“Behind the Brands” - starts from the bitter Sugar

                                                 

Sugar is sweet, but the ethics of its production is anything but appealing. Our use of sugar implicates us in land grabs that violate the rights of some of the world’s poorest communities. Better-informed and more ethical consumers could change this.We are genetically programmed to like sweet things, and when people become more affluent, they consume more sugar. The resulting increase in sugar prices has led producers to seek more land on which to grow sugarcane.

                                    
It is no surprise that the poor lose when their interests conflict with those of the rich and powerful. There are several examples of producers who have acquired land without the consent of the people who live on it, turning farmers into landless laborers. Here is one.In the northeastern Brazilian state of Pernambuco, a group of fishing families had lived since 1914 on islands in the Sirinhaém River estuary. In 1998, the Trapiche sugar refinery petitioned the state to take over the land. The islanders say that the refinery then followed up its petition by destroying their homes and small farms – and threatening further violence to those who did not leave.

As recently as last year, the fishing families say, employees of the refinery burned down homes that had been rebuilt. Trapiche moved the families to a nearby town, where they gained access to electricity, water, sanitation, and schooling, but if they want to continue to fish, they have to travel a long distance. Many of them are still seeking to return to the islands. Both Coca-Cola and PepsiCo use Trapiche sugar in their products. Does that make them responsible for the wrongs done to the people whose land Trapiche is using to produce that sugar?
                                       

We here asking the ten biggest food brands to show leadership by acknowledging their responsibility for land-rights violations involving their suppliers.

In particular, they want these global companies to avoid buying from suppliers that have acquired land from small-scale food producers without these producers’ free, prior, and informed consent. Where land has already been acquired without such consent, and the acquisition is in dispute, they want the corporations to insist on fair dispute-resolution procedures.

 “Behind the Brands” includes a score sheet, ranking the Big 10 on a range of issues, including their impact on workers, water, land, women, and climate change. On land issues, they rate PepsiCo, and ABF either “poor” or “very poor.” Nestlé scores better, because its guidelines for suppliers – used for the sourcing of sugar, soy, palm oil, and other commodities – require that they obtain the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous and local communities before acquiring land.


Your Cheap & Quality Hydroponics Growing System from http://www.chicfarm.net