Some of the original certification groups like CCOF and Oregon Tilth are still operating. Personally I put more stock in their approval than the federal mark. They are more responsive to their members and more concerned with sustainable practices.

At local co-ops and farmer's markets I often see produce labeled IPM or "grown with organic methods" or something else to indicate not-business-as-usual, without going so far as an organic certification. I'd rather buy from those local growers than an organic grower from shipping 5,000 or 10,000 miles away.

Certification is a tricky game, and a lot rides on reputation and trust. It's easy to be too restrictive, and at the same time there's a lot of flim-flam going on. That's true not only for food, but also for buildings, appliances, energy and more.

Ped Shed Blog

But, let me say first, I see your point.  It does seem like a bit of a cop-out to be coat-tailing on the program without being a full participant.  Also, 10 cents doesn't seem like a whole heap of money.

On the other hand, Transfair spends a whole lot of money (that it gets from licensees) on brand promotion.  If I were a small roaster and I knew the price I was paying for my coffee was a) fair and b) going to the coop that produced it, I would not feel a lot of obligation to fork over an additional 10 cents of each pound to a fairly well-off American company for the use of their sticker.

Clearly the Fair Trade movement was critical to coffee farmers during the crisis in coffee prices a few years back and also in fueling the interest in more transparent relationships and the move towards non-commodification of Specialty Coffee.  However, just because something isn't "Fair Trade" doesn't mean it's not fair.

Coffee prices these days are working pretty well for most growers and the growth of the "Direct Trade" movement means even more money being paid to farmers who are producing great quality coffee--something which is not addressed by Fair Trade and which regularly results in overpriced, marginal quality beverages.  Fair Trade also excludes a whole segment (namely private estates) who produce genuinely exceptional coffees and may be meeting every criteria for certification other than ownership structure.

Finally, speaking with not inconsiderable experience, the reporting system, upon which licensing fees are based, is a freaking nightmare.  I know that Transfair is constantly working on making improvements, but based on the enormous potential for error that I've seen, the "transparency" guarantee is still at the "opaque" stage.

But, back to your local roaster.  Likely this person doesn't have the financial or logistical means to fly to coffee producing countries throughout the year, pre-finance and import their own multiple containers.  They may never have been to origin at all.  For roasters in this position Fair Trade offers a more-or-less legitimate avenue to the transparency that larger operations can pursue through their own versions of that model.  Should they pay the ten cents?  I guess if they want you for a customer they should, but given all the frustrations I've seen with the organization, I can see why they wouldn't.

That said, it's really not acceptable to adopt a label that is specifically owned by a group without actually obtaining the blessing of that group.  It's one thing for a grower to claim "grown with organic techniques".  It would be quite another for them to claim to be "USDA Organic" when they weren't (even if their practices would qualify them, or they think they would.)  More to the point, a grower who claims a more exclusive level of certification, like Oregon Tilth, without actually obtaining said certification, is effectively defrauding both is customers and the standards organization.

It is a fact that there are people who get certificates by bribing. But definitely they are only a few of them. May be 5%. We will have constant fear that my certification would be revoked if I do something not in line. But those who sale things telling you that they practise organic farming and do not go for certification can not be trusted. Yes, there may be 15% of those who are actually doing organically. But for the rest, I would say that thay would use unfair means at the drop of a hat. This is because, there will be no one who could detect the wrong doing.

Yes, Certification is a costly affair. But these are subsidised in many countries. And there are companies, who pay the initial cost for the certification, only to be adjusted later.

Thus the extra amount you pay for is in fact trickles down to the farmers. May be 20% of it.

One answer, therefore, is to work towards harmonization of standards (including standards for becoming an accredited certifier), and an easier process of determining another country's standards as equivalent to your own.

For more on this issue, see the web pages of the International Task Force
on Harmonisation and Equivalence in Organic Agriculture

These are only my personal opinions.

The solution... ask a lot of questions. Ask them where their farm is, what sort of pesticides they use, et cetera. If they enthusiastically and accurately answer the questions, you are probably talking to a real farmer.

The consumer HAS to educate themselves to some extent so they can "trust but verify" where their food comes from.

Regarding the coffee, I assume a similar approach will work, but wil probably demand a lot of effort and a lot of people trying this strategy. Ask the guy where he bought the beans, follow-up on what he says. Does it make sense? If it doesn't, pass the info onto an investigative reporter eager to expose fraud. Make it very uncomfortable for people to lie about the food they sell.

This demands that the shopper know a little bit about what he or she is buying, yes. But shouldn't we know about the food we consume? Shouldn't we have some idea about where and how it is grown so we can makje sure it meets  your standards, or at least ask the right questions?

Reagrding certification in general, it is the cost of doing business in a global market. Want to sell organic food, fair-trade prodcuts, or environmentally friendly building materials in the U.S. or any other place? Then you have to pay to have someone look at your operation and allow you to put a label on your product. It is a small price to pay -- an a reflection of the value of the product -- considering how much profit is siphoned off by processors and distributors. The guy selling his coffee COULD accept a smaller profit and pass the savings on to the growers so they can pay for certification.

Trust did not work in the 1800s or 1900s. There is absolutely no reason to think it is suddenly going to start working now. someone has to make sure there isn't formaldehyde in the milk, faulty wiring in the coffee maker, or pesticides on the food. And someone has to pay for the service. Don't certifiers deserve a fair wage as well?

