said You've yet to provide a link to prove this assertion.

And I've asked you to provide where you read the above. A link. A magazine title anything you've spectularly failed to do so.

oh...it seems I have spectacularly succeeded.....

Here you go. http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/econ/2003/0207coff.htm

But I'm sure there is some reason why this is not valid, or is untrue. Try not to take all your info from "fair trade Friendly" sites, try somebody independent, you usually get a more realistic view of situations.

A bad rap

Fair trade coffee was initially plagued by complaints about bad quality, yet producers have made great strides in improving the quality of the brew and it has found a comfortable niche in the specialty coffee market, alongside organic coffee and other similar labels, such as “sustainable coffee.” After years of public pressure from activists who singled it out because of its high visibility and yuppie clientele, Starbucks now sells fair trade coffee in all its stores and has given it prominent play in university markets. Rice, whose organization gets paid 10 cents a pound by Starbucks to certify its fair trade coffee, thinks it’s time that activists turn their pressure elsewhere.

“I think Starbucks gets a bad rap. It’s a mistake for people who support fair trade to target Starbucks because they are not doing enough, and not target Kraft or Nestlé or Proctor & Gamble who aren’t doing anything and won’t even return my calls,” Rice said. “It’s just not smart activism to target someone who is doing the right thing but you feel they’re not doing enough, rather than target people who aren’t doing the right thing at all.”
According to Dennis Smith, president of an independent corporate monitoring group in Guatemala that has surveyed conditions in Guatemala’s coffee fields, fair trade agreements are a positive development. Nonetheless, his group has found anecdotal evidence that fair trade-certified cooperatives and small holders have similar problems of child labor, less pay for women, inadequate medical care, use of dangerous chemicals, and nonpayment of minimum wages as do large coffee estates. Smith suggests that the expansion of independent external verification of working conditions, similar to what’s begun in a small way in the maquila industry, as opposed to internal voluntary monitoring by the coffee industry and its allies, would address some of these problems.

[B]Oh look is that the same kind of tactic that evoked your last bout of backpeddling. Attack the post not the poster. I'm sure in this case you meant "you" as in "you're like one of those"[/B]

"What???"

Really billyboy? You did? Where. You seem you constantly change your argument when did you say that starbucks should change overnight? You've said that its acceptable for starbucks to offer both "give the customer what he wants", you've never said the above.

when did you say that starbucks should change overnight?

I am now getting confused.....I said you, as in freelancer wanted starbucks to change overnight. I ans in billyblanks, expect a large company like Starbucks to change over time.

See billybanks? do you see, you've not said that. You may have thought you'd said it, but you haven't.

avoiding the question

And if you'd had asked the question before now I'd have answered it. You're twisting and changing your argument, and then telling me I've not answered questions about your position when your position is constantly changing

Avoiding the question

Freelancer once again I am not sure what you are trying to get at. All I can see is you avoiding the one answer I want. WHAT DO YOU SUGGEST THEY DO.

And yet you've sneered at the coffee as being inferior and over priced, and made a series of unsubstainated and libelous accusations aganist fair trade collectives? Oh yeah I can see the love.......

I said you were saying potentially libelous to the fair trade foundations.

No you didnt, you accused me of being libelous, ohhh.....Finally I get a defination of back peddling.....hypocrite

Thats libel (we'll come to the chemicals in a bit) but I've repeatadly asked you to back up this assertion. WHERE DOES THE PREVIOUS QUOTE COME FROM AND WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.

Done. as above.

Okay simple point billybanks. Where exactly have you asked this question? I cannot answer a question you haven't posed.

Now tell me this, what evidence to you have that starbucks want to change to entirely fair trade? Asking me "how can starbucks change to fairtrade coffee" when you haven't demostrated that the want to but are limited by supply?

I've simply and clearly stated that it's hyprocritical for starbucks to offer fair and non fairtrade coffee, if you show me any evidence that they want to change their coffee to entirely fair trade you have a point. An entirely new point. Don't be outraged that I haven't answered a question you haven't asked until this post.

