The tobacco industry employs some of the most impoverished farmers in Africa. Isn’t it about time we extend the benefits of Fairtrade to them?
Let me start with a disclaimer: I know smoking is bad for me, I know I shouldn’t do it and I’m determined that I will stop sometime soon. I would strongly discourage anyone from taking up the habit, especially children.
Right, so now that you know I’m not a cheer-leader for Imperial Tobacco or Phillip Morris International, here are a few more things that I know. Smoking tobacco is 100% legal in this country. 10 million of us do it and we spend about £16 billion each year for the privilege. Although around 76% of this is tax, it’s big business nonetheless, with the global tobacco industry worth £265 billion annually. Like it or not, that industry continues to grow. And like it or not, if you have a pension or any other form of savings, there’s every chance that you’re a beneficiary of the profits from this notoriously persistent market.
Not everyone involved in the tobacco industry does quite so well out of it however. Take Malawi: it’s one of the world’s poorest countries and one of its biggest tobacco exporters. Like so many African nations that depend on a single commodity for the majority of national income, the people of Malawi – with tobacco accounting for 70% of exports – are at the mercy of the climate, the market and multinationals who hold a huge deal of power when it comes to negotiating the terms of trade. Similar to many of those who produce coffee and cocoa elsewhere in Africa, Malawi’s tobacco farmers are locked into what is effectively 21st century serfdom. A life of growing tobacco is the only viable option for many, and one that only provides for the most basic of subsistence; 60% of the population scrape by on less than $2 a day. In order to make ends meet, families rely on the labour of their children. In the absence of the most basic protective equipment like gloves, the child labourers of the Malawian tobacco farms are exposed to the same levels of nicotine as a 50-a-day smoker, resulting in severe health problems. If ever there was a market crying out for the benefits that Fairtrade can bring, surely it’s this one?
Enter the Mohawk Nation of Akwesasne, a Native American people who earn a living for themselves by manufacturing cigarettes. They created a brand of cigarettes called “1st Nation” which launched in the UK in 2007. Produced using tobacco made by independent Malawian farming cooperatives, the profits from these ‘ethically-sourced’ cigarettes are reinvested in the communities that grow the tobacco so that they can diversify their farming practices. From the information I can find, they’ve helped farmers diversify into producing peanuts and have invested in a peanut shelling machine to help increase profits. Making the move from ‘ethically sourced’ to fully fledged Fairtrade however, seems a much tougher nut to crack. Representatives of 1st Nation cigarettes approached a number of Fairtrade Foundations around the world in an attempt to have their product recognised and branded as such, but so far no standards for Fairtrade tobacco have been drawn up and they don’t appear to be in the pipeline either.
There is little doubt that the introduction of Fairtrade tobacco would cause something of an uproar in certain circles, and probably an existential dilemma for The Guardian. How could we possibly reconcile our cosy image of Fairtrade and smiling African children being given a chance for a better life on one hand, with the very real pain and misery inflicted by smoking-related disease on the other? But let’s not forget that obesity and alcoholism are serious societal ills too, and we see no major objections to Fairtrade chocolate and Fairtrade wine. Fairtrade is about protecting the producers from abject poverty, not the consumers from products that are entirely legal. To deny the benefits of Fairtrade to tobacco producers on the grounds that “tobacco is bad” would be the worst kind of hypocrisy on our part. Given some of the inevitable negative reactions however, it’s understandable that the Fairtrade Foundation might be nervous about undermining its image to the detriment of good work elsewhere. There are plenty of fickle hypocrites out there after all, especially among the ethically-confused middle-classes.
There are other barriers however. The Fairtrade Foundation has worked incredibly hard over the last decade to raise the profile of Fairtrade products to British consumers. Given the restrictions on tobacco advertising, how could a Fairtrade cigarette brand ever break into the market? I can’t find 1st Nation cigarettes anywhere and I can’t even be sure if they’re still in business. But they showed that it’s possible, and given the media attention that they attracted as a result of such a controversial idea, there’s an argument to say that Rupert Murdoch can provide all the free advertising necessary to kick-start an ethical smoking revolution. Even in the absence of any marketing at all, popular products can still succeed - have you ever seen an advert for Buckfast? If your moral compass is starting to wobble at the thought of all this, it’s about to start spinning.
Given that the UK tobacco market is dominated by two companies (Imperial Tobacco and Japan Tobacco International share 85% of the UK market) perhaps the only way for Fairtrade to work would be for them to get behind it, at which point even I’d start to feel slightly uncomfortable with the idea. But as cynical as many of us are about the corporate world’s attempts to pacify us with claims of social responsibility, there is no denying that practices change in response to consumer demand. You might hate Starbucks for shutting down your local cafe, but they’d be doing that anyway whether they’re serving Fairtrade venti frappacinos or not. And whilst giving “big tobacco” an opportunity to cry that it’s not as evil as everyone says it is might seem unpalatable, would it cause any tangible harm? I’m yet to hear of anyone who cites the plight of impoverished tobacco farmers as their reason for not taking up smoking. Why should those of us already doing it be denied the same ethical alternatives available to those of us who prefer bananas?
Fairtrade status for tobacco farmers could allow them to invest in their communities, educate their children instead of sending them to work, and help them to eventually move away from producing a crop that will hopefully no longer be in such demand some day. Away from the tobacco farms, the children of Malawi are taking up smoking at an alarming rate, with cigarette companies accused of everything from sponsoring youth events to giving away free cigarettes to ensnare a new generation of smokers among a population who can least afford it. The proceeds of Fairtrade tobacco could be used to prevent children from taking up the habit, as well as providing them with a healthier and more prosperous life.
The political, social and economic challenges standing in the way of Fairtrade tobacco are huge, but they pale in comparison to those faced by the people who have little choice but to grow the evil weed. I’ve done my best to present a case here and illustrate the challenge, and I hope I’ve provoked some thought at least. There are plenty of other reasons for not smoking without having to keep tobacco farmers in poverty for fear that helping them will somehow make Fairtrade seem less fair or smoking seem less damaging. As People and Planet so eloquently put it: “Smoking kills. But so does poverty.”
References and further reading:
