Talk:Fair trade/Archive 2

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)

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)

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

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)

GA on hold
This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :


 * 1. Well written? Pass
 * 2. Factually accurate? Pass
 * 3. Broad in coverage? Pass
 * 4. Neutral point of view? Pass
 * 5. Article stability? Pass
 * 6. Images? Fail Pass

Additional comments :
 * Image:Transfair-produktauswahl.jpg, Image:Oldftlogos2.jpg, Image:Fairtradelogofinalversion.jpg, Image:TransFair.gif need to state their fair use rationale.
 * Definition of fair trade should have prose instead of bulletpoints in order to facilitate the reading.

Minor modifications are required to achieve the GA status and so this article will be on hold and awaiting such. If one wants to discuss or have more information he can reach me on my talk page and do so once the modifications are done. Good luck, Lincher 14:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Done! I hope these changes help! Vincentl 17:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

GA passed
These modifications suit me fine. There is still material that could go into the article to reach FA status but considering the breadth of the present article, it deserves the GA status. Lincher 04:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sound Dollar Policy and Fair trade
I have had to revert for the second time edits by Thomas Paine1776 regarding the sound dollar policy. It is important here to keep in mind that this is the fair trade page that describes the organized social movement advocating better trading conditions for some labelled and unlabelled exports from developing countries to developed countries. The FINE definition guides the content of the article; it was written by the four largest Fair trade networks (FLO, IFAT, NEWS and EFTA) and defines Fair trade as the following:

“Fair trade is a trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect, that seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of, marginalized producers and workers - especially in the South. Fair Trade organisations (backed by consumers) are engaged actively in supporting producers, awareness raising and in campaigning for changes in the rules and practice of conventional international trade."

I am not denying that many in the Trade justice movement (in the US mostly) also use the term Fair trade to contrast with 'unfair' international trade practices, and sometimes, to contrast with free trade (unhindered trade). The term fair trade is also used by many to refer to an old US Law referring to a type of state law legalizing resale price maintenance... Originally all these different concepts were explained on the Fair trade page but this was getting increasingly confusing, long and irrelevant to most people involved in the fair trade movement today.

I hope you understand that it is important to keep all these concepts on different pages or the definition will become meaninless and confusing for everyone.

I suggest creating a new article (if need be) and then linking it to the Fair trade (disambiguation) page - this way we will keep all different conceptions of fair trade in different articles.

I hope this helps! Vincentl 07:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Edits by User:Churchlane
In reaction to Churchlane's edits:

I reverted your edits for the following reasons:

First edit: You blanked a paragraph in the history of Fair trade explaining how many academics see the handicrafts market as a "niche" market. I have personally written my thesis on Fair trade and many academics have studied this over and over. I suggest taking a look at the Redfern & Snedker and the M-C Renard articles referenced on the Fair trade page - I even included the pages. If you disagree, please find a respectable published source and we can contrast both.

Second edit: I agree with some of your changes - it is relevant to include more information on Oxfam's Bridge program. I reworded your entry to make it flow better with the rest of the article.

Third edit: I deleted your link to One Village - this section is meant to list only major ATOs who played an influential role in the development of the movement. I have never read anything about One Village... I might sound strict about it but it is important to keep this list short or soon we will have about 200 commercial links to ATOs and Fair trade businesses. If you think this is discriminatory, we can also delete the entire ATO links section...

Fourth edit: The handcraft market did face an increasingly difficult market in the 1980s - I suggest reading the Redfern & Snedker paper, it explains what happened then. I will be more than happy to change this part of the history to include your perspective if you find reputable academic sources to back your claims.

Fifth edit: I have changed the wording as you suggested. The "oddly" comment I took out, as this sounds more like a personal judgment. As for the claim that sales of Fair trade products took off with labelling initiatives, I sourced this from the M.C. Renard article.

