Tag Archives: certification

Nestle Cocoa Plan: Not Quite Enough

Child labor in the cocoa industry has long been a hot topic embroiling nations, big chocolate companies, consumers, and more. Although some children may simply be assisting their family financially, many are victims of what the International Labor Organization defines as the “Worst Forms of Child Labor,” which includes work that is “likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children.” (ilo.org) In an effort to source sustainable cocoa and end the use of child labor in the cocoa industry, some big chocolate companies have devised their own plans and certification programs meant to indicate their commitment to the cause. The Nestle company in particular has branded itself as the big chocolate company that is doing the most to eliminate child labor (Nestle Tackling Child Labor report).  

Screen Shot 2018-05-03 at 1.33.32 PM.png

 

 

 

(http://www.childlaborcocoa.org/images/Payson_Reports/Tulane%20University%20-%20Survey%20Research%20on%20Child%20Labor%20in%20the%20Cocoa%20Sector%20-%2030%20July%202015.pdf)

Despite the recent efforts, the problem of child labor has actually gotten worse. In a study that was conducted in 2013 and 2014, the number of children aged 5 through 17 years who worked in dangerous conditions on cocoa farms in Côte d’Ivoire grew by 260,700 in just 5 years (Tulane Report). While Nestle has made a comparatively thorough analysis of the problem of child labor in their supply chain through the creation of their own independent certification plan, the Cocoa Plan, many of their methods are opaque or inadequate; therefore, the plan may vindicate Nestle to the public, but does not go far enough to actually eliminate child labor.

Recent outrage over the issue of child labor on cocoa farms can be partially traced to the 2000 film Slavery: A Global Investigation that details the dangerous working conditions on Côte d’Ivoire cocoa farms (True Vision). After the release of the film and “following pressure and outrage from civil society groups and media outlets, large chocolate and cocoa corporations –– including Nestlé –– responded by claiming that they did not know about the situation and, like the public, were concerned.” Despite this supposed outrage, “For the past 15 years, Nestle and its partners in the Cocoa Industry have been intensely resisting government regulation regarding eliminating WFCL in their global cocoa supply chain” (Wood 4). In this context of mixed signals and discrepancy between Nestle’s actions and what they publicly displayed,  Nestle launched their Cocoa Plan in 2009. The plan is both an initiative and certification program that aims to improve farmer training, plant propagation, and improve work conditions, especially for children (Nestle “The Cocoa Plan” 2009)

Screen Shot 2018-05-03 at 1.34.50 PM

(http://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn92074055/1910-07-29/ed-1/seq-2/)

One part of the Cocoa Plan that is honorable, and stands in contrast with how Cadbury handled slave labor in its supply chain during the early 1900’s, is that Nestle clearly and quickly acknowledges that child labor is present in its supply chain. Nearly a century before the outrage that prompted Nestle to create its Cocoa Plan came concern that slave labor was present in the Portuguese West African cocoa farms that Cadbury sourced from. In response, Cadbury hired Joseph Burtt to investigate the issue. However, “Burtt’s report…appeared more than six years after Cadbury Bros. first learned that slave labor was used in the growing of cocoa beans in Sao Tome and Principe and four years after the company decided to hire an agent to visit Portuguese West Africa” (Satre 98). Cadbury and another chocolate firm, Rowntree, were concerned about the implications of releasing such a report that indicated their use of slave labor. Therefore, it took an unusual amount of time for Cadbury to publish its findings and admit to the problem. Even with the evidence, William Cadbury remained skeptical of the scope of the issue and “while he was against the use of slave labor, he did not equate the labor of Sao Tome to that of other forms of slavery reported in Africa” (Satre 19).

 

//players.brightcove.net/2111767321001/default_default/index.html?videoId=4780236677001#t=2m27s

(http://fortune.com/big-chocolate-child-labor/)

Rather than withholding the truth or questioning the reality of labor conditions in West Africa, Nestle admits in the Cocoa Plan that “We know there are children working on farms in Cote d’Ivoire in areas where we source cocoa. No company sourcing cocoa here can guarantee they’ve eliminated the risk of children working in their supply chain” (Nestle Cocoa Plan Better Lives). As the Fortune video indicates, big chocolate companies often claim plausible deniability when it comes to child labor since there are many middlemen that stand between them and the actual laborers. As Brian O’Keefe acknowledges in the video, consumers are now demanding that big chocolate companies like Nestle take responsibility (O’Keefe). Therefore, Nestle sets itself apart from other chocolate companies and appeals to consumers’ desire for transparency by admitting to the issue. However, even in their statement admitting responsibility, Nestle still inserts a phrase that absolves them from any actual wrongdoing. By claiming that there is no company sourcing from Cote d’Ivoire that can ‘guarantee’ that there is no child labor in their supply chain, Nestle admits to the problem, but does not admit to guilt. Nestle’s Code of Conduct prohibits child labor and Nestle’s Executive Vice-President for Operations admits that “The use of child labour in our cocoa supply chain goes against everything we stand for” (Clarke, Nestle Cocoa Plan Better Lives). Despite their adamant position against child labor, Nestle continues to source from areas where it is endemic. While the effectiveness of boycotts is debated, still sourcing from areas with areas known for child labor indicates that Nestle adheres more to its moral mission in speech than it does in action.

Screen Shot 2018-05-01 at 1.03.38 PM.png

(https://www.nestlecocoaplanreport.com/sites/default/files/2017-10/NestleCocoaPlanReport2017_EN_0.pdf)

 

Nestle’s methods in its child labor monitoring and remediation program are inefficient and the scope of the program is relatively minimal. Nestle advertises in its Cocoa Plan that “In 2017, 51% of children identified are no longer in child labour” (Nestle Cocoa Plan 2017). While this initially seems like a significant improvement, it is important to distinguished how and how many children are ‘identified.’ The method in which child laborers are identified is outlined in Step 2 of the remediation program: “A child is spotted (or self-declares) engaging in a hazardous activity” (Nestle Cocoa Plan 2017). This is an extremely inefficient method since spotting child laborers requires a large number of personnel traveling from farm to farm observing practices. Self-declaring is also an unlikely occurrence as some children may not know the dangers associated with their labor and if they did, they may be too scared to report anything as it might implicate their family. Therefore, the number of children actually identified by Nestle is likely relatively low when compared to the true number. The lack of detailed information in the Cocoa Plan around this issue was picked up by an investigative report from the Watson Institute at Brown University, which states that “The researcher is unable to decipher what proportion of Nestle’s co-ops have Child Labour Monitoring and Remediation Systems. This is problematic because it serves as a barrier to criticizing Nestle for not taking enough action” (Wood 10). Essentially, Nestle provides vague information to indicate that it is taking some degree of action, but the extent of its action and operations remains a mystery. Furthermore, The Cocoa Plan itself hardly covers a majority of Nestle’s Cocoa. In fact, only “Around a third of Nestlé’s total global cocoa supply is currently bought from producers covered by the Nestlé Cocoa Plan” (Wood 10). Therefore, it can be estimated that the areas covered by this child labor monitoring and remediation program are a similarly small proportion. Even cocoa that is completely certified under the Cocoa Plan is not a guarantee that it has not been produced using child labor. Nestle admits that “7,002 Children [were] identified working on farms or in communities covered by the Nestlé Cocoa Plan” (Nestle Cocoa Plan 2017). This strips the certification program of clarity and even some of its legitimacy when it comes to child labor, as Nestle wishes to eliminate child labor, but still allows cocoa made with it to pass their certification.