Freelancer.....I have never in my life met anybody who can avoid answering a question like you......are you in politics? I asked a simple question you gave a vague off the point answer. This is the reason I have such a problem with your view, a nieve view. You want Starbucks to only sell fair trade coffee....end of story, you dont look at both sides and see the problems of only selling fair trade coffee. You constantly ask me to prove my points.

if you show me any evidence that they want to change their coffee to entirely fair trade you have a point

Here is a quote for you.....

Last year Rice's agency certified $208 million worth of Fair Trade coffee. That's not much, given the $19.2 billion American coffee market. [/B]

Unfortunatly Freelance, it is a subscription website so you cant look at it. But just use google, you will find plenty of reference to how the fair trade market is small......but growing. Which brings me back to my point.....starbucks can only change over time, even without the all important quotes, logic should show this.

billyblanks · 26-11-2005 6:30pm

Okay simple point billybanks. Where exactly have you asked this question? I cannot answer a question you haven't posed.

What is you solution to Starbucks fair trade problem? This is a question by the way.

Well thats one thing you've admitted your wrong on, now care to offer any evidence to support your claims about

I would of been wrong if I had said there were chemicals used on ORGANIC fair Trade coffee. What I said was "fair enough there are no chemicals on your ORGANIC fair trade coffee" Which is a vilid point by you....I never mentioned ORGANIC in that statement.

Here it is again for you.....

And for the record fair trade-certified cooperatives and small holders have still have problems of child labor, less pay for women, inadequate medical care, use of dangerous chemicals, and nonpayment of minimum wages. so its not all rosey for the fair trade farmers.

Whare does it say anything about ORGANIC Fair trade coffee here?

I am becoming bored with this.....as is everybody else I am sure.

Freelancer · 26-11-2005 7:12pm

Okay three points

1. Billybanks you've dropped your claim that fairtrade coffee is inferior to fairtrade coffee.

Your link, which you finally got round to to producing (after I asked like what ten times?)

billybanks wrote:

Nonetheless, his group has found anecdotal evidence that fair trade-certified cooperatives and small holders have similar problems of child labor, less pay for women, inadequate medical care, use of dangerous chemicals,

the key word in the above is ancedotal.

Your argument.

You'll have to admit your argument has developed and changed since you first walked onto this thread and said

If they have it as a choice on the menu then their customers are also indifferent to "changing practices to improve their workers lot." If everybody asked for fair trade coffee then it would be the only choice on the menu!

"Give the customer what they want"

This is a radically different than the one you now present.

Now to deal with that.

billybanks wrote:

Ok lets forget about the quality issue for one minute, Starbucks are a massive company,10,000 stores world wide I think? I know thay had 8500 in 2004. The main resourcece they use is coffee. How can you expect them to fully change over to fair trade in a short peroid, ie overnight for you! So your solution is dont sell any fair trade at all.......how does that benifit anybody?

Billy and again what evidence do you offer that this is the only hurdle between Starbucks going entirely fair trade. What evidence so you present that they want to switch to entirely fair trade.

What do you have which supports your claim that starbucks want to make all their coffee fairtrade?

Really billyboy? You did? Where. You seem you constantly change your argument when did you say that starbucks should change overnight? You've said that its acceptable for starbucks to offer both "give the customer what he wants", you've never said the above.

when did you say that starbucks should change overnight?

Billy I'm not sure if you're being obtuse or just dense.

Theres nothing in your orginal posts which suggest that you think starbucks should switch to entirely fair trade. Nothing. You post that in response to me and then demand I answer an argument you haven't been putting forward all along. It's intellectually dishonest for you to claim this has been your position on this thread from the get go. Re read your orginal posts.

Show me where I said anything about organic fair trade coffee having chemicals on it. Once again you are missing the point. You dont understand the difference between organic and fair trade!

Okay I'm going to reproduce your orginal quote for the last time.

billybanks wrote:

And for the record fair trade-certified cooperatives and small holders have still have problems of child labor, less pay for women, inadequate medical care, use of dangerous chemicals, and nonpayment of minimum wages. so its not all rosey for the fair trade farmers.