Please discuss these changes on the Discussion page before making any further edits. And please find academic sources to back up your claims. Thank you! Vincentl 18:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Vincentl - Well that is interesting that you have written a thesis on Fair trade and many academics have studied this over and over but I don't need to consult academics because I know about these things, intimately, from personal experience. I can tell you about the beginnings of SOS, about the beginnings of Oxfam's involvement, about the cooperation between these two organizations, about the development of the Bridge idea, Worldshops, and all these other issues. Much better to listen to those who know from actual involvement than outside academics, don't you think? You'll have a hard time getting a better source than me - how does your expert source compare?  I am sorry - a lot of what you have written actually isn't accurate.


 * Dear Churchlane - I am happy to hear you have first hand experience in the sector, I looking forward to working on the fair trade related pages with you. Do keep in mind however that it is Wikipedia policy to back all debatable statements with reliable sources, as it is an encyclopedia after all. For more information on Wikipedia policy on the matter, please see WP:NOR and WP:REF


 * I have double checked some facts and I changed parts of the article accordingly: it seems like (correct me if I am wrong) SOS was created in 1959 (so technically would be the first ATO... if it started importing handcrafts then) but only imported handcrafts in a systematic way starting 1967. The Oxfam Bridge program on the other hand was created in 1965. So although this is confusing, I agree with you and I modified the article.


 * Is there anything else you disagree with? Looking forward to hearing from you  Vincentl 23:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Vincentl - Thank you for your understanding.  I think what you have now is already much improved, but I offer a few comments:


 * In general structure, it would be more accurate to say "most fair trade import organizations..." Most producer organizations have not joined the networking bodies.


 * Where you write "In 1964 Oxfam launched...." this would be better and more correct to say In 1965 Oxfam launched "Helping-by-Selling", later developed into Bridge, ............... Oxfam stores and from mail-order catalogues with a circulation of almost 100,000 copies.


 * "Handicrafts" might be understood as traditional items, but the Bridge program moved well away from that and focussed on functional articles for the home.  I don't think there was ever any decline in the sale of those - they are, after all, mainstream articles purchased by everone.   Agricultural products were simply seen as an additional opportunity, and that took off in a big way as you have stated.


 * I think it is important to note that, with the peculiar exception of footballs, the Fairtrade certification system only concerns the grower of the primary product.  Processing into a retail product such as roasted coffee, or chocolates and most recently cotton textiles, is not covered by the scheme.   This processing, which adds most of the value to the products, is usually done in the import countries.   In the case of cotton, fabrication is done in developing countries but the conditions under which spinning, weaving, and tailoring is done do not need to comply with any criteria for the finished article to carry the Fairtrade logo.


 * Some ATOs have resisted the move into agricultural products believing it more important and valuable to encourage production of finished articles at source.  These continue to focus on cooperative and community organizations and according to my judgement and extensive insight it is One Village demonstrates this best of all.   That is why I tried to put in a link to their highly informative websites Onevillage.com and Onevillage.info.   They are innovators and absolutely not a regular commercial business!


 * I hope this is helpful, and thank you for your interest in this movement.  Best wishes.


 * Dear Churchlane, thanks for your comments!
 * I changed the general structure section to say most "import" organizations.
 * I rewrote the paragraph about Bridge and "Helping by selling"
 * I reworded some parts of the text "the novelty of SOME fair trade products started to wear off"..., "the decline OF SEGMENTS of the handicrafts market". I will not change however the part about the decline of the market. The following paragraphs are from the ILO Paper "Creating Market Opportunities for Small Enterprises: Experiences of the Fair Trade Movement" by Redfern & Snedker, page 6:


 * As Fair Trade sales grew across Europe, and to a lesser extent in North America, many of the original Fair Trade products began to look tired and old fashioned in the market place. As sales reached a plateau, agricultural products began to be added to the product range of the ATOs.(...)


 * Looking at it from a market perspective gives a different view. It can be argued that initially handicraft sales grew nicely for European Fair Trade organizations because the products were new to European consumers. The trend of interior decoration had begun and consumers were looking for different types of products to decorate their homes. The home interiors market began as a niche in the 1970s and has developed into a significant market today across the developed world. As the trend grew and mainstream business got more involved in the market competition grew, the trends got faster as commercial business started to innovate and the importance of quality and design grew. China came out of isolationism and started to supply markets to the mainstream at very cheap prices by replicating traditional handcrafted designs of South Asia and Africa and manufacturing using a clever mix of mechanization and hand finishing.