One strong aspect of the Cocoa Plan is its analysis of the barriers children in cocoa growing regions face in receiving an education. While education is certainly important to the well-being of the children, it is still not the most effective way to end child labor. Nestle began its school building program in West Africa in 2011 and has since built or refurbished over 42 schools (Nestle Cocoa Plan Better Lives). While this is certainly a laudable achievement, Nestle also recognizes that children face far more nuanced obstacles than simply not having a school building. One such obstacle for girls in particular is that “Many schools in Côte d’Ivoire do not have toilets. Girls find this particularly difficult as they have to go further into the bush to relieve themselves. There, they are at greater risk of being bitten by snakes or insects, and there have also been cases of girls being harassed” (Nestle Cocoa Plan 2017). The lack of toilets may cause girls to miss school more often and may negatively affect their performance when they are in school. Another key obstacle that Nestle identifies is the “lack of a birth certificate, which is compulsory for entry to secondary education. Since the start of the programme we have enabled 4,517 children to continue their education by providing them with a birth certificate” (Nestle Cocoa Plan 2017). Therefore, Nestle shows that they have a more in depth and comprehensive understanding of and action plan when it comes to education. They both address the lack of physical buildings, while also addressing challenges to attending school in the first place. However, one important statistic that is tucked away in the Cocoa Plan report is that 17.5% of children who attend schools in Cote d’Ivoire also participate in child labor versus 23.4% of children who do not attend schools (Nestle Cocoa Plan 2017). This is a relatively minor decrease and indicates that access to an education is not a panacea for preventing children from working. The children who go to school still have to work face a serious burden, indicating that child labor is not just a result of a lack of alternatives, but is a result of greater challenges.

The Cocoa Plan lacks a plan to implement a crucial method to ending child labor: ensuring that the parents can earn enough to support their family. A March 2018 report by Stop the Traffik notes that while Nestle provides farmers with training and help improving productivity, it “Has yet to commit to paying farmers more for their cocoa and does not currently have any long-term plans for a living income” (A Matter of Taste). Writer Beth Hoffman argues in her Forbes article, 4 Reasons Why Nestle Cocoa Plan is Not Enough, that “The only way to truly ensure children can go to school is to guarantee their parents a living wage” (Hoffman). Thus, Nestle has outlined an elaborate plan that helps farmers and childrens in a myriad of ways, except for perhaps the most effective way. While they publicize that they are committed to eliminating child labor, their actions again indicate that their words do not match their actions.
ChocolateCertifications

(Lecture Slides)

Another flaw of the Cocoa Plan is the fact that it is a certification program in the first place. Fairtrade, another certification that sets various environmental and social standards and aims to pay growers a higher premium for their crops, has high levels of trust and recognition among consumers in Europe and the USA (Globescan). Consumers may not readily understand or recognize the Cocoa Plan in the same way. This may complicate decision making for consumers who may simply begin to overlook certifications in general. Beth Hoffman argues that “With more than 200 “ecolabels” now available on products, it is impossible for consumers to know (let alone verify) that every seal or logo claiming sustainability is actually making a clear difference in the world” (Hoffman).  This issue of verification is important. Although Fairtrade has its own flaws, the fact that it is a 3rd party certification gives it legitimacy and a reputation as unbiased, which builds trust among consumers that the chocolate will actually benefit growers instead of just big chocolate companies.

In an economic system where companies sometimes have just as much agency and ability as a country to enact social and economic change, it is honorable to see the Nestle Company acknowledge the problem of child labor in the cocoa that it sources and outline steps it is taking to eliminate it. Although the Cocoa Plan may sound adequate to the general public, looking at its nuances reveals how some parts may be flawed, misleading, or incomplete. Overall, the Cocoa Plan does not seem to go far enough as it does not include some of the most effective ways of ending child labor. As the Nestle Cocoa Plan plays out, the ability for profit driven companies to effect social change will be put to the test.

Works Cited

2013/14 Survey Research on Child Labor in West African Cocoa Growing Areas. Report. School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University. July 30, 2015. Accessed May 1, 2018. http://www.childlaborcocoa.org/images/Payson_Reports/Tulane University – Survey Research on Child Labor in the Cocoa Sector – 30 July 2015.pdf.


A Matter of Taste. Report. STOP THE TRAFFIK Australia Coalition, 2018.


“Better Lives.” Nestle Cocoa Plan. Accessed May 01, 2018. http://www.nestlecocoaplan.com/better-lives/.


Clarke, Joe Sandler. “Child Labour on Nestlé Farms: Chocolate Giant’s Problems Continue.” The Guardian. September 02, 2015. Accessed May 01, 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/sep/02/child-labour-on-nestle-farms-chocolate-giants-problems-continue.


Globescan. “High Trust and Global Recognition Makes Fairtrade an Enabler of Ethical Consumer Choice.” News release, October 11, 2011. Globescan. Accessed May 01, 2018. https://globescan.com/high-trust-and-global-recognition-makes-fairtrade-an-enabler-of-ethical-consumer-choice/.


Hoffman, Beth. “Love Chocolate? 4 Reasons Why Nestlé’s Cocoa Plan Is Not Enough.” Forbes. May 22, 2013. Accessed May 01, 2018. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/05/22/4-reasons-why-nestles-cocoa-plan-is-not-enough/1.


Nestle. “Nestlé and Sustainable Cocoa ‘The Cocoa Plan’.” News release, October 2009. Nestle.com. Accessed May 1, 2018. http://www.nestle.com/asset-library/documents/media/news-and-features/2009-october/the-cocoa-plan.pdf.