Fair trade farmers are organized into democratically run cooperatives, which decide how to use their FT premiums (which fund community projects like health clinics and water systems); workers must enjoy freedom of associaiton and safe working conditions; and the farmers must use sustainable farming methods.

As a consumer, I prefer to look for the Fair Trade Certified label, which I consider to be a good guarantee of all these factors, rather than try to figure out whether a particular company is ensuring that their coffee suppliers are meeting all of these standards.

A fellow on a local pubic radio program mentioned something even more nefarious going on at local farmers markets... distributors pretending to be local farmers in order to cash in on public interest in buying locally. They purchase bulk produce from the "regular" supply chain and display it in a manner that suggests they grew it themselves.

I recently heard about this phenomenon at my local indoor Winter's market.  My grain farmer/miller (or as I call her, my "flour lady") and I were chatting a few weeks ago when I met her to pick up a flour order.  We were talking about that particular market; she was not overly fond of that one, saying that some sellers were displaying wares that were not their own (without a sign saying so).  In fact, one seller apparently buys maple syrup from Canada and sells it as his own, "local" syrup; while another, smaller farmer busts his butt sustainably harvesting his patch of maples, but can't really charge any more than Fraudulent Canadian Guy because they are selling at the same market and he won't sell anything.  Another example of asking the right questions came up when I mentioned a local cider that I like and often buy; she said "Hmmm, yes they are local, but I wonder where they are getting their apples.  I see them listed at all these markets, and I know about how much you have to sell at each market in order to make it worthwhile showing up. I'm guessing they would need about 65 acres of apple orchard in order to produce that much cider; and they have 3 acres at their farm."

I do ask questions, but I think I am too trusting.  It really doesn't occur to me that people will just blatantly lie; maybe not trumpet the fact that your farm is nowhere near organic, but not a bald-faced lie that you practise sustainable farming when you don't. I've gotten better about asking questions; but it is still difficult, especially because I am not a farmer and don't necessarily know the best questions to ask.  I've basically come to a "gut-feeling" sort of decision; if the farmer is enthusiastic and friendly and rambles on and on about their farming practises, then I tend to trust what they are telling me, even without the certification.  If I get a brusque "we spray as little as we have too" or "yes, we use IPM" with an eye-roll, then I generally thank them and walk away.

As for far-away products like coffee and chocolate, I tend to look for the certifications or trust my local coffee roaster. Maybe I just trust him because he looks like an old school punk and rides his Kona Stinky to work, but it is a little independent shop, that is always touting sustainability, supports local merchants and has small local bands there every weekend, so I trust that they are looking into their coffee suppliers, looking into their growing practises, and paying them a fair wage. I guess sometimes you've just gotta have a little faith.

"How can you take advantage of that system and not pay for it?" Noting that one critique of fair trade is that farm inspections are not done frequently or throughly enough, Dean said, "we can't have money to inspect farms if we're not paying the fee." By opting not to get the certification sticker from TransFair, these coffee companies are "helping drive the system down" via a sort of self-fulfilling critique.
___

I did want to add, though, that some of the concerns you raised about organic certification applies also to Transfair USA, which does the FT product certifications in the US. I've written about some of them here; they're the reasons why some uber fair trade companies (Dean's Beans included) decided against fair trade certification at that time.

What's interesting about these serious fair trade companies though, is that the question they'll raise is rarely about the cost of certification (though complaints -- most unsubstantiated -- about Transfair's mismanagement of funds abound). The committed fair trade companies, when nixing their Transfair certification, tried to find other ways to certify their products and promote transparency. Cooperative Coffees, of which Dean's Bean's is a part, put its coffee contracts online for all to see, for ex.

In addition, I believe these companies went so far as to establish a fund to which they contributed a sum equivalent to the certification fees. That money  was then given to the coffee producers -- the point being that these companies always saw the value of certification (for transparency, consumer education / involvement, etc.) and were willing to pay for it, but simply had qualms about the certification system (in this case, Transfair) they had to work with.

http://greenlagirl.com/

As to costs, organic producers and processors will soon (again)have the ability to get reimbursed for a portion of annual certification costs by the feds.  (Yes! A subsidy for small organic businesses! Who'd a thunk?)  The 2008 Farm Bill provides expanded funding for the organic certification cost-share program, up to 75% of annual cert. costs, max of $750/yr.  The limits make this more helpful to smaller operators than large ones.  Some small organic growers in the U.S. may have philosophical or political objections to certification, but cost will not be a strong explanation to customers for the lack of certification seal.

You say that "organic producers and processors will soon (again) have the ability to get reimbursed for a portion of annual certification costs by the feds." The last time such a subsidy was provided, it was only available to domestic organic producers. I would assume that would be the case again for this new subsidy.

That puts organic producers in other countries, like Mexico and Canada, at a disadvantage if they want to sell into the U.S. market.

These are only my personal opinions.

Theyve got to see the energy debacle as an opportunity to grow, not expand profits.

Dont argue with them.

Everything I've ever tasted that came with the Transfair Fair Trade label was of exceptional quality, whether it be coffee, chocolate or tea. Particularly Taylor Maid of Sebastopol.

Eat what you grow, grow what you eat