 * Hence products from ATOs became relatively more expensive as the competition became cheaper. In can be argued that the quality of the goods was low because ATOs had protected producers from the market demand by accepting sub-standard goods. By not wanting to pursue claims for poor quality from producers for fear of financially hurting them, the ATOs exacerbated the problem of goods being below market standard. Through these factors the overall ATO crafts market struggled. To date it is still typically a niche market, appealing to small groups of people. There is much evidence to show that products have evolved to more fully meet market trends and requirements, however in general many crafts products bought by the ATOs are sold to the core supporter bases that buy products on the basis of story behind the product.


 * I think your point of view regarding agricultural commodities is interesting - I think however the Criticism section on the Fairtrade labelling page might be more appropriate for these kinds of comments. This part we are editing right now is meant to be a factual history of the Fair trade movement, not an open debate over what is better for producers etc. I do encourage you to add something to the criticism section though! I might also do it myself...


 * And finally, although I do support personally the work of One Village, I do not believe it should be added to the Wikipedia page as we want to avoid at all costs any type of commercial links. I have actually just cleaned the page and removed Ten Thousand Villages and Global Exchange and only left CRS, LWR, Oxfam, SERVV and Traidcraft. I hope you understand the reasons why...


 * Please let me know if you have any other comments on the Fair trade article! Thank you for your contributions! Vincentl 15:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You've made some changes to improve the accuracy of what is written.
 * With reference to finished products - "handicrafts", I think you are confusing what might be called "ethnic" handicrafts with regular products that readily fit into the homes of western peoples. These include articles such as rugs, fabrics, duvet covers, etc. etc. for which there is no decline in the market. Just because something is hand made does not mean it is only of interest to a "niche" market - most garments are actually largely hand made; you might not think of them as handicrafts but that is just a problem in your perspective.
 * My comments about primary products verses finished products are not intended as criticism - more a note of factual reality that needs to be understood.
 * I don't actually understand at all why you think One Village is "commercial" any more than other organizations included in your list.  Looking at their website it seems to contain more helpful information than most, and the selling is there only to support producers (have a look at their page www.onevillage.org/towards-fair-trade.htm).   Links to sites such as that are very helpful illustrations of fair trade practice.
 * Whilst I can see that you like to look at this subject in a rather academic way, please don't forget that this movement is actually to do with people's real lives.  Its success or failure makes a direct difference to essential livelihoods.

Context of Fair Trade
It is neither pro, or against "fair trade" to give the dollar value of fair trade and to give the percentage as a total of global trade. The divisor should be ALL global trade, not coffee products because fair trade is a concept that is not limited to coffee. Mgunn 05:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It isn't limited to commodities either. I believe there have been "fair trade" arts & crafts products produced by villagers. If you find a source with fair trade as a percentage of global commodity trade, I'd be glad to include that too, but there is no reason to censor the value of fair trade as a percentage of all trade.Mgunn 05:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not about being pro or against fair trade, it is about misleading readers. It is like saying the volume traded by Dell represents less than 1 percent of all world trade... this information needs to be put in context, industry by industry. And this is quite a complex task as there is very little data available on the size of the handcrafts market for example.Vincentl 05:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Percentage of World Trade Debate
I just removed a reference about Fair Trade "representing less than a hundredth percent of world trade" - I will assume good faith, but I will have to disagree on that one. With Fair Trade standards existing for only a handful of products, such a comparison is out of order. There will never be for example Fair trade petroleum or computers, therefore comparing the value of Fair Trade goods to the that of all physical goods traded worldwide can be misleading, especially in the lead paragraph.

