“You'd almost think he's...an economist.”

Let’s just keep it real, he’s a grad student. (Grad students are fine people, but there is a reason they aren’t considered professionals.)

“There is an entire section on the expense of getting FT certification and how it marginalizes disadvantaged groups. Clearly a concern is what happens to them.”

There is a section regarding FT farmer and non-FT farmers, since all the farmers were disadvantaged to begin with it’s difficult to say that the FT farmers have had a negative impact on the non-FT farmers. The Weber report presents two groups in Peru, but does it draw a conclusive correlation showing the action vs. reaction? I don't believe it does because the fortunes of the non-FT farmers rely on many factors which they have no control over. Less control than the FT farmers. Also since only 20% of the FT farmers coffee actually goes to the FT market it would seem that the FT farmer should also be disadvantaged by 80%. However, according to Weber, Bacon, Reynolds, & Ronchi (at the World Bank) they are better off. Also since, according to Wiezter at The Financial Times, they are able to pay their laborers something close to the minimum wage the laborers who work for FT farmers are better off as well.

I have a big moral, ethical, and historical problem with drawing the line that says that FT farmers are shafting the non-FT farmers, and it is this. Because I have health benefits, such as they are, and someone else doesn’t am I depriving them of medical services? I would like to think not. Frankly the idea sounds a little too Marxist.

I’m going to start a new thread titled is Fair Trade Fair? I’ll put the Weber Report there along with others, let’s hear from other people.