O’Keefe, Brian. “Inside Big Chocolate’s Child Labor Problem.” Fortune. March 01, 2016. Accessed May 01, 2018. http://fortune.com/big-chocolate-child-labor/.


Satre, Lowell Joseph. Chocolate on Trial Slavery, Politics, and the Ethics of Business. Athens, OH: Ohio Univ.Press, 2005.


Slavery: A Global Investigation. Directed by Brian Woods and Kate Blewett. True Vision, 2000. Accessed May 1, 2018. https://truevisiontv.com/films/details/90/slavery-a-global-investigation.

Tackling Child Labor. Report. 2017. Accessed May 1, 2018. https://www.nestlecocoaplanreport.com/sites/default/files/2017-10/NestleCocoaPlanReport2017_EN_0.pdf.

Wood, Madeleine. An Investigation Into Nestle’s Efforts To Establish Credibility In Its Global Cocoa Supply Chain. Master’s thesis, Brown University, 2015. Watson Institute. 4-10.

“Worst Forms of Child Labour.” International Labor Organization. Accessed May 01, 2018. http://www.ilo.org/ipec/facts/WorstFormsoffChildLabour/lang–en/index.htm.

Chocolate Lessons: Knowledge Gleaned from Chocolate Bars Sold in the Natural Foods Aisle

On average, Americans consume 12 pounds of chocolate per person each year or a little less than a quarter pound of chocolate per week. A typical chocolate bar ranges from 1.5-3.5 ounces. Therefore, 12 pounds of chocolate equates to enjoying 55-128 chocolate bars (depending on its size) per year! It is safe to say, for better or for worse, chocolate has become an integral part of the American diet.

Historically, chocolate was consumed for medicinal purposes, primarily as a source of nourishment and energy. Today, the developed world struggles with being simultaneously over nourished and malnourished from an imbalanced diet. Nevertheless, chocolate health claims persist, usually in reference to darker chocolates. Beneficial properties of cocoa include antioxidant, cardiovascular, and psychological enhancement, which are linked to its polyphenol, flavanol, and caffeine content (Castell, Pérez-Cano, and Bisson, 2013). These health claims are not present on chocolate bar labels, though.

In the last couple of decades, food packaging has actually become quite informationally dense. How can you sift through all of the information on chocolate labels to know what’s really important? Additionally, what can we learn from a chocolate bar’s packaging, besides its nutritional content? The goal of this blog post is to help decipher the various symbols, certification meanings, and key words that appear on chocolate wrappers.

Ultimately, you, as the consumer, have to decide what is important to you and what you are looking for in your chocolate purchases, not only in terms of taste but also social responsibility. Equipping yourself with the knowledge to know what to look for, and what symbols, certifications, and other words on chocolate packages mean, makes informed chocolate purchases a much smoother process and ensures you have the best chocolate buying experience possible. Before chocolate tasting can become embodied knowledge, it requires repetition in order to pick up on flavor nuances of single origin chocolate or to be able to tell if a chocolate bar was made with over-roasted cacao beans. In the same way, learning the stories and processes behind the chocolate you are eating requires some research, occasionally beyond the label itself.

I studied the chocolate bars in the natural foods aisle of a Stop & Shop grocery store in the greater Boston area to see what information could be gleaned from the chocolate labels within this section. I did not include enrobed chocolate candies within this aisle, “regular” chocolate bars (i.e., Hershey’s) in the main candy aisle or those present in the checkout lanes. I chose to focus on the chocolate bars within the natural foods aisle because, typically, these brands offer more information and stories about cacao procurement, processing, and its impact on people or the environment, whereas chocolate produced by most Big Five brands only provide nutritional information on the back of the wrapper. The Big Five chocolate brands include well-known companies: Hershey, Mars, Cadbury, Nestle, and Ferrero (Allen, 2010).

The type of consumer who shops for chocolate in the natural foods aisle is most likely not just looking for a sugar fix because there are cheaper ways to meet that need. The intended audience includes individuals who may be interested in supporting social or environmental causes, and who are probably health conscious, even though it is still chocolate. Additionally, he or she may have a sophisticated or informed palate, and prefer quality chocolate with nuanced flavors. The natural foods aisle typically offers products that are slightly more expensive than its conventional counterparts, so the consumer is not making his or her choice of chocolate based solely on price point. Rather, the consumer possibly has a higher disposable income and is able to spend two or three times as much money on a chocolate bar from this section than on chocolate from one of the large chocolate corporations previously mentioned.

The natural foods aisle in Stop & Shop offers eight different brands of chocolate bars: Chocolove XOXOX, Green & Black’s, Divine, Theo, TCHO, LILY’s, Endangered Species Chocolate, and Alter Eco. These bars are being sold for $2.50-$3.99, with Chocolove XOXOX being the cheapest because it was on sale. Divine, LILY’s, and Alter Eco lands at the upper end of the options. The TCHO 70% dark chocolate bar usually retails for $4.29, but happened to be on sale. Still, these are moderately priced “good” chocolate bars compared to other specialty chocolate companies and retailers who sell their bars for about double the price. The juxtaposition of these brands, with a $1.00 (or less) Hershey’s chocolate bar, provides an interesting comparison in both price and taste.

The eight brands offer bars in a variety of flavors ranging from 34% milk chocolate to 85% dark chocolate with the option of added fruit or nut pieces. The white chocolate selection was nonexistent in this section at this particular grocery store. However, just for informational purposes, one brand (outside of the eight focused on here) does contribute a white chocolate peanut butter cup.

Just a few of the brands provide chocolate bars made from single origin cacao, which might be a more common provision at specialty retail stores. Both TCHO and Divine use Ghanaian cacao, and Alter Eco sources its cacao beans from Ecuador. Chocolove XOXOX states on the back of the wrapper that their Belgian chocolate bars are crafted with African cocoa beans. This somewhat vague statement only alludes to the fact that their beans do not come from Central or South America, or Southeast Asia but could be sourced from one or more of the cacao producing countries within the large continent of Africa. Additionally, Green & Black’s credits Trinitario cacao beans for giving their chocolate a rich and unique flavor profile. Trinitario cacao beans are thought to embody the best qualities of its genetic parents, the Criollo and Forastero varieties, with the hybrid cacao being both hardy and possessing a nice flavor profile (Prisilla, 2009). Likewise, the purpose of brands specifying single origin or the use of a single cacao variety suggests an increase in quality or flavor characteristics that add value to the end product. Thus, the price of these types of bars is usually slightly higher compared to mixed bean origin or variety, and especially compared to bulk cacao.

