Talk:Fair trade/Archive 1

Trade Justice vs. Fair Trade
I think it's time to disambiguate Trade Justice and Fair Trade... the article itself is very confusing as both concepts are used interchangeably. I think part of the article should be moved to the Trade Justice entry. What do you all think? --Quebecois1983 13:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's about time to disambiguate this page. I just moved some parts to the Trade Justice page. Bonner5 19:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Major Edits
I have just made some major edits to the article: much of the information I removed was incorred or inappropriate. Fair Trade has a universally adopted definition: it was developed by FINE a couple of years ago and is widely recognized throughout the Fair Trade movement - I added this definition to the first paragraph and adapted the text.

I also rewrote the section about Fairtrade certification and labelling - again, much of the information was incorrect or outdated. The International Fairtrade Certification Mark,currently used in 18 countries, was not even mentioned! I also deleted the short paragraph about Transfair USA and replaced it with more "international proof" references to Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International (which Transfair USA is a founding member of).

And finally, I reorganized all the links. It was quite a mess... legitimate links were mixed with commercial ones etc. I created new categories such as Fairtrade Towns, Publications, ATOs etc. in order to better classify everything. I deleted all commercial links but left ATO links (such as Oxfam, Lutheran Relief etc.) since ATOs have played quite an important role in the development of Fair Trade.

Anyway, I hope you all agree with my changes. I am tempted to make some more, as this article still needs serious editing...

-- Quebecois1983 12:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Just pointing something out
This article has no concise definition of what fair trade actually is. Perhaps that should go at the very beginning?

I agree with Jan Tångring. Since fair trade seem to have so many meanings, see more in the disambiguation in the article, a more clear division between the different meanings of the term would make the article much clearer.

I thought that fair trade was first used in the protectionist meaning. The fair trade labelling came along later on. I am not sure when the term first was introduced. Protetections in 60's early 70's, or? and the ethical trading in the 80's, or?

--Bedrupsbaneman, 16:11 2005-04-04 (GMT)

The counterarguments section gets confusing. The text would benefit, I think, if the ethical purchasing form of fair trade and the tariff form of fair trade were debated separately. --Jan Tångring 17:59, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I removed the following paragraph from the article introduction, as it is unintelligible as it stands. Also, it is not NPOV.

I propose the person who write it makes another try. Or even better, to save the pros and cons to the main text, the introduction is long enough:


 * The main ["The main" by whose ranking? How about a simple "An"] argument against fair trade is that the term [you mean "the concept"?] in practice is primarily intended to protect [intentionally? someone wants this?] inefficient industries and that fair trade as conceived of by its proponents would do little to help [to help what?] as fair trade still remains a niche and indeed would aggravate problems of global poverty and social injustice, as not everyone [who, exactly, needs one?] can get a fair trade certification. [why not?]

--Jan Tångring 17:50, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the last line in the first paragraph that reads "These critics of fair trade argue that a growing economic inter-reliance of all nations globally also contributes to peace, as suppliers rarely wage war on their customers.". Why would someone be a critic of contributing to peace? Please consider revising.

Can someone tell me why free trade is in quotes, like "free trade" or "free" trade. I don't understand why that's done. Is it suppossed to be some sort of political statment?

there's some dorky typos in this, but how about you flame me first, and tell me this stuff doesn't exist, or that you hate it and want it to all go away, or something, as usual? Then I'll know what to change and to attribute. 24

This isn't quite true......


 * Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, most economies worldwide embraced varying degress of free trade, and rejected fair trade measures on the grounds that charging higher prices than the global commodity markets for the goods exported by developing nations would penalize them unduly, denying them hard cash, and preventing them from gaining market share and trusted positions in a supply chain (since varying tax and tariff rates, or worst, complex trade law, would prevent them from competing on an equal basis with developed-nation suppliers). Critics of fair trade argue that a growing economic inter-reliance of all nations globally also contributes to peace, as suppliers rarely wage war on their customers.