Please re read it. Now do you include the caveat "some" before fair trade cooperatives? Do you include the cavaet "a few" before fair trade cooperatives? No.

You say "fair trade cooperatives". Which clearly means you are claiming that the problems of non payment of minmimum wages, use of child labour, less pay for woman, child labour, and use of dangerous chemicals, is rife among ALL Fairtrade co-operatives.

You made a blanket accusation aganist ALL fair trade cooperatives. Including the cooperative which makes my organic coffee.

Do you not see that? You accused all fairtrade cooperatives of this behaviour.

. This is the reason I have such a problem with your view, a nieve view. You want Starbucks to only sell fair trade coffee....end of story,

Yes yes I do I think all coffee should be bought at a fair price for the grower. I think it's hyprocritical for a coffee company to offer "some" fair trade coffee, and leave it at that. I want starbucks to only sell fair trade coffee and until they do, I won't drink their coffee and will highlight this beahviour.

Done. as above.

And I'll look at the link and the site later. As mentioned early you've quietly dropped your other site which "proves" you point that fairtrade coffee is always inferior.

if you show me any evidence that they want to change their coffee to entirely fair trade you have a point

Here is a quote for you.....

Last year Rice's agency certified $208 million worth of Fair Trade coffee. That's not much, given the $19.2 billion American coffee market. [/b]

Unfortunatly Freelance, it is a subscription website so you cant look at it.

How tantilising, again how does this alledged one website support your claim that starbucks are planning to switch entirely to fairtrade. Waving me in the direction of goggle and suggesting that theres a subscription website which "proves" your point isn't much of an argument.

You've created a strawman argument here billy. You (current) entire point is based on Starbucks policy offering some fairtrade coffee is just a launching point for them going entirely fairtrade. However you've utterly failed to demostrate that that point is actually true. Can you offer some evidence to support it? The fact is starbucks have a limited range of fair trade coffee and don't seem to be in any rush to change their policy. I'm angry with starbucks current real policy, and you're offering a potential, imagary strabucks policy as a rebuttal.

Thats not a defense. I'm angry with starbucks current behaviour. You've offered a potential model for starbucks to behave to but (yet again) utterly failed to demostrate this is a model they're working towards. And then gotten angry when I've seen it as irrelevant to starbucks current behaviour. Basically I'm angry with the real starbucks and you've offered a potential starbucks, and yet you're annoyed that I ignore it. You're comparing their actual behaviour with your ideal model behaviour. Thats a joke. Why should your potential ideal for starbucks behaviour alter my behaviour towards their real actions. Unless you can demostrate that starbucks are moving towards a totally fairtrade stock, your entire point is moot.

Or to use flash cards.

Me: I'm angry that starbucks offer some fair trade, but don't bother to improve the lot of the workers who make the rest of the coffee. They're clearly aware that some of their coffee is unethical, but in order to exploit the ethical euro or dollar will happily offer some fair trade coffee, yet won't bother making any attempt to remedy or insist their non fair trade coffee try to apply to and adhere to fair trade standards.

You: But it's a start! Now what if this was the start of a radical shift to making the entire range of their coffee fairtrade.

Me: Okay Thats an interesting point. However theres no evidence that your argument is what actually is happening. Do you have any?

You: You're avoiding the question!

Me: No no I'm not I've presented my arguments with the company. You've presented a hypothetical model of their behaviour. You've not presented any evidence that this is actually their policy. You're merely suggesting that this could be there policy. Why should your "potential imagined" behaviour of starbucks alter my opinion of the current company policy.

You: You're avoiding the question.

Me: No I'm not you're outlining a concievable model of their behaviour, but failed to offer any concrete evidence to support your claim that this is starbucks company policy, you've only offered evidence that this could be starbucks policy. Why should I let your imagined model of starbucks behaviour alter my opinion of starbucks actual behaviour?