There are a few things that stand out upon taking a closer look at the packages. First, Alter Eco is the only brand that uses a cardboard packaging to house its chocolate. All of the other brands wrap their bars in a glossy paper. In both cases, the chocolate is likely sealed in foil before receiving either the glossy paper or cardboard outer wrapper. While the outer cardboard layer looks visually appealing and feels nice to the touch, it also makes the bar appear larger than it actually is. The 2.8 ounce Alter Eco chocolate bar looks bigger than the 3 ounce LILY’S bar sitting next to it on the shelf, as the image shows below. Thus, most consumers probably believe they are purchasing a larger chocolate bar if they do not read the front of the package and realize the chocolate bar is smaller by weight than some other options.

FullSizeRender-2 2
Alter Eco 2.8 ounce chocolate bar

Like several other brands, Theo includes a brief description about the company and their procurement and processing practices on the back of the package. Here, Theo shares it is a bean to bar chocolate company, which means the company purchases the fermented and dried cacao beans, and then carries out each of the remaining processing steps (about 10) from roasting to packaging, according to their unique preferences. Thus, the company oversees the entire chocolate making process and can tweak each batch according to its needs and the desired outcome, making it a true craft.

Green & Black’s label does not readily offer information about the company’s processing practices other than it uses fair trade and organic ingredients. Interestingly, the backside of the label does say Mondelez Global LLC distributes Green & Black’s chocolate bars. Mondelez is one of the largest global snack food companies and now owns Cadbury, one of the Big Five chocolate companies. Last year, Mondelez even attempted to acquire the Hershey Company, but Hershey declined the offer (Bukhari, 2017). Thus, Mondelez is a significant player within the global food system. This association alone may deter some consumers from purchasing Green & Black’s chocolate.

Another unexpected but perhaps pioneering find is LILY’s, whose chocolate bars are sweetened with the natural sweetener, Stevia, and erythritol, a sugar alcohol. Additionally, LILY’s adds inulin, a fiber commonly used as a bulking agent. These are not traditional chocolate bar ingredients, but perhaps the fewer calories and grams of sugar allow individuals with specific dietary restrictions to still purchase fair trade chocolate. The bar also boasts that it is still “100% indulgent.”

Before dissecting the chocolate bars’ various certifications, I want to look at Divine’s commitment to its producers. In the West, chocolate consumption has long been feminized, associated with temptation and indulgence (Robertson, 2009). Women are important as both chocolate consumers and producers, something Divine has recognized. The two images above depict Divine’s pledge to support the female cacao farmers within Kuapa Kokoo (cocoa co-operative) in Ghana and make sure their voices are heard. In doing so, these female business owners are positioned as powerful actors within the cacao and chocolate industries, rather than being viewed as exploited workers in an underdeveloped country (Leissle, 2012). This has significant implications not only for the female producers, but also culturally, and for future standards within the chocolate industry.

This final section includes a brief discussion on food certifications. Fair trade certification is the most popular certification that the eight brands feature. Other certifications that appear on the chocolate wrappers include USDA Organic, Non-GMO Verified, Certified Gluten-Free, Certified Vegan, Kosher (dairy), Fair for Life, and rBST free. I was surprised I did not find the UTZ Certified symbol on any of the chocolate bars, since UTZ is the most common cacao certification related to sustainable farming practices.

Fair trade certifications can be represented in a variety of ways depending on the party providing the certification. The images above show several different certifications present on the different brands’ packaging that symbolize the employment of fair trade practices. In order for a product to be labeled “fair trade,” all members of the processing chain (including producers) must pay into the fair trade system. As a result, producers are promised better trading conditions including long term relationships with buyers, garner presumably higher wages, have better working conditions, and live overall improved lives. However, many question whether this system is as transformative as it claims to be. The terms “fair trade” and “sustainable” have become ubiquitous, and the commodification of the terms also threatens their legitimacy (Sylla, 2014).

When thinking about food certifications, it is important to remember these certifications are neither all encompassing nor meant to solve all social or environmental issues with one label. Companies are now starting to launch their own certifications rather than going through a third party certification. It will be up to the individual company to define the criteria for “fair” or “sustainable,” or any new term it deems important. Whole Foods already uses its “Whole Trade Certified” label. Consequently, continuing to be an educated consumer will be extremely imperative in order to know what the certifications represent and what the companies stand for. It is unclear whether these self-certifications will be viewed as legitimate certifications or just add to the confusion many consumers feel when reading food labels.

While the objective of self-certification is to offer more affordable fair trade items to consumers, it raises the question of whether that should be the ultimate goal of selling fair trade products, and what the tradeoffs are for making fair trade more affordable and part of the mainstream? If large food conglomerates begin to self-regulate certifications, rather than paying third party companies, who is to say the consumer will actual benefit from the money saved? Historically, when the price of goods has dropped, large corporations scoop up the difference and pocket the extra profits, rather than decreasing the cost for the consumer (Albrittion, 2013). However, consumers still have the power to vote with their dollars.

The next time you peruse the chocolate selection within a store, feel empowered to study the information provided on the packaging (and conduct further research if needed) rather than being overwhelmed by various symbols and industry jargon.

 

**All images were taken by the author

 

Works Cited

Albritton, Robert. 2013. “Between Obesity And Hunger: The Capitalist Food Industry”. In Food And Culture: A Reader, 3rd ed., 342-352. New York: Routledge.

Allen, Lawrence L. 2010. Chocolate Fortunes: The Battle For The Hearts, Minds, And Wallets Of China’s Consumers. New York: American Management Association.

Bukhari, Jeff. 2017. “Why Investors Are Bingeing On Snack-Maker Mondelez”. Fortune.Com. http://fortune.com/2017/02/22/why-investors-are-bingeing-on-snack-maker-mondelez/.

Castell, Margarida, Francisco Jose Pérez-Cano, and Jean-François Bisson. 2013. “Clinical Benefits Of Cocoa: A Review”. In Chocolate In Health And Nutrition, 1st ed., 265-276. Humana Press.

Leissle, Kristy. 2012. “Cosmopolitan Cocoa Farmers: Refashioning Africa in Divine Chocolate Advertisements.” Journal of African Cultural Studies 24 (2): 121-139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13696815.2012.736194

Prisilla, Maricel E. 2009. The New Taste of Chocolate: A Cultural and Natural History of Cacao with Recipes. 1st ed. Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.