Most of the anti-free trade energy has been focused at manufacturers of finished products. Commodity goods such as agricultural products remain larged protected and there has been very little liberalization in this area. Also the problem isn't the complexity of the tariffs, its the size of the tariffs.
 * yes, you're right, it's complexity of trade remedies, e.g. dumping laws, rather than complexity of tariffs themselves. The manufactured, information, and agricultural sectors need to be better differentiated - that paragraph is saying way too much at once.  I'd stick by the assertion that these are the excuses used to avoid fair trade, but really, it is being enforced by default, e.g. developing nations and the EU and US refusing to negotiate an end to agricultural tariffs.  The commodity-export issue is mostly in timber and non-food crops, which is one reason why rainforests are destroyed:  timber is the only exportable they grow... whereas the food crops that could be grown without destroying the forest, are subject to lots of protection.  OK, I can rewrite this to be closer to your sense of it. 24
 * actually, the big problem with this paragraph, even correctly rewritten, is that it has to assume a political economy to say anything sane at all... it verges on macro-economics, whereas the fair trade arguments are "all micro", i.e. about effects at ground level. So, to be fair, one would need a classical/nationalist, neoclassical/globalist, Marxist/labour-centric and green/resource-centric view of what was going on in the 1980s and 1990s, and that's too much for this article.  A separate article on export strategy or industrial strategy should go into this in detail, but not here... if anything is said here it should be along the lines of "how legacy agricultural subsidy and protectionism constitute an informal set of resistance to free trade measures, especially in land and agriculture" 24

--

I don't think this article is terribly good as it stands. It's largely criticism by nutcase free market-obsessed americans. Could we mention something like this: http://www.maketradefair.com/go/uscotton in the stuff about why fair trade is better? -- Tarquin 09:22, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Incidentally, "Fair Trade"--capital "F", capital "T"--is in fact the trade mark of Transfair USA, an NGO that certifies products (chiefly specialty coffee, the flagship product chosen because it is the second largest traded commodity in the world next to petroleum) sold directly from farmer cooperatives to distributors at a minimum price that secures a living wage. More information is available at. This capitalized spelling makes "Fair Trade" distinct from the general use of the term discussed in this entry, so perhaps it deserves its own. I don't know Wikipedia's policy on including information on trade marks or certification programs, but consider that USDA_Organic_certification does not have an entry, but RIAA certification does. Perhaps FT deserves a Fair_Trade_Certification entry ... An appropriate place to bring this up would be: ??? -MattEpp (Disclaimer: this is my first ever Wikipedia edit. My sincere apologies if I am not welcome here)

Restructure
Restructured to clarify distinction and relationship between fair trade in general and fairtrade labelling; there's still a case the entire Fairtrade labelling stuff should go into that article (but that's currently short and sweet so I'm reluctant). Also primary-topic disambiguation. There's clearly more to be said about non-fairtrade labelling aspects; but removal of the straw-man discussion of import-taxation is a start for developing something useful. Issues include the role of international standards (eg ILO), including enforcement issues; role of WTO (including nontransparency of dispute resolution); expansion of agricultural subsidy issue (see trade and development); role of developing-country protectionism (eg Dani Rodrik on sequencing and need for institutional development, experience of China and the Asian Tigers, etc); abuse of "fair trade" argument by domestic producers in rich countries (see Cato Institute external link). Rd232 21:54, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stirling, Free trade and current international trade practices are not the same thing. This is a key part of the fair trade issue, and to insist on putting "free trade" as the main object of criticism in the first sentence is misleading. Yes, criticism of free trade is part of the debate, but so is criticism of current practices which in key areas and ways (esp agriculture) are biased against developing countries, and cannot be considered free trade (with or without quotes). No-one's disputing the term free trade - it's the appropriateness as you wish to use it in the intro which is at issue. There is a whole section to clarify this - there is really no need for a misleading formulation in the intro. Rd232 20:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are trying to bury words you don't like. That's POV almost by definition. The term "free trade" applies to a coherent set of doctrines on regulation, finance, tariffs and "harmonization" - practices which fair trade as a term and a concept was formulated to critique and alter. Free trade versus fair trade as ideas is the issue and trying to call it "misleading" to talk about it up front borders on being insulting. Stirling Newberry 20:29, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Please confirm that you actually read what I wrote above, before I take this silliness to RFC. It certainly doesn't look like you did. To reiterate: it is POV to insist, against the "fair traders" position (as well as objective fact - see eg trade and development), that current international trade practices are "free trade". Rd232 21:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hm, your position is clearer to me this morning. Your characterisation of fair trade is US-centric - all about the interests of US producers, who want (additional) protection from overseas competition. But as important (and more prominent in international usage of the term) are the interests of developing countries' producers, who a face a system which is not free trade, but is actually rigged against them. So in this case fair trade is not about "we shouldn't have free trade because it's unfair", but "we shouldn't have what there is now, which is trade biased against the poor, which is unfair". My formulation covered all of this quite adequately and neutrally. Rd232 09:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RFC it then, you are being completely unreasonable. Stirling Newberry 21:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. Rd232 21:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fair trade or Fairtrade
This article and the other articles around WP seem to use a mix of the two spellings. I think the standardising the spelling would be good. My preference would be for Fairtrade (i.e. no space) for the ethical movement and fair trade for the historic useage. Any comments? Thryduulf 21:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I've seen "fair trade" almost exclusively, and have never seen "Fairtrade" outside of Wikipedia. Reading the articles here, I'm under the impression that "Fairtrade" is some sort of of a trademarked label, which is owned by a particular organization, while "fair trade" is a generic English phrase describing a general viewpoint, including the ethical movement (i.e. I would call advocates of the ethical movement "fair trade advocates",  unless they are specifically advocating the trademarked term "Fairtrade", in which case I would call them "advocates of Fairtrade labeling"). --Delirium 16:11, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Having taken a look at some coffee I have, it seems this might be a country difference as well&mdash;in the U.S., I can't recall ever seeing "Fairtrade" anywhere, including on labels. The labels I've seen use "Fair Trade" (capital 'F' and 'T', but separate words). --Delirium 16:13, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * It may be a country difference. Compare the Fairtrade Foundation, which oversees the Fairtrade Mark in the UK, with Global Exchange Fair Trade site. I have to say, the singleword form is useful in helping to distinguish from the other forms of "fair trade". Rd232 16:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair Trade is commonly used to refer the "Fair Trade movement" (including political activists, Alternative Trade Organizations (ATOs), etc.) while Fairtrade is used to refer to labelling initiatives. Fairtrade (in one word) is thus used by FLO and most European national initiatives (such as the Fairtrade Foundation). Much of the confusion comes from the fact that both Transfair USA and Transfair Canada have not adopted the new standardized international spelling and have kept writing Fair Trade in two words. That should change in the upcoming years... hopefully! I hope that answers your questions! Quebecois1983 12:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Make Trade Fair
I feel like adding a new article on the Make Trade Fair campaign, if no one has any objections... --Madchester 22:55, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

Inclusion of Fair trade critisisms section
Before you start flaming me for the title of my post, I come here on legitimate grounds.

I was thinking of starting a section (incorporating peer-reviewed material) on the weaknesses of the current fair trade ideology. Basically, there has been fairly extensive research on the effectiveness/efficiency of paying inflated prices for coffee to help impoverished South American coffee exporters, and there are areas in which such projects can be improved. What I propose is to add some fairly complex ideas on the topic.

My question, is how complex is too complex??? I know this is an encyclopedia, so it needs to be somewhat complex, but i know this is going to go straight over the top of a lot of peoples heads.

Dupz 13:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's hard to tell without looking at a draft. If you can write it in a paragraph, maybe two, that's probably something understandable enough, especially with a bit of help from other editors to tweak it as necessary. I would suggest that if you're addressing Fairtrade labelling in particular, that you add your section there first (it can be summarised here later). Rd232 16:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Draft proposal
Okay people, i've completed a rough draft of my proposal. I do remind that it is a draft and there may still be some points within it that do not conform to wiki standards. But that's my whole point of posting it here first, before i post it in the article. I tried my best to have a neutral POV, so make sure you read the whole article before you start a flame war on me :) The draft is sourced (virtually entirely) from:

'''Yanchus, D. d. V., Xavier (2003). "The Myth of Fair Prices: A Graphical Analysis." Journal of Economic Education Vol.34 (No.3): p235.'''

This graph shows how these inflated fair prices impact on the countries that export to developed countries. To explain this graph in a practical sense the production of coffee, from South America, being exported to the developed world will be used.