I agree a reference to the market share of Fair Trade products might be a good addition - but it has to be a relevant one. I know for example fair trade certified coffee represents close to 1 percent of all traded coffee. Same for bananas (if not higher). Please let me know if you find any data on the value of commodities (coffee, bananas, tea etc.) with existing fair trade standards, we can try to calculate together the market shares.Vincentl 05:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. i think the most interesting thing would be coffee as that is an area where I believe "Fair Trade" has made the largest inroads?  And am I correct that the $1.1 billion is a retail sale number and not a number representing a value of the trade?  If the retail value of "Fair Trade" goods is $1.1 billion, then the trade value would be substantially less.  (For example, supermarkets buy oranges on the world market for substantially less than they sell them at your local store.)Mgunn 05:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I just rewrote the edit to put things in context. I hope this is an acceptable compromise.Vincentl 06:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair Trade
This article, as presented, would lead an ignorant passer by to get the impression that Fair trade has critics but that the over whelming evidence would support it. I understand if most of the writers on this article do believe this, but I greatly feel that the criticisms have been under represented. It is ok to have a separate page for the criticisms but i see two dangers of this

1st: If there is a significant page describing the criticisms then it would be mis representing the facts if the main Fair Trade page did not reflect this.

2nd: As it is right now, at the bottom of the criticism section there is a neat little paragraph explaining that there is a movement that claims fair trade is not radical enough. To make this the most objective article possible, i think this paragraph should be in its own section, as this is not a common criticism. Those who believe fair trade is too radical and those who believe it is not radical enough clearly believe in very different ideas, and by relegating them to the same section and lumping them as "critics" of Fair Trade it definitely decreases the weight each has on its own.

The edit I have done, I hope, is just the beginning, I will complete the edits over the next couple weeks or months.

--DrewWiki 19:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree - I therefore decided to be bold and inspire myself from the, long debated and discussed, free trade page, where only a couple of sentences summarize the debate before redirecting it to the free trade debate page. I summarized the main criticism of fair trade, moving the debate to the newly created page fair trade debate. I also spent some time counterbalancing the arguments on the fair trade debate page, therefore creating a real two side debate. I hope this helps!Vincentl 08:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Vincent hopefully we can get this page as good as possible, I just felt it was too one sided when i saw it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drewwiki (talk • contribs) 16:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

I looked over the Debate page and I think it is a big step forward, but I still think that the criticism has to be moved up on this page.

--DrewWiki 16:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits by Drewwiki
Thank you for your contributions to the article "fair trade". First of all thank you for adding the reference to the Economist article and taking the lead in organizing the Criticism of fair trade page. I think these are great contributions that were lacking.

Second, I am sorry to say that I will have to revert the paragraph you added to the lead of the article. According to Wikipedia policy, this should be brief and only mention the various topics described in the article. It should establish context - and not make points one way or another. I don't know if you've noticed how the current state of the page reflects a carefully crafted compromise: first paragraph - general description "what is fair trade", second paragraph - "goal of fair trade", third paragraph - "who supports it", fourth paragraph - "who doesn't", fifth paragraph - size of the fair trade market. I think we have a pretty good, balanced, comprehensive lead here so I hope you will understand if we revert your changes.

Third, I think it is only revelant to move down the criticism section below the Key Fair Trade Principles and the "Fair trade vs. unfair trade" sections. Right now, readers don't even get to know what fair trade is or stands for before reading its criticism, which doesn't make much sense to me.

And finally, the paragraph you added to the criticism section is a redundant - Mgunn already wrote a paragraph describing the economic argument against fair trade. This adds to the problem that the page is getting too long (the page is 40 kps) and the criticism section needs to be summarized - I hope you can help with this. Please merge the two paragraphs together and summarize them before I clean this in the upcoming days (I'm sure you'd rather not have me do it anyway).

Thank you again for your contributions and I am looking forward to working with you. Vincentl 06:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I highly disagree with throwing all criticism into "Fair Trade Debate" section. I'd rather have a clean, logical, reasonably short criticism section and throw extra stuff into the fair trade debate article if neccesary....