Robertson, Emma. 2009. Chocolate, Women, and Empire: A Social and Cultural History. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Sylla, Ndongo Samba. 2014. The Fair Trade Scandal: Marketing Poverty To Benefit The Rich. 1st ed. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press.

Drawing on Chocolate: How Society Displays its Values on its Favorite Food

From the earliest of its history, chocolate has been tied to the value systems of the people that consumed it. As cacao products and recipes traveled around the world, the decorations and designs that people have chosen to use on containers give us insight into the value systems of their cultures.

Mezo-American Values

Relics of Meso-American pottery date to the same place and timeframe as the archeological record of chocolate–with the Olmec people. (Rose) Chemical analysis of pottery shards shows that the Olmec culture made cacao pulp into an intoxicating beer-type drink at least 1000 years before the current era. Eventually the cacao bean byproduct fermented into its own food source and began to resemble chocolate–at least in its crudest liquid form. (Henderson)

Screen Shot 2017-03-05 at 10.39.18 PM
The Mayan drinking vase on display in the permanent collection of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts is an example of documentation of ceremony, politics, and the importance of chocolate in their society. Slightly larger than a modern quart jar, the drinking vase has a wrap-around visual narrative that details a ritual, specifically noting out that kakaw (cacao) was one of the stimulating substances used in this event.

Our first pictorial record of the original bitter drink begins with the wealthiest of the Mayan society. These colorful jewels of Western Hemisphere art document the details about ritual life by describing events, attendees, and even the ingredients of the beverage. Documenting their religion and political record onto the containers from which they drank chocolate shows the importance of the beverage in their society.

The Aztec created rounded bowls from the calabash gourds which the local populace used to prepare their daily cacao. The society elite commissioned ceremonial pottery that took the same shape and name as the gourd vessels–jícara. Vessels like this were documented in the first Spanish histories, with descriptions of cacao preparation being poured from bowl to bowl to create a frothy top. (Presilla 32)

By the time the Spanish arrived, Aztec decorations were becoming less literal than the Mayans’ had been, and were more symbolic of the gods’ earthy powers. Geometric representation of forces such as lightening and serpents were replacing the drawings of the gods themselves. As colonization progressed, the strong geometric symbolism was married with the Spanich-Islamic influences and techniques–showing up in the hybridization of cuisines, ingredients (Lauden) as well as in the art motifs.

The ultimate reason for the Spanish colonization the Americas was to extract the wealth from the natural resources of the new world. Although the Spanish government justified their version of slavery with the religious conversion of the Native Americans, in the end the colonization effort needed to be a wealth-producing enterprise. Along with agricultural products such as chocolate and sugar, metals were of great value in the European market. Native cultures shared the affinity for gold, silver and copper and used them as ornament and decorative items for the elite, but they had not perfected many techniques to create items for utilitarian purposes. The Spanish brought the knowledge of metallurgy which led to the local creation of copper chocolate pots for drink preparation. They also used silver to create handles and feet on the local cups made from coconut, literally wrapping the drink in wealth.

This video of a Filipino chocolate preparation shows the use of a copper chocolate pot and a molinillo stick to stir the chocolate into a froth. This is how the Spanish modified the native Nahuatl method of pouring the chocolate from bowl to bowl to produce a froth. (Coe 156), (Presilla 20)

After the Spanish arrival, pottery designs started showing stronger geometric divisions and flowery natural imagery moving away from the stylization of the Aztec and becoming more reminiscent of the designs that were slathered on mother Spain’s 12th century Moorish architecture. Images of upper-class colonial life, replaced the Native American depictions of myths and ceremonies. Plantation life was becoming more important than the natural forces and religions of Mexico. The sgrafitto, or incised pottery techniques that the Spaniards brought with them, married well with the engraved and carved techniques that had been in Meso-America since the Olmecs, but allowed for a more refined hand to carve into gourds and coconuts as well as pottery. (Presilla 32)

jicara
Jícara such as this one from Peru uses the sgrafitto technique to create a delicate designs that bring to mind the Spanish homeland.

The gourd-bowl shape has become synonymous with colorful, modern Mexican tourist-style pottery in the shape of flowerpots and salad bowls. Calabash gourds are still grown, dried, carved and sold today in the markets of Tabasco. Grown from a native American tree that is remarkably similar to cacao in habit and form–modern uses for the gourds can be anything from drinking, to measuring, to display.

The influence and pottery technology of the Olmecs had moved northward with trade routes to the Pueblo people. Gas chromatography analysis of North American artifacts has shown that long before the Aztecs had usurped the regional market on cacao, the trade routes of the Mayans had extended northward to canyons of New Mexico. (Mozdy) The Anasazi cultures created tall, vessels reminiscent of the Mayan vase shape, decorated with extremely stylized iconography that represented the common Meso-American pantheon.

anasazi2
These examples from Chaco Canyon are covered with lightening bolts that reflect the Pueblo’s interpretation of the imported Mezoamerican rain god, Quetzocoatle and display the reverence to the forces of nature that the local culture held. (Eaton 38)

This 1200-mile path between where the vessels were found (in the Pueblo Bonito of Chaco Canyon) and the nearest source of cacao would have required 600 hours of backpacking through rough country and sweltering heat. As one researcher phrased it “That’s a long way to go for something that you don’t need for survival”, [something] that’s more of a delicacy…” Whether the Anasazi acquired this cacao through dedicated treks south–which would have taken weeks–or their pueblo was the endpoint of an even slower hand-to-hand, village-to-village trade route. (Mozdy)

European Values

Soon after chocolate washed across the courts of Europe, trade with the east opened up, bringing with it tea, and a new the technology harder, refined pottery that we still refer to as “china”. Tea was not treated just as basic sustenance. Like the original chocolate beverage, there was ceremony attached to it that appealed to the idle wealthy who could afford these imported beverages. Tea was prepared in a fancy ceramic pot–separate from the kettle used to heat the water. Then it was decanted to a cup to delicately sip. The wealthy started applying the same approach their chocolate. Long gone was the habit of preparing and drinking chocolate out of the same vessel. The wealthy had even stopped decanting directly from a copper pot into a cup. Drinking chocolate now represented wealth and was given all the trappings to prove it. Chocolate was prepared in the kitchen and placed in the chocolate pot, or chocotalière, by servants, then brought to the public gathering of wealthy ladies, and delicately poured into cups and handed round by the magnanimous hostess. (Coe 156-159)

meissen
The best and most expensive chinoiserie hailed from Germany, where Johann Friedrich Böttger duplicated the art of Chinese fine porcelain making.