The thick curved black line, joining the two axis’, depicts the developing country’s Production possibility frontier (PPF) line. This line depicts the maximum amount of production possible of coffee and “other goods” in those countries.



Obviously, with the payment of fair prices for coffee we see the price of coffee rise in relation to other goods produced in the developing country. When we see such increases in relative prices we see that more resources will be allocated to the production of coffee, away from production of other goods. When we see such activity, we will observe the economy shifting its production away from using the domestic price ratio line (denoted by the red line), to the international price ratio (denoted by the green line).

The effect of such a change would mean that the coffee producing countries would shift their optimum consumption from indifference curve Y0 to Y2, yielding the tangential points of A’ to B’. With such a shift in resources we see that the country exporting the coffee will be unambiguously better off, since Y0 is preferred to Y2. (Yanchus, D; de Vanssay, X, 2003)

This argument holds the basis that most fair price advocates claim, and indeed their arguments are justified in that these exporting countries are undoubtedly better off.

With the case of fair trade there are several economic problems that need to be addressed. Referring back to graph we saw that the exporting country gains an unequivocal advantage from the implementing of fair prices. The first cost, to the importing and developed countries, derived from graph is the fact prices the fair price for coffee is higher than the market determined price. For simplicities sake, it is assumed that that producer who is being paid the fair price is sufficiently small that world coffee prices do not change as a consequence. (Yanchus, D., de Vanssay, X., 2003). This artificial increase in price can merely be seen as a donation, per unit sold, to the growers of the coffee, and theoretically we can see that the revenue raised from these fair prices is equal to the distance between U and T. This is seen as cost to the consumers of the coffee in the developed world, which is a cost that fair trade advocates are more than happy to deal with.

The second cost component results from the change in the actual price of coffee itself. Since consumers, in the developed world, have increased the price paid for coffee it results in an increase in the export price received by the targeted growers. This leads to a shift in productive resources towards the production of coffee, and away from that of other goods. In the graph this is shown as a shift from production at point A to B. The value, in terms of world prices, of the new production point B reflects world resource costs. Initially, the economy was producing at point A, and since the change we see a new, and lower, point of production at point B. As a result, the value of production of other goods has decreased from 0U to 0V. In summary, the second cost component to the rest of the world of fair pricing comes from the increase in the production of coffee sold at fair prices, which is equal to the distance between V and U. Therefore, as a result of fair prices the total direct cost to the developed world, in terms of output, is equal to the difference between V and T.

There is also a third cost of fair pricing, which is often overlooked. This cost comes about by the fact that the producers that gains from the fair prices increases their production of the good, and as a result force non-targeted producers to reduce their production. This can be assumed simply because of the fact that coffee, like most foodstuffs, shows inelastic demand characteristics, and as a result targeted producers are benefited, but non-targeted producers miss out.

These costs, just explained, seem to be merely external costs, or costs imposed on developed countries or countries not targeted by fair prices. This seems to push the point that fair trade is better than free trade. However, there are also costs incurred by the country receiving the fair price.

The first internal cost of fair pricing would be the fact that industries, other than coffee, and industries in other non-targeted countries would be neglected. The reason why this is is because returns for coffee growers will increase, and as a result demand for land, water and other essentials will increase. Basically, what this does is crowd out competing producers, who also compete for the land and water. Industries such as the fruit and vegetable growing industries would lose as they would be forced to move to less productive land, and will be forced to compete for resources such as water.

Secondly, the other cost of fair prices would be the fact that supported producers tend to become dependant on the premium prices paid for their goods, and if attitudes and preferences were to change, in the developed world, then we would see producers being unable to sustain themselves at the lower market driven prices. As a result this dependency also creates is the fact that the country’s long-term comparative advantage is distorted.

Fair trade advocates claim that even if there are potential costs imposed to developed nations by fair prices there are still equity issues that need to be addressed, and that it is for this reason that fair prices are justified. However, there are other options available, which are much more economically sound, that yield the same improvements in equity.

Such options include the fact that instead of paying fair prices, developed nations can simply pay one-off donations to these exportign countries, which yield the same utility for the exporting countries, but at a lower cost than fair prices.

Referring back to he graph we see that utility had increased from Y0 to Y2 and as a result the country seemed better off. The cost of paying these fair prices was equal to the distance between V and T. If developed nations were to transfer a once-off donation in order to yield the same utility then the cost of this transfer would be the difference between U and T.  The outcome of the transfer is the same as paying fair prices, yet it is cheaper to do so.

Another benefit of using this method rather than fair pricing is the fact that once-off transfers do no discriminate against certain producers, as we saw with coffee growers being benefited and fruit and vegetable growers missing out. This happens because such donations would create no price incentives. We must also assume that distribution costs and corruption is minimal in order for this assumed benefit is to hold. Some may say giving a donation to the running government of an LDC could mean that not all of those donations would reach their intended recipients, due to corruption etc. However, international organisations such as World Vision generally distribute such donations with costs and corruption that are aimed to be kept at a minimum.

Thirdly, unlike the situation under the system of fair pricing, when using a once-off donation the developing country is not required to maximize its consumption relative to distorted domestic prices, but instead, maximizes its consumption relative to world prices. This allows the developing nation to obtain a higher level of utility. This increase in utility is show in the graph by noticing the increase of utility from Y2 to Y1.

And finally, if donations are used instead of fair prices we see that prices will not be distorted and as a result we eliminate the cost of non-targeted industries changing their production process (i.e. the costs of moving to less productive land).

Dupz 05:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Your section is bigger than the article itself. A summary in Fair trade and a new article with the entire content may be a good idea. Patrick-br 13:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I didnt think of that.. fair point. Anyone else have an opinion?  Is there any official positions on issues like this (ie. in the style guide or anything)?  I've posted the section in the main article though, hopefully it might attract a bit of more interest there.  Dupz 13:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Response

 * 1) Process/style. I had suggested initially that it belonged in the more specific Fairtrade labelling, with perhaps a shorter summary here. But it is in any case far too long and too academic. Of greater concern is the content itself which appears to be substantially copied from the article itself (PDF). This probably constitutes a copyright violation. Rd232 22:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Content. First, the abstract for the article makes clear why it has the weaknesses it does: "The authors show how fair price policies can be explained to undergraduate students applying the graphical methods normally used in general equilibrium trade theory."  This explains why the article is so dumb - it isn't intended to be a serious real-world analysis of fair trade; it's little more than a student's exercise which confirms standard economic dictums that have little or no relevance in practice. And it all rather goes to pieces if introduced to the real world.
 * Take cost component two - the effect of higher prices on producers. "This leads to a shift in productive resources towards the production of coffee, and away from that of other goods." Hardly, because unemployment (and underemployment) in target economies is generally large enough not to displace production of other goods - certainly for the scale of impact fair trade has. In most cases it's about small farmers not giving up the land to move to the city in search of work, or give up and try to survive with subsistence farming.
 * Then we have the issue that non-targeted producers have to reduce production (or are unable to increase it) - which only applies to the extent that targeted production changes. In practice the ability of small farmers to raise output is limited; and in any case the article assumes the impact of fair trade globally is small. Even if it wasn't, discriminating in favour of good employers at a global level is not a bad thing, as the authors sort of allow.
 * The first "cost component" is the voluntary donation they propose to distribute by other means; the "first internal cost" falls on the same grounds as cost component two (above).
 * Long-term dependency - no more so than for any other economic structure. There's no reason fair trade can't continue indefinitely; and more importantly, the social premium that often goes with fair trade structures supports investment in areas such as education, health, social capital (institution-building needed to manage these schemes locally), etc.
 * Finally, converting fair trade transfers into aid is like converting fishing lines into fish. Fair trade enable farmers to stand on their own two feet, develop skills, invest in their communities, etc etc, on their own terms without government control. Aid is managed by often corrupt and incompetent governments that prefer visible spending on white elephants to meeting local needs. OK, that's an exaggeration, but sadly not by that much; there is clearly a big need for aid spending which bypasses governments without handing power to international NGOs who may be equally unaccountable; aid which develops local capacity bottom up in a community-oriented way. This is a niche that fair trade fits brilliantly.
 * In sum, all the costs come from assuming that there is full employment in the target countries, and the alternative of aid is described as naively as "international organisations such as World Vision generally distribute such donations with costs and corruption that are aimed to be kept at a minimum."
 * In conclusion, this is an academic exercise that may be useful as an educational tool (or, hopefully, a starting point for discussion) amongst its intended audience (undergrad students), but I see nothing that belongs in an encyclopedia. If that sounds harsh, I'm sorry. Rd232 22:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed, although the authors would have made a stronger case if they had proposed that the "donation" should be to organisations which would retrain people away from growing coffee. Then their arguments about resource allocation could remain valid even in the presesnce of widespread unemployment. It seems to me that this is the basic problem with fair trade coffee; if a commodity is so over-produced that wages and conditions are terrible, then the best solution is to reduce the production of that commodity by helping some of the producers to retrain to do more economically useful things, rather than to subsidise them to continue to produce it. 85.210.174.206 02:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the source of that overproduction is World Bank/IMF encouragement/requirement for countries to have cash crops (eg Vietnam). Fair trade provides extra income which does enable communities to invest in their future in a variety of ways, including diversification, education etc, whilst also surviving day-to-day. I also think to conceive of the above-market-price component of fair trade as a subsidy is wrong - it's more like charity. Also, I didn't mention that fair trade tries to cut out the middle man - farmers get a higher proportion of the retail price, and would do better even if there wasn't a guaranteed minimum farm-gate price. Rd232 talk 10:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear, unless someone has a strong reply, I will remove the section. Rd232 23:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've removed it for the reasons stated. This doesn't pre-empt any discussion, I just thought that with that many reasons to remove, it was better to do it sooner rather than later. The removal can of course be reversed if subsequent discussion reaches that conclusion. Rd232 09:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Commercial links
I've twice removed a link to eshopafrica.com added by an anon as being too commercial. Obviously, because of the subject at hand, most of the organisations listed are involved in commerce. Therefore, I suggest that we limit the links to organisations whose websites are more to do with campaigning and issues than selling fairly traded products. I feel that the following links do not meet this criterion: I'm going to remove these two links, because I can't justify removing the other unless I also remove these. Please discuss her, if you feel these links, or any other links should be included. --Gareth Hughes 08:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * One Village
 * Ten Thousand Villages

incorrect terminology
One more critism is I have noticed is the use of terms first, second and third world countries. To be politically correct More economically developed country (MEDC) and less economincally developed country (LEDC) should have been used. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.137.251.210 (talk • contribs).


 * first, second and third world countries is the term most people understand not many people would understand(LEDC)or (MEDC) the edition of these next to the appropriate words would probably be best--Whywhywhy 22:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll also note how dubious it is to propose a change simply because it's "politically correct." What legitimate purpose is served?  Clear communication?  Respect of humanity?  Factual correctness?  I agree with above, first world is less obtuse and should be kept.  A parenthetical remark could be added indicating that first world equals MEDC for anyone who somehow is only familiar with the acronym.


 * Or we could go with "global North" and "global South," or even (horror of horrors) "core states" and "peripheral states." Pick some terminology and stick with it.  Language is political and politicized, and only silence pleases everybody equally.  We don't want silence, we want an article on Fair Trade.

Free Trade vs. Fair Trade
I just deleted Stevertigo's comment saying fair trade was developed in opposition to free trade. The Fair Trade industry of labelled and unlabelled goods is actually philosophically aligned with free trade, as Fair traders are after all helping disadvantaged producers access Northern markets. Fair traders are thus often opposed to all types of protectionism... please let me know if you disagree with this interpretation. I do suggest however moving your comment to the trade justice page. Quebecois1983 21:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?
THis article needs some discussion about criticism of the fair trade movement. I'm not an economics expert, but this link  does give a rough explanation of the positions for and against fair trade. Borisblue 21:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I just added a criticism section - what do you think? I hope this helps! Vincentl 22:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks excellent. Borisblue 23:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

American English vs. British English
I just reverted the changes somebody made to "labelling" throughout the article. Although it is common in the US to write labeling with one "l", this practice is not customary in the UK and elsewhere. I think since we're talking about Fairtrade labelling here, we should maybe use the same spelling as the authority on the matter, Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International (see their website at [www.fairtrade.net]). Anyone, please, before changing the spelling again, debate it first on this discussion page. Vincentl 20:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)