20441 Wed Jul 03 17:15:13 -0700 2002 15 1 San Francisco Bay Area 0 70957 Maybe this has been addressed already? How are people feeling about the citizens initative that Rick Young has qualified for the ballot in Berkeley to mandate that any coffee sold there must be organic, fair-trade and/or shade grown? What will the pay scale be for the new "Coffee Cops"? Does this mean that it will be OK for the cops to be in donut shops all the time? Is this another "There goes those wacky Californians again" sort of deal? I just have to say being from Southern California that I am glad we are getting somewhat of a pass on this one. Wed Jul 03 17:15:13 -0700 2002 0 WLA 1 70961 Seems like unlawful restraint of trade to me, but that sort of thing has never stopped Berkeley before. Realistically, most people will still drink their coffee in cafes local to them, even if it costs more, so it may not really have much of an effect on cafe owners. On the other hand, if it applies to coffee beans, I can easily see shoppers crossing the border to Oakland to save money, hence demonstrable harm caused by a non-imminent public measure -- unconstitutional. If the whole thing actually made any business sense, cafe owners would be providing Mr. Young's preferred PC coffee, and letting consumers decide -- but there seems to be an assumption in Berkeley that only Big Brother knows best... Wed Jul 03 18:37:26 -0700 2002 70957 0 Zach Georgopoulos 2 70962 No, it only applies to brewed coffee, as in cafes. It still has to go on the ballot in November--we'll see if Berkeley really cares about this issue. Wed Jul 03 19:03:32 -0700 2002 70961 0 dixieday 3 70972 Right you are Dixieday--if there's anything Berkeleyans love across many of the community's usual divisions it's coffee. I'm always annoyed (but not surprised) by the assumption that merely because something is put onto the ballot in Berkeley it represents the opinion of a majority of voters. It's fairly easy to qualify something for the ballot here, not so easy to get something passed. But it's all cool, so to speak, because many "kooky Berkeley ideas" wind up getting taken up elsewhere. Wed Jul 03 21:24:25 -0700 2002 70962 0 Nathan Landau 2 70964 At least this isn't a half-baked attempt at social engineering by initiated by the City itself (as Berkeley is famous for). In fact I believe the mayor was quoted expressing similar skepticism as to whether this measure would be legal. Although I generally disapprove of measures such as this and probably wouldn't support it at the ballot box, I do like the fact this has sparked some discussion and hopefully greater awareness about issues such as fair trade and sustainable production practices. Wed Jul 03 19:11:34 -0700 2002 70961 0 Ruth Lafler 1 70981 There was an excellent article in the Chronicle about free trade coffee and the impact it has on the world. See link below. I for one think this is necessary and should be national policy. The cost to us in the long run is far greater than the few pennies extra for a cup of coffee. Few consumers think anything but the immediate on their pocket book. Right on Berkeley. I'm glad someone there has the courage to stand up for what is decent regardless of what many may think about them. Link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/07/01/ED91118.DTL Wed Jul 03 23:24:47 -0700 2002 70957 0 Stanley Stephan 1 70998 If this passes, one interesting consequence is that the three or four Starbucks in Berkeley will have to upgrade their pittance-priced Vietnamese robusta to quality fair-trade beans... I think the proposed measure, while well-meaning and noble in its aspirations is a bit obstrusive and impractical (hard to enforce.) Hopefully the legislators will find a better way to promote fair-trade coffee in Berkeley. Thu Jul 04 06:50:44 -0700 2002 70957 0 garçon 2 71010 I was under the impression that all Starbucks coffee was free trade. Dumb me. I must be on a permanent coffee buzz. When you mentioned that they'd have to upgrade I checked the website and it turns out only one type is free trade. They also make it sound unappealing. Here I've been slurping down Starbucks feeling quite virtuous. For all my rhetoric, I don't think this has a chance of passing. Enforcement would probably mean slapping fines on coffee shops and annoying everone. Wouldnt't that be a great job though ... coffee police ... hanging out under cover all day in coffee shops. Thu Jul 04 11:25:45 -0700 2002 70998 0 Stanley Stephan 3 71025 Those of us who live in SF should be praying that some of our loony supervisors don't get any more dumb ideas from else where! Thu Jul 04 15:09:13 -0700 2002 71010 0 celeryroot 3 71046 You should see the slick marketing booklet they distribute to potential clients that they are wooing. My rep dropped one off for me last week. Devoted entirely to Starbucks social consciousness. A not insignificant portion of the booklet describes their efforts in the free trade arena. Fri Jul 05 02:43:43 -0700 2002 71010 0 Gayla 1 71022 This reminds me of Nicholas Kristof's recent column in the NY Times about the inadvertent effects that anti-sweatshop activism has on workers in developing nations. While I think the free trade movement is a great direction and that consumers should encourage safe labor and growing practices, the short term effects can be disastrous on workers in countries that don't comply. Loss of even $1 a day work in a region leads to further hunger and suffering. Kristoff's article was about rug makers in Pakistan and the loss of the garment industry in Cambodia. But his point was not to be short sighted, when you're sitting in a cafe in Berkeley drinking $3 a cup coffee about the effects of your so-called activism on people who depend on even sweatshop wages to feed their families. If Berkeley wants to do something to encourage free trade products, even providing a tax credit to businesses that serve free trade coffee, that's great. Banning strikes me as inappropriate as well as illegal; I'm sure people elsewhere in the country would find it ridiculous. Thu Jul 04 14:40:38 -0700 2002 70957 0 Windy 2 71160 There's a strong refutation of the "sweatshops are fine for Third World people" perspective by Tom Hayden and Charles Kernaghan in an op-ed piece in today's (Saturday's) New York Times. I'm heartened by the interest that this discussion shows that Chowhounds have in the conditions under which food is produced and distributed, as well is in its consumption. Sat Jul 06 23:25:14 -0700 2002 71022 0 Nathan Landau 3 71162 No one is claiming sweatshops are fine or that working conditions should not be greatly improved. I don't have any objection to free trade coffee. The question is one of tactics and being sensitive to the (perhaps unintended) consequences of actions like boycotts on underpaid workers in developing nations. Sat Jul 06 23:46:31 -0700 2002 71160 0 Windy 1 71088 Rick Young... I heard the first interview he did on KGO. It is transparently apparent the guy just wants his name on a piece of public policy. He is attacking one of the great yuppy badges. I have done consulting work for specialty coffee stores. Although I admire his take on the issue it is obvious he knows little about the industry or he would have come up with a better bill that attacked the issue from a better angle. The vast majority of the coffee Mr. Young paints as evil is sold pre ground, in cans, in every market in America. I would go out on a limb and venture to guess that bean for bean specialty coffee stores sell far more "altruistic" coffee beans that any other source. If Young had done his homework he may have learned that one his own. Fri Jul 05 20:37:59 -0700 2002 70957 0 Brandon Nelson 1 71174 What does the term "free trade" mean? Sun Jul 07 09:24:38 -0700 2002 70957 0 Sharuf 2 71175 In this movement the term is "fair trade" coffee, not "free trade". The fair trade coffee movement began in Europe in response to falling prices in the world market. Those that are behind the idea are trying to guarantee a minimum coffee price, and thereby a living wage, to small Third World farmers. These farmers operate out of democratically organized cooperatives and have agreed to submit to annual monitoring. Sun Jul 07 09:42:37 -0700 2002 71174 0 WLA