 

Chocolate pots were made from the most expensive of porcelain, and shaped in the fashion of teapots with some adjustments. Traditional teapots have a short, squat form into order to be able to keep heat in and extract the flavor from the swirling tea leaves that are actively stewing in the hot water. A low-seated spout is fixed with an interior strainer to keep the floating leaves in the pot once you are ready to pour the fully brewed beverage. Coffee pots, on the other hand, need a tall form and highly placed straining spout for the opposite reason. As it is basically a decanting mechanism for an already brewed beverage, the height of the coffee pot allows any grounds from the brew to settle to the bottom, or get caught in the strainer. (Righthand)

Chocolate pots can be hard to spot, as they often hybridize these two forms–typically tall, but often bulbous. Early European chocolate pots most always have a removable finial to allow for a mixing stick to create the desired froth and keep the chocolate mixed. As cocoa powder was developed and cocoa preparations replaced true hot chocolate, the stirring stick went by the wayside, and chocotalière became nearly indistinguishable from coffee pots. The last distinguishing characteristic of a coffee pot was the internal strainer where the spout and body meet, and a spout that lowered over time.

Drinking chocolate represented wealth, therefore decorations were those that affluent courtiers and nouveau-riche traders would value. Gone were the forces of Meso-American nature, or plantation life, and in came garden scene–often mimicking the exotic origins of the pot. Elaborately painted and gilt decorations brought the wealth of court on the surface of the chocolate pot. An 18th century fad called “Chinoiserie” depicted the European’s visions of Asian gardens with palm trees, umbrellas, and architecture that they imagined would be found in the gardens of the imperial court of China. As many of the traders were making fortunes off the new-found economy, the asian motifs became a temporary obsession throughout the continent and its colonies.

staffordshire
Pottery for the middle class living in British colonies was most often imported from Staffordshire England. Extremely fine china rarely made it across the Atlantic during the colonial period.

Chocolate drinkers in the British colonies of North America usually imported English middle-class pottery with basic garden motifs to take to their breakfast tables. Very little pottery was made in New England so imported china had a cache of wealth and the designs were reminiscent of the estate and gardens of England as colonists tried to keep up all the appearances of home. The wealthiest of families had their chocolate pots crafted by local silversmiths, and garnished with the family seal to tie their family names and crests directly with the wealth that the precious metal embodied.

 

Modern Global Values

bars

As solid chocolate became available and ubiquitous throughout western culture, the packaging of it has changed with the form, but the still conveyed the values of the local surroundings. To make chocolate appealing to a mass Victorian audience, purveyors wrapped it in the trappings of health and wholesomeness. As modern food science undermined the myth of “healthful chocolate” and the western world was coming out of a financial depression, the ideology of wealth returned. Silver wrappers, foil lettering on thick, glossy boxes, expansive packaging, and silky imagery are on all price-points of chocolate. Our favorite addiction is made more expensive by giving it the trappings of luxury: heart-shaped boxes and ribbons; gilded truffles and patisseries. Feeling rich makes many of us very happy.

The fact that cacao is grown as a third world agricultural product, but consumed almost exclusively in comfortable homes of first world economies has been coming to the attention of consumers over the last half a century. For the socially conscious consumer–those whose values do not hold with personal indulgence without consideration to the cost to others and the planet–a whole new branding for chocolate has developed.

These consumers feel better about buying chocolate that is emblazoned with the iconography of Fair Trade, organic, or direct trade certifications–even if the certification system is more of a seasonal band-aid than a true economic transformation. (Sylla) The sheer plethora of virtuous symbols appearing on labels in the chocolate isle work to the benefit of the marketing. The variety of symbols and levels of individual certification system adds layers of confusion to the real benefits. The level of confusion is so high, there is no way the average consumer can understand all the nuances and impacts. In the end buyers spend more for a product that has a “seal of approval,” and go on their merry way with the psychological satisfaction of having done something good for the “other.”  They get to feel good without ever looking for any proof of the benefit these programs have on the lives of the farmers.

Slapping a feel-good seal on a wrapper has become so successful as marketing, that major companies are eschewing certifications that are attached to bureaucratic oversight of bona fide good intent, and instead are working toward establishing their own brands’ seal of ethical approval and creating home-grown social initiatives that are much easier to operationalize and do not threaten profits in the way that transforming the cacao supply chain would. Adding these icons into the patchwork of other initiatives ensures that social initiative logos appear on more and more packaging. Buying products branded with one of the myriad of ethical icons assuages the consciences of most purchasers. (Martin) In this way, we ensure that imagery that conveys these values will keep on proliferating on the packaging of our chocolate.

Works Referenced:

Brigden, Zachariah. Chocolate Pot. 1755. Silver. Boston Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Massachusetts.

Burt, Benjamin, and Nathaniel Hurd. Teapot. 1763. Silver. Boston Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Massachusetts.

“Crescentia cujete.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 03 Apr. 2017. Web. 07 May 2017. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescentia_cujete>.

Coe, Sophie D., and Michael D. Coe. The True History of Chocolate. Third ed. New York: Thames and Hudson, 2013. Print.

Eaton, William M. Odyssey of the Pueblo Indians: an introduction to Pueblo Indian petroglyphs, pictographs, and kiva art murals in the Southwest. Paducah, KY: Turner Pub., 1999. Print.

Henderson, John S., et al. “Chemical and Archaeological Evidence for the Earliest Cacao Beverages.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, National Acad Sciences, 16 Nov. 2007, www.pnas.org/content/104/48/18937.full. Accessed 6 Mar. 2017.

Laudan, Rachel, and Ignacio Urquiza. “The Mexican Kitchen’s Islamic Connection.” Aramco World. Saudi Aramco Services Co, May 2004. http://archive.aramcoworld.com/issue/200403/the.mexican.kitchen.s.islamic.connection.htm. Accessed 3 Feb. 2017

Presilla, Maricel E. The New Taste of Chocolate: A Cultural and Natural History of Cacao with Recipes. Revised ed., Berkeley, NY, Ten Speed Press, 2009.

Martin, Carla D. “Alternative trade and virtuous localization/globalization.” 5 April 2017, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Chocolate, Culture, and the Politics of Food.

“Metallurgy in pre-Columbian America.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 02 May 2017. Web. 07 May 2017.

Mozdy, Michael. “Cacao in Chaco Canyon.” Natural History Museum of Utah, Natural History Museum of Utah, 4 Aug. 2017, nhmu.utah.edu/blog/2016/08/04/cacao-chaco-canyon. Accessed 6 Mar. 2017.