You: WAAAAA HAAAA RANDOM WORDS WITH ORGANIC IN CAPITALS..............................

billybanks wrote:

I would of been wrong if I had said there were chemicals used on ORGANIC fair Trade coffee. What I said was "fair enough there are no chemicals on your ORGANIC fair trade coffee" Which is a vilid point by you....I never mentioned ORGANIC in that statement.

Jesus billy you'd drive a man to drink.

Here it is again for you.....

And for the record fair trade-certified cooperatives and small holders have still have problems of child labor, less pay for women, inadequate medical care, use of dangerous chemicals, and nonpayment of minimum wages. so its not all rosey for the fair trade farmers.

Whare does it say anything about ORGANIC Fair trade coffee here?

And once again for the hard of thinking your accusation doesn't include the words "some" or "a few". You made a blanket allegation aganist all fairtrade cooperatives which would include all collectives including the organic ones.

Jesus christ and again to use flash cards (I'm just about ready to give a go with sock puppets)

YOU: Sweeping unsupported accusation aganist all fair trade coffee cooperatives

ME: Okay hang on you've made a claim about all fair trade coffee including all organic growers like mine. Care to provide evidence that (among other things) they're not organic.

YOU: ORGANIC ORGANIC WAAHHHH WHEN DID I SAY THAT

Me: No you made a load of accusations againist all fair trade growers including organic.

YOU: WTF R U RETARDED DO YOU NOT KNOW THE DIFE BETWEEN FAIR TRADE AND ORGANIC

Me: Yes and again you made a sweeping libelous allegation aganist all fair trade growers. Where is the proof?

YO: ORGANIC AND FAIR TRADE AREN'T THE SAME TING DON'T you KNOW THIS.

Me: Yes I do but again you make a sweeping allegation againist all fair trade cooperatives including organic ones.

YOU: WHEN DID I SAY ANYTHING ABOUT ORGANIC.

Me: Oh sod it Irish coffee time.

WhiteWashMan · 27-11-2005 2:20am

jesus kids, agree to disagree!

whether youre a fairtrader or not, who cares?

persaonlly i prefer organic coffee that tastes good. if its fairtrade so be it!

AND LOSE THE CAPITALS! USING CAPITALS DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE CORRECT IN AN ARGUEMENT......

Blisterman · 27-11-2005 7:20pm

When I was in starbucks the other day, they had leaflets saying how all their coffee suppliers must meet international standards, for pollution, proper wages, and ethical treatment. It says they have independant audits too.

Freelancer · 27-11-2005 9:00pm

Blisterman wrote:

When I was in starbucks the other day, they had leaflets saying how all their coffee suppliers must meet international standards, for pollution, proper wages, and ethical treatment. It says they have independant audits too.

Have you read the literature they have in Mc Donalds? Christ you'd believe that their cows want to be made into hamburgers.

Going by the literature (propaganda) in the store in question is profoundly dubious.

The increasingly visible protests left Starbucks with little choice but to pass its code, and it cost the company little. We were "prodded" into it, notes David Olsen, Starbucks' senior vice president, diplomatically.

But according to Alice Tepper Marlin, CEP's executive director, the mission statement alone was enough to earn Starbucks its honor. How has Starbucks enforced its code? "We've done nothing yet," acknowledges Olsen. "It's a slow, incremental process." Very incremental. Starbucks' promised review of plantation conditions is being carried out by the Guatemalan coffee growers association, the very organization accused of perpetuating the low wages. First condemned for labor practices it could not hope to change, Starbucks is now praised for actions it has not yet taken.

What can Starbucks accomplish with its code, putting aside its obvious goal of quieting protests? "Codes are a start," says Eric Hahn of the US/Guatemala Labor Education Project. "But only if it's part of a bigger strategy of industry monitoring, which is one of the few tools available in an international, deregulated economy. Otherwise it's just a balm to consumers."

http://www.corpgov.net/forums/commentary/entine1.html

I mean did starbucks mention what codes they are? who inforces them? What are the penalties they breach? Who's international standards are they adhering to?

Enii · 27-11-2005 11:18pm

crash_000 wrote:

actually, i think i'll have to ask about the syrup thing next time i'm in. I developed a love for steamed milk and hazelnut syrup over the years, and very few coffee shops serve it, so if they sell it i'll be there.

