According to the National Coffee Association, half of all Americans drink coffee every day. For instance, young adults drink an average of 3.2 cups of coffee per day, and in 2007 consumption of coffee actually surpassed consumption of soft drinks.
Most of this coffee is produced in developing nations, yet less than 10% of the annual value of coffee goes back to the farmers. Much of the rest ends up in the pockets of the companies that process, package, and sell it, such as Kraft, Proctor and Gamble, and Nestle, among others. The low return on their investment is devastating for farmers in developing nations like Ethiopia, where unemployment and poverty are high and coffee plantations represent a much needed source of income. In Columbia, some coffee farmers have already converted their coffee farms to opium farms because opium yields better income.
The way the coffee industry operates does not just present a problem for the farmers that grow the beans. Rather than using the traditional method of growing coffee in the shade of tropical trees, to increase yield most coffee is now grown in "full-sun" production. This change has brought on the destruction of tropical rainforests and, with that, a tremendous loss of biodiversity. According to Equator Coffee Roasters, this type of coffee production is "the second leading cause of rainforest destruction." Furthermore, the trees that could be used to offer shade can often provide additional income for farmers by producing fruit, avocados, and wood. In addition, the ground underneath the coffee plants is a good place to grow vegetables and herbs.
Full-sun plantations also lack the natural fertilizers provided by plants and the natural pest control of the animals that live in the rainforest. As a result, coffee plants require chemical fertilizers and pesticides. These plantations are also prone to flooding and erosion, both of which could be avoided if the coffee plants were nestled between larger trees. Meanwhile, the runoff from the chemical fertilizers and pesticides pollutes the surrounding rivers. The chemicals also affect farm workers: many of the hired farmhands cannot read, so they do not know how to follow the instructions given for the use of the chemicals. Sometimes there is no protective gear available for workers, which can result in chemical poisoning.
The birds are yet another casualty of the full-sun method. More than 150 species of birds thrive in the rainforest of a traditional coffee planation, which is more than twenty times the number of species that live on full-sun farms. Some of the species that depend on the rainforest for survival have declined by as must as 70%.
Many of these negatives can be avoided if consumers become more aware of what kind of coffee they buy - if they let their buying habits be guided by "eco-labels." For instance, all organic coffee is shade grown, and very few pesticides are approved for use in organic farming. To avoid coffee from full-sun plantations, consumers should look for the label "organic." An advocacy group from New York City, the Rainforest Alliance, also certifies coffee. The Rainforest Alliance prohibits certain chemicals, it requires that water and biodiversity be protected, and it also requires that new trees be planted. According to one farmer, following the Rainforest Alliance principles is "helping him farm in balance with nature, and greatly improve worker productivity and morale." Consumers can look for the "Fair Trade" label, which guarantees farmers a certain minimum price for their coffee. A portion of the profits from the coffee is then reinvested into the community in the form of schools, buildings, etc.
1. Is this a moral or legal/economic issue? Could it be both? What are some of the most important value and prescriptive claims involved here? Should any of the relevant nonmoral claims override the moral claims? Why or why not?
2. How does the fact that this issue involves international trading policies affect this case?
3. It would not be acceptable in the United States for workers to be exposed to the kinds of risks these foreign coffee workers are being exposed to. Nor could any U.S. worker be paid such low wages. Can these sorts of things nevertheless be acceptable for workers in other countries? Relate your answer to the claim that moral principles should be universal.
4. If moral principles are indeed universal, could we justifiably criticize another culture for its farming practices and the way it allows its workers to be treated?
5. To what degree do you think the rest of the world could justifiably take action against foreign farming practices when these could potentially harm farmers and the surrounding people?
Formulate some moral and nonmoral claims to support your views.