Righthand, Jess. “A Brief History of the Chocolate Pot .” Smithsonian.com. The Smithsonian Institution, 13 Feb. 2005. Web. 23 Feb. 2017. <http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/brief-history-chocolate-pot-180954241/>.

Rose, Mark. “Olmec People, Olmec Art.” Archeology. Archaeological Institute of America, n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2017.

Sylla, Ndongo Samba., and David Clément Leye. The fair trade scandal marketing poverty to benefit the rich. Athens, OH: Ohio U Press, 2014. Print.

Unknown. Anasazi [Pueblo] pottery, Pueblo Bonito, Chaco Canyon, New MexicoAMNH Digital Special Collections, accessed March 06, 2017, lbry-web-007.amnh.org/digital/items/show/38991.

Unknown. Drinking Vase for “om kakaw”. Boston Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Massachusetts, 2003.

Unknown. Gourd (jicara) with red figures. Circa 1700. Lacquered Gourd. Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco, San Francisco, California.

Unknown. Jícara. Boston Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Massachusetts, 2003.

Image Citations:

Unless otherwise noted, drawings and photographs are works of the author and images may not be reused without attribution.

 

 

Money can grow on trees: the valuation of and payment for ecosystem services in the chocolate industry

As issues like food justice and consumer activism are popularized around certain products, there is an increased demand that food is good concerning not only taste but ethicality as well. When exploring what was being done to make chocolate more ethical and sustainable, I became interested in exploring how chocolate companies were taking action to make their products more “good” for people, the planet, and the sustainability of the industry.

A multi-billion dollar industry with nearly 50 million people along its global value chain, the chocolate industry, is undergoing many challenges which center around its sustainable procurement of cocoa. This is the case not only with respect to rising demands due to the expansion of new middle-class markets in Africa and Asia but is particularly relevant to concerns about the sustainability of its labour force, especially with regard to cocoa farmers and growers, and the environment, specifically with respect to the resilience of the crops affected  by climate change impacts; issues like these have affected an increasing global demand for chocolate. In fact, it is projected that by 2020, the global cocoa demand will exceed the supply by almost 1 million metric tons with industry forecasts of a 30% growth in demand amounting to 4.5 million tons by 2020. [1]

Alongside an increasing demand for chocolate, there has been a rising demand amongst consumers for greater transparency, traceability, and accountability throughout the chocolate value chain particularly at relates to social factors. [2] For example, chocolate companies are being scrutinized on the production end of its supply chain on issues like generational poverty faced by cocoa farmers, low productivity due to agricultural practices, and increasing the prevalence of many cocoa farmers and growers choosing to walk away from the industry entirely. For instance, according to CNN’s “Cocoa-nomics” series, revealed that compared to 16% received by cocoa farmers for every chocolate bar sold in the late 1980’s, today farmers receive only 3%. [3]

b7obgpeiiaa9gs4
Figure 1. Infographic outlining the pricing of chocolate bar and how it relates to actors all along the value chain.

 

Also, as the negative impacts of climate change -including increasingly unpredictable differentiation between wet and dry season, intense rains and flooding, longer and prolonged dry periods, as well as subsequent changes in the local ecosystem – continues to grow, many consumers have increased concern about the environmental impact of food production. Together, these focus areas have come to form a basis for the concern about the sustainability of the overall chocolate industry with attention increasingly directed at the both the beginning (farmers and growers) and end (consumers) of the chocolate product supply chains. Through emergence and development sustainability mechanisms like third-party audits, chain-of-custody schemes, direct trade (bean-to-bar chocolate producers), and single-source supply chains, chocolate companies have begun to adopt new and innovative models for sustainable sourcing of cocoa.

Concerning consumers, chocolate companies have increased their marketing efforts at increasing customers’ assurance of their sustainable practices. In particularly, some chocolate producers have implemented market-driven approaches through the use of consumer-facing tools like certification labeling and standards. [4] However, even with such certifications, there have been some useful questions raised about the effectiveness of certifications at positively impacting the lives of actors at the beginning of the supply chain, particularly for farmers and growers. For example, the Fair Trade certification offers a price premium price for the production of crops grown at higher social and environmental standards; however, questions have been raised around how much of the intended benefit of the certification reaches the poorest farmers and growers. [5] (Sylla, 2014, p. 208).

And so chocolate producers have begun exploring other market-driven approaches to increasing the sustainability of its industry. Most recently, in November of 2015, many leaders came together for the COP 21, the annual United Nations Climate Change Conference, where the Paris Agreement was adopted which governs the climate change related measures calling for the reduction of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. While the  Paris agreement does not  go so far as to establish what agriculture’s role in  reducing global emissions should be, it does outline that the international community “must address climate change’s effects on agriculture to build resilience and enhance food security globally.”[6]The chocolate industry has been sensitive to the devastating effect climate change could have on its industry. In Yasin’s 2014 Salon article titled “Why climate change could mean the end of chocolate”, she points out that that in West Africa, particularly Cote d’Ivoire and Ghana where nearly 70 percent of the world’s cocoa is produced, temperatures are expected to rise by a 2-degree Celsius (36.5 F) by 2050.  Many worry that this increase in temperature could affect a greater amount of water being lost by cocoa trees to evapotranspiration making them too dry. [7] 

Overall, the COP 21’s call-to-action instilled a renewed interest in exploring how the expansion of ecosystem services markets could help industries become more sustainable, including the chocolate industry. Actors from the chocolate industry showed up to the convening to make leaders aware of the world’s first carbon-neutral chocolate company, The Change Chocolate, and distributed their chocolate to remind them of how crucial the outcomes of the talks were to the sustainability of the chocolate industry.

chocolate-e1449053074396
Figure 2. The Change Chocolate, a carbon-neutral chocolate bar making an appearance of the COP21 with words to leaders.

While much attention has been drawn to chocolate industry’s efforts to increase crop productivity, which could include things like monocropping,  as a vehicle for farmers to get liveable incomes thus sustaining the cocoa supply chain’s labor force, some have argued that this strategy alone fails to account for the environmental externalities associated with that increased production and adverse impacts like for example the loss of biodiversity. [8] [9] (Healy, 2001, p. 151). For instance, in the case of no-shade cocoa versus shady cocoa, scholars have found that a trade-off emerges between growing no-shade cocoa that has higher yields, meaning more economic return, but is more environmentally destructive, and shady cocoa which has lower yields but is more sustainable, meaning increased biodiversity, permaculture, and carbon sequestration. [10] When the only thing valued is the consumption of resources, it can leave many developing nations having to choose between exploiting those resources and their economic development.