 * I haven't been editting Wikipedia for long, but when I got to the "Free trade" article, it was essentially massacred (almost empty of content) I went to the 'free trade debate" article and it was essentially empty also.... I looked back at the version from 8 monthes before, and it was quite good.  What had happenned?  Through edit war and to compress space, someonen as a minor edit dumped the ENTIRE criticism, pro/anti free trade article into "free trade debate."  then a few weeks later, some random idiot deleted all content in the free trade debate article.  Apparently no one noticed this besides me when I came along 8 monthes later.  Anyway, my point is that I'd rather have something a bit shorter and in the main article than some long complete diatribe in another article that will be tough to police and that no one will ever read.  I actually thought it looked reasonably good before the latest changes...  Mgunn 10:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As for the criticism section, I don't think it needs to be very long (because it isn't very complicated), but it SHOULD be in the main article. If this article is getting too long, make an article "fair trade and politics" and clean that stuff out.  I'm not asking for #1 billing, undue weight etc.... but a full fair picture of "fair trade" should be observable by reading th earticle.Mgunn 10:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I just reinserted criticism section with some better sectional breakdowns that make it more readable. i hope it is fairly clear and I don't think it needs to be any longer than it is.  If no one minds, I think the fair trade debate section further up the article can be removed.Mgunn 11:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In the opening section, we should put in a section that makes clear that there is a lot of criticism of Fair trade. Mgunn what do you think of the breakdown I did on the criticism page?--DrewWiki 16:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am overall satisfied with the current state of the page: I think the economic argument on prices could be better summarized but aside from that, I'm happy with the compromise. The opening section is OK as it is: it is meant to briefly outline the article and it currently does just that. This is a page about fair trade and not about fair trade bashing - more than one paragraph of criticism in the opening section would be taking it a bit too far.


 * As for where the criticism/debate section should stand, I think it is also fine where it is: people have to understand what fair trade is before reading its criticism. Anyway I do hope we have reached a compromise acceptable for everyone. Vincentl 17:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Free trade causes suffering
I pay a poor old man to rake my yard once a week. I could pay him more, but I pay him as little as possible. This way I have money to pay another poor bloke to wash my car once a week. Fair traders don't understand markets. If I paid the poor old man more money than he is willing to work for then the other bloke would have no income at all from me. If you always pay the lowest prices then you free up resources to be applied to other areas. It is better that both the poor old man and the poor bloke have a job than only the poor old man, even if it causes the poor old man to make less money. The market takes care of everything. Just leave it alone. You don't have to think about it. Do what comes natural. Do what is in your self-interest. Find the lowest prices available. "Fair trade" causes unneccessary human suffering. As Adam Smith said, "[The individual] that intends only his own gain is led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest [an individual] frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the [common] good." Working Poor


 * Remember to sign you comments. Unfortunatly while you are most likley correct on this, as stated above, it is pretty much the definition of POV (point of view).  Wikipedia is great becuase people backup general statements with veriftyable facts.  Anecdotes are always nice to hear but they can distort the argument.  For every person you know and feel would be better off with fair trade, 10 other people will know someone who is better off with fair trade.  In order to determin the merits of fair trade it is important to study it from an imparsial view, without bias. If we can bring research to light and let the public see research for and agaist then they can decide what is the correct way to view fair trade. --DrewWiki 17:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor deletion - contradictory sentence
I just deleted the following sentences, in the middle of the oversupply argument:

''As an increasing number of producer groups have pursued Fair trade certification, most certified producers now only sell a small percentage of their crop under fair trade terms. In 2001, 170 millions of coffee was produced by Fair Trade certified farmers while only 40 million pounds were sold at fair trade terms.''

This is actually contradicting the oversupply point... if producers sell smaller percentages of their crop under fair trade terms, they are much less likely to increase their production as gains from fair trade are going to increase (due to limited market demand for fair trade goods). The discrepancy between the 170 million and the 40 million is not due to an increase in production... but rather due to a market-driven phenomenon in which conventional producers are seeking certification to "get on the Fair trade bandwagon" only to find that, due to limited market demand, this is only further lowering the percentage sold by most producers under fair trade terms. Let's please discuss this here before reverting anything. Thanks, Vincentl 05:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)