
Perhaps one of the most viewed posts here on my blog is
my list of slave-free chocolates available in Australia. That list I have compiled slowly over several months. I have received wonderful support from readers here and in "real life" in compiling that list - many people sought to undertake research of their own and then informed me of what they have found. There were times when readers here have disagreed and corrected me on my information and I have amended the post accordingly.
I have also received many queries regarding the source of my list and how I have compiled it. In response, I wrote my sources in the comments section of that post and again as a
proper post.
Today, I decided to expand on how I have written the third ("Use slaves, but...") and
and fourth ("Use slaves and they don't care") categories. As a reminder to everyone, I have openly said before that I wrote those last two categories are based on *my* reaction to responses (or non-responses) from chocolate companies and my knowledge from more reputable sources. By that I mean, those two categories were written from *my own* deconstruction of messages churned out by those chocolate compaines. Feel free to disagree with me. (I only ask that you disagree in a way that is constructive and accountable.)
So on to the messages...
I have found that for those companies in the fourth category (and some in the third category), there were similar messages in their response to queries regarding their cocoa sources. I will list those messages now. If you have received different messages, please post here.
Claim 1: They do not get their cocoa from the Ivory CoastThis claim seems to play on popular notions that child-slavery in cocoa farms are limited to the Ivory Coast. Child slavery is *not* limited to the Ivory Coast alone. On 15 June 2001, The International Labour Organisation(ILO) published a
report that concludes that child-slavery and trafficking is rampant throughout West Africa. The countries mentioned in the report include: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast), Gabon, Ghana, Mali, Nigeria and Togo.

All the responses I received from the companies I listed in category four stated that they got their cocoa from Ghana. This statement is often made without reference to the slavery issue in Ghana, but rather as a comparison to slavery issue in the Ivory Coast.
On 31 October 2007, the Payson Centre at Tulane University (funded by the US Department of Labor) reported on the cocoa industry and the slavery issue in Ghana and the Ivory Coast. The report concludes that child-slavery (termed "forced labour" in the report) still exists and that both Ghana and the Ivory Coast have moved very slowly in reporting back as per previous international agreements to do so. For the full report see:
http://www.childlabor-payson.org/FirstAnnualReport.pdfIn addition, the Government of Ghana have been quite open that slavery is part of their culture. (See:
http://www.modernghana.com/news/24677/1/child-slavery-in-ghana.html) While the Goverment of Ghana are working towards addressing child-slavery, many welfare organisations do state that they have a very limited capacity to do so and hampered by the efforts of the Ghanian Government to try and minimise publicity over the issue (see:
http://www.freetheslaves.net/Document.Doc?id=20)
Therefore I question the claim by these chocolate companies and their motives for even stating this fact. In all of my correspondence to them, I never once mention the Ivory Coast (I just question whether they do, indeed, source their cocoa from farms who use child-slaves). Instead I get a paragraph diverting my attention to Ghana instead of the Ivory Coast.
Claim 2: They participate in the International Cocoa Initiative (ICI) and the World Cocoa Foundation(WCF).The WCF is one of the organisations that were a key feature of the
Harken Engel Protocol. This is the protocol that had an original life as a certification system where chocolate can be labelled "slave-free". They then set up the International Cocoa Initiative (ICI) to oversee this project. The WCF sits under the ICI.
Unfortunately, that protocol has now been reduced to a survey instrument rather than a certification system. (See my blog post:
http://consumption-rebellion.blogspot.com/2008/07/jamie-oliver-chickens-but-what-about.html)
While the WCF and the ICI have tried to address the problem, I think it has failed miserably. See the
Tulane University Report again and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Cocoa_Initiative.It is my opinion that for a problem of this magnitude, self-regulation (which is essentially what happened when membership to the ICI and WCF was opened to the chocolate companies) was *not* a good policy call because instead of exercising the powers given to these organisations, there has been effort instead to change the policy so it no longer had any "teeth". Many of the funds given to the ICI and WCF have been redirected to research projects on how to grow cocoa more efficiently.
While I support research, I do not believe so much of the ICI's resources should have gone to research and should have gone instead of addressing the immediate problem - which is that there are children being locked up every night in over crowded cells and being forced to work in isolation from their community.
Having said that, I do acknowledge that the ICI and the WCF have at least helped *some* farms through the provision of education (though the details and results of that education are very very unclear).
Claim 3: Buying from Fairtrade accredited sources would compromise the quality of their chocolates.This one would have to be one of the most puzzling claims to me and it was made by Lindt in two of their emails to me. According to Lindt, under the rules of Fairtrade, they would
not be able to reject low quality beans from suppliers.
I searched the
Fairtrade Labelling Standards for Cocoa and I can not see anything in the rules that say that buyers *have* to buy low quality beans. There are rules in there regarding labour standards, logistical, administrative and technical requirements for exporting products etc. In fact, the standards seem to me to ensure the delivery of quality products rather than forcing buyers to buy low quality products. If I have read the standards wrong, then please let me know!
Further,
Cadbury UK's recent decision to move to Fairtrade accreditation for their Dairy Milk line seems to be in direct contradiction with Lindt's claim.
This post from Cadbury UK's blog seems to be very confident that the taste of their dairy milk chocolate will remain the same after they have gained fairtrade accreditation.
And now my other thoughts...Finally, why did I have 2 separate categories in the first place?? As I have stated previously, I decided to separate the companies because in my opinion, some (like Cadbury and Cocoa Farm) are making a concerted effort to change cultural problems and systems inherent in the Cocoa Industry. So yes, I also do admit that this is a value judgement on my part.
In talking to chocolate companies that *are* fairtrade certified or organic certified, I have noticed one MAJOR difference.
These companies are always willing to name their sources. In short, they are TRANSPARENT in their dealings. They do *not* make vague statements like: "we pay our suppliers premium price to ensure that their workers are paid fairly..." or "we only use reputable suppliers for our cocoa".
The other thing about these ethical companies is that they conduct regular (and usually independent) audits to ensure people are not being exploited and they were more than happy to tell me the company who does their audit and most offered to release the executive summary of their latest audit report to me.
When I compare the way the companies in categories 1 to 3 have informed me and the way companies in category 4 have acted, there is a distinct difference.
Categories 1 to 3 companies have acted more openly. Category 4 fed me a whole heap of "facts" that were only half the story and did not correlate in anyway with information given to me by an overwhelmingly large number of other companies in Categories 1 to 3.
Finally, I have received one
anonymous comment telling me that I need to "prove" that those companies in Category 4 use child-slavery. Given that so many independent reports have already indicated that child-slavery is widespread in the cocoa industry, I think the "proof" should go the other way...that these companies need to prove that are NOT using child-slavery. Therefore, if anyone can produce for me correspondence from the chocolate companies I have named bluntly stating that they do *not* use cocoa harvested by child-slaves, then I'd love to see it!
For further reading, see also:
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/fairtrade/cocoa/background.htmlOther lists of chocolate companies and their "rankings":
http://vision.ucsd.edu/~kbranson/stopchocolateslavery/main.htmlhttp://www.betterworldshopper.com/r-chocolate.html