I got a bottle of this syrup in Musgraves for a tenner. It is great having it in my coffee at home!

BuffyBot · 28-11-2005 1:30am

Going by the literature (propaganda) in the store in question is profoundly dubious.

Of course, it depends on whether you believe the information on that site...the truth, most likely is somewhere in the middle..

Freelancer · 28-11-2005 3:15am

BuffyBot wrote:

Of course, it depends on whether you believe the information on that site...the truth, most likely is somewhere in the middle..

Of course the truth lies between an small NGO dedicated to improving workers lots and the slick marketing deparment of a multinational worth billions.

:rolleyes:

segadreamcast · 28-11-2005 10:59am

Same with me and the syrup Crash...steamed milk with vanilla is the best

!

(And yes, yes they do serve it... not on the menu, but just ask for it...I don't 'do' coffee, so this is all I get from Starbucks!)

BuffyBot · 28-11-2005 11:39am

Well yes, I think that's what I said, thanks for the clarification...

billyblanks · 28-11-2005 3:04pm

1. Billybanks you've dropped your claim that fairtrade coffee is inferior to fairtrade coffee.

Where did I drop my claim about the quality issue?

I said "Ok lets forget about the quality issue for one minute," This is a very good example of how you try to twist things to suit your arguement.

as whitewashman said "agree to disagree" if you want to continue the quality arguement pm your points to me and I will reply to it. Save people the bordem of wading through pages of quotes.

Your link, which you finally got round to to producing (after I asked like what ten times?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by billybanks
Nonetheless, his group has found anecdotal evidence that fair trade-certified cooperatives and small holders have similar problems of child labor, less pay for women, inadequate medical care, use of dangerous chemicals,

the key word in the above is ancedotal.

No way.....I'm shocked.......There must be some mistake.....I produce a article to something you have asked for "like 10 times" and you dismiss it......what a shock!!!! Freelancer if you are going to piss and moan when I give you exactly what you are looking for dont bother asking in future.

I dont dispute your articles, dont dispute mine unless you have evidence you can show me to prove they are untrue.

Your argument.

You'll have to admit your argument has developed and changed since you first walked onto this thread and said

Quote:
If they have it as a choice on the menu then their customers are also indifferent to "changing practices to improve their workers lot." If everybody asked for fair trade coffee then it would be the only choice on the menu!

"Give the customer what they want"

This is a radically different than the one you now present.

Now to deal with that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by billybanks
Ok lets forget about the quality issue for one minute, Starbucks are a massive company,10,000 stores world wide I think? I know thay had 8500 in 2004. The main resourcece they use is coffee. How can you expect them to fully change over to fair trade in a short peroid, ie overnight for you! So your solution is dont sell any fair trade at all.......how does that benifit anybody?

No its not radically different......I'm still defending starbucks for selling fair trade as a choice. Its called expanding my Point. If I turned around and said starbucks are a pack of W****rs for selling non fair trade coffee, then that would be radically different.

I still feel you are grasping at straws here freelancer, alot of your arguements are totally off the point, you are putting more effort into trying to catch me out rather than defending your point of view.

you still wont answer my question. is it better that Starbucks sell some fair trade or none?

Okay I'm going to reproduce your orginal quote for the last time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by billybanks
And for the record fair trade-certified cooperatives and small holders have still have problems of child labor, less pay for women, inadequate medical care, use of dangerous chemicals, and nonpayment of minimum wages. so its not all rosey for the fair trade farmers.

Please re read it. Now do you include the caveat "some" before fair trade cooperatives? Do you include the cavaet "a few" before fair trade cooperatives? No.

You say "fair trade cooperatives". Which clearly means you are claiming that the problems of non payment of minmimum wages, use of child labour, less pay for woman, child labour, and use of dangerous chemicals, is rife among ALL Fairtrade co-operatives.

You made a blanket accusation aganist ALL fair trade cooperatives. Including the cooperative which makes my organic coffee.

Do you not see that? You accused all fairtrade cooperatives of this behaviour

Here we go again......Freelancer stop twisting things to suit your arguement. First of all the article is specific to Guatemala, if you had read it you would know this, is all Fair Trade coffee produced in Guatemala? second you look for the specific word "some" or "a few".......since you are being so percise show me where is says ALL?

Once I give you a valid point backed up by a link to a site confirming it and you still wont accept it.

And I'll look at the link and the site later.

Dont bother......I cant be bothered answering the irrational arguement you will come up with.

Thats not a defense. I'm angry with starbucks current behaviour. You've offered a potential model for starbucks to behave to but (yet again) utterly failed to demostrate this is a model they're working towards.

Here...
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/fairtrade/coffee/2562.html

Quote from the article.

"Under the alliance, Starbucks will pay higher prices to "preferred providers" -- suppliers that can demonstrate that money gets to farmers without being diverted, comply with environmental practices outlined by Conservation International, and meet humanitarian standards of the home country or international authorities."

You state....

Yes yes I do I think all coffee should be bought at a fair price for the grower. I think it's hyprocritical for a coffee company to offer "some" fair trade coffee, and leave it at that. I want starbucks to only sell fair trade coffee and until they do, I won't drink their coffee and will highlight this beahviour.

It is a stupid narrow minded point of view, I think it is great Starbucks have started selling Fair trade coffee.....you want to boycott them for doing it! The best thing you could do is go to starbucks and order a fair trade coffee, I think that would be a much more positive way of getting your point of view accross.

I am sorry Freelancer I am right here. I have proven my point again and again with quotes and links to back up my points. Starbucks are making an effort to change, it will take time......accept it!

Freelancer · 28-11-2005 4:17pm

billyblanks wrote:

I said "Ok lets forget about the quality issue for one minute," This is a very good example of how you try to twist things to suit your arguement

as whitewashman said "agree to disagree" if you want to continue the quality arguement pm your points to me and I will reply to it. Save people the bordem of wading through pages of quotes.

So you're admitting you're wrong and ain't got a leg to stand on. Grand so, Seeing as the first thing you said on this thread was that fair trade was inferior, asking us to now forget it, just shows how far off your point you've gotten.

No way.....I'm shocked.......There must be some mistake.....I produce a article to something you have asked for "like 10 times" and you dismiss it......what a shock!!!! Freelancer if you are going to piss and moan when I give you exactly what you are looking for dont bother asking in future.

The article says that in one country there is ancedotal reports of your claim. Thats hardly a smoking gun?

No its not radically different......I'm still defending starbucks for selling fair trade as a choice. Its called expanding my Point. If I turned around and said starbucks are a pack of W****rs for selling non fair trade coffee, then that would be radically different.

Lets look at how successfully starbucks is at selling "some" fairtrade.

http://del.icio.us/starbuckschallenge

This is the starbucks challenge. People go into starbucks to see how easy it is to get a decent fairtrade coffee. It's actually pretty hard.

Here we go again......Freelancer stop twisting things to suit your arguement. First of all the article is specific to Guatemala, if you had read it you would know this, is all Fair Trade coffee produced in Guatemala? second you look for the specific word "some" or "a few".......since you are being so percise show me where is says ALL?

Are you being obtuse?

That article may say something about Guatemala, but did you say anything about guatemala in your first post?

billybanks wrote:

And for the record fair trade-certified cooperatives and small holders have still have problems of child labor, less pay for women, inadequate medical care, use of dangerous chemicals, and nonpayment of minimum wages. so its not all rosey for the fair trade farmers.

That quote that started this all off several pages ago, does it have any mention of Guatemala? NO!

Do you understand how TIME WORKS IN A LINEAR FASHION? You said this;

I said you made a blanket allegation aganist all fair trade co operatives, and three pages later you bring in a quote about Guatemala, and say "where does this say anything about the world?".

Thats nice but YOU NEVER SAID GUATEMALA IN THE FIRST PLACE. Presenting an argument that accuses fair trade collectives across the board, which is what you did, and then finally producing an article that talks about one country and trying to fob off that has been your position all along is just about as dishonest as you can get.

The article may mention Guatemala, you didn't. Quit trying to pass off what the article said as what you said at the start.

Jesus.

Once I give you a valid point backed up by a link to a site confirming it and you still wont accept it.

And I'll look at the link and the site later.

Dont bother......I cant be bothered answering the irrational arguement you will come up with.

So you got squat grand so.

"Under the alliance, Starbucks will pay higher prices to "preferred providers" -- suppliers that can demonstrate that money gets to farmers without being diverted, comply with environmental practices outlined by Conservation International, and meet humanitarian standards of the home country or international authorities."

Under what alliance? whose standards what evidence? It's all very well claiming that the adhere to international standard, but as pointed out very often the people they're getting to check the standards are the people that stand accused of breaching the standards in the first place. Fairtrade is an internationally recognised standard why can't they bring themselves to that standard?

It is a stupid narrow minded point of view, I think it is great Starbucks have started selling Fair trade coffee.....you want to boycott them for doing it! The best thing you could do is go to starbucks and order a fair trade coffee, I think that would be a much more positive way of getting your point of view accross.

The best thing I can do is drink coffee in establishments which only serve fairtrade coffee. Thats a postive way to get my message across.

As mentioned in the link above more often than not it's difficult to get your fairtrade coffee in starbucks.

Anyway you really think starbucks go through all their reciepts from every store to figure out how much fairtrade is being sold?

Nope sorry the best thing to do is drink only in places that serve fairtrade coffee, and raise awareness about fairtrade. When they see their competition's profits rise and theres fall that'll send them a message.

I am sorry Freelancer I am right here. I have proven my point again and again with quotes and links to back up my points. Starbucks are making an effort to change, it will take time......accept it!

No you haven't and it's gotten laughable.

1) You've not proven that fair trade coffee is inferior and more expensive, in fact you proved it's as good as most coffee, even slightly superior, you've not even tried to prove that it's more expensive.

2) You made an allegation againist ALL fair trade collectives failure to adhere to workers rights pay deal child labour and dangerous chemicals. When challenged to prove this you go on a mad tangent on ORGANIC verus NON ORGANIC coffee, before finally bringing out a quote that the above might be happening in Guatemala. Seeing as you only mentioned for the first time Guatemala in your last post, it's intellectually dishonest to claim this has been your position all along.

3) Finally you made a claim that Starbucks are shifting to entirely fairtrade eventually, you've not offered a shred of evidence to support the above.

Billy you got nothing, zero, you're firing blanks.

billyblanks · 28-11-2005 4:43pm

I only red the first line of your response.....Anger prevented me from going on.

So you're admitting you're wrong and ain't got a leg to stand on. Grand so, Seeing as the first thing you said on this thread was that fair trade was inferior, asking us to now forget it, just shows how far off your point you've gotten

Forget it freelancer, at one point I was really enjoying this discussion but now you are now acting irrational,at this stage You are now just making things up. I have better things to do with my time than argue with a child.

So you're admitting you're wrong

???????????????????????????????????????.......Where do you get it from?

Shabadu · 28-11-2005 4:56pm

Thats IT! Enough!

You have both had your say- you disagree- live with it.

Any more pissyness and you'll be banned. You have both already been warned twice.

GreeBo · 28-11-2005 5:45pm

Freelancer wrote:

3) Finally you made a claim that Starbucks are shifting to entirely fairtrade eventually, you've not offered a shred of evidence to support the above.

None --> Some --> All
Wow, look how it progresses, a lot unlike this argument.

Freelancer wrote:

Billy you got nothing, zero, you're firing blanks.

Oh man thats two funny!
The way you used his *own* name for your stunning riposte.

!!!11!
Brilliant.

Oh, and in case you cant tell, Im being sarcastic.

Shabadu · 28-11-2005 5:53pm

Alright, seeing as GreeBo has wandered into the argument without bothering to read the post directly above his, thread is LOCKED. GreeBo- you're name is in my little red book of 'those who have been warned' now.

First middle of town Starbucks - opinions?

Comments