To bring balance to key decision-points, people have increasingly looked at valuing the ecological services provided to evaluate in a cost-to-benefit analysis against the exploitation of the said resource. Such valuation looks towards the value of not only what is provided but what may be avoided or lost as well to become the basis of an emerging environmental marketplace. Features of such markets could include tools like payment for ecosystem services (PES). [11] One of the most readily recognizable examples of PES are carbon credits.

The chocolate industry has begun to explore how to engage in carbon markets both at the beginning and end of the product supply chain. Actors in the chocolate industry are exploring how the economic valuation of environmental services provided by eco-friendly farming practices can work for payment for ecosystem services (PES) program. Such a system would be formed to create new value-streams for its cocoa producers so as to incentivize sustainable agroforestry practices monetarily. Also, as consumers become increasingly concerned with understanding how their consumption and purchasing decision impacts their overall carbon footprint, companies are marketing chocolate products that feature carbon emissions labeling.

Concerning farmers and growers and their communities,  more food companies have looked towards working with farmers and growers to introduce more ecological farming practices to curtail environmental degradation and increase the crop’s resilience. [12] An inspiring example of small-scale farmers benefiting from a PES program focused on the sequestration of carbon in the soil is the Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project (KACP). The KACP was the first organization in the world to earn verified carbon credits under the verified carbon standard (VCS) through its use of the sustainable agricultural land management (SALM) methodology for carbon sequestered in soil. [13] Later, the research on the efficacy of KALP adoption of the SALM methodology in the context of the KACP program not only provided benefits to the environment but led to increased agricultural productivity as well.

(lo-res) New manuals will help farmers in Kenya and Uganda earn carbon credits (1)
Figure 3. An agroforestry project training for farmers on how to sequester carbon and earn money.

The SALM methodology is empowering to farmers and growers because of how it engages them in measuring the impact of their eco-friendly farming practices on crop yields and the amount of carbon sequestered in the soil and makes them the PES beneficiaries for their performance of the improved farming methods.

According to Diarietou Gaye, World Bank Country Director for Kenya, “carbon credits are creating a revenue stream that enhances the extension services provided to farmers, which are critical to the adoption of these practices and also adds to farmers’ income beyond their increased crop yields.” [14] Moreover, methodologies like SALM have found their way into the chocolate world as well on both the large and small scale. For example, German-based ForestFinest Consulting, a well-renowned sustainable land-use expert, works with cocoa farming communities in Panama on a  carbon-certified climate-protection project and in turn worked with a small-scale chocolate manufacturer trying to achieve a climate-positive product. On the other end, Mondelēz International, one of the world’s largest manufacturers, promised $400 million USD  to support the production of sustainable cocoa with zero net deforestation in Africa. [16] All in all, this points to how PES is used at the beginning of the chocolate product supply chain by a variety of chocolate industry actors.

Chocolate is a product that has a relatively high carbon footprint associated with it, attributed mostly to its production, and chocolate producers have already started marketing and selling their carbon-neutral or reduced carbon impact chocolate products as a potential buying point for some consumers and in preparation for anticipated legislation requiring such labeling. [17]

chocolate_graphic_v3_english
Figure 4.  An infographic featuring the carbon footprint associated with different types of chocolate.

While some chocolate companies have chosen to focus its carbon neutrality or reduction effort on the production side of the chocolate product supply chain, others have decided to steer that focus in other areas. For example, Gru Rococo, a British chocolate company transported its chocolate bars via sail and solar powered ships and then sold famously sold its 3.5 ounces bars for around $21 USD each. [18] The company’s spokeswoman explained that the price was meant to shock consumers to help them realize that “people are not paying anywhere near the real environmental price for chocolate when they buy an ordinary bar. This is chocolate without an impact.” [19] While this company is making significant steps in reducing the carbon impact through its use of environmentally-friendly transportation, researchers have agreed that the majority of carbon reduction in the chocolate industry likely has more to do with how the crop is produced. [20]

Finally, food is about more than just taste, it’s political. With regard to food (and politics for that matter), it’s our responsibility to learn more and do more with that knowledge to increase the wellbeing of ourselves, families, community, and world. Rather than marginalizing certain cocoa growing regions from prime chocolate production markets due its reputation,  examining what steps are being taken to create ethical supply chains and better livelihoods for farmers is critical. For instance, while artisan producers may:

“purchase costly flavor beans and can thus improve the livelihoods of poor farmers, they are also unlikely to buy from a place with a negative image—such as West Africa. Colin Gasko, who has not sourced from West Africa, although he is considering it, remarked: ‘How do you buy cacao from West Africa in a way that is socially responsible, given its reputation and political climate?'”[21] (Leissle, 2013, p. 30).

Promoting the work being done to engage farmers in PES programs, brings into focus examples of cocoa cultivation working in ways that are not exploitative to workers through community-level engagement and then markets that as a selling point for buying chocolate from that community. It helps to draw consumers to become aware of the communities it purchases from and imagine their decision to purchase as being supportive of its wellbeing rather than contributing to its exploitation. By focusing on the community-level, it helps to disrupt the biases blanketed over the entire region and helps producers from those regions that are growing cocoa ethically to have access to the lucrative artisan and fine chocolate markets. An excellent example of this approach being used is in the case of Divine Chocolates.[22] (Ibid., p. 27). Essentially, it helps to counter the “dislocation of production and consumption in commodity markets”[23](Martin & Sampeck, 2015, p. 48) and achieve “the transformation of the relationship between producers and consumers.”[24] (Ibid.)

Food and climate change activism has re-shaped ideas, policies and industries and has led to positive transformations in key agricultural industries, like coffee for example. This was accomplished through the work of multiple stakeholders with communities rather than excluding those communities that needed to improve to lucrative areas of the market. When looking to recent examples of  how the chocolate industry is beginning to engage in environmental markets to make itself more sustainable, such programs have the ability to shine a spotlight on ethical and sustainable actors in the industry. Overall,  it is exciting to see how the incentives of the industry, farmers and consumers can come together to make the future of chocolate seem a little sweeter while bringing into focus the communities themselves.

Endnotes

[1] Goodyear, D. (n.d.). The Future of Chocolate: Why Cocoa Production is at Risk. The Guardian. Retrieved May 1, 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/fairtrade-partner-zone/chocolate-cocoa-production-risk

[2] Mccabe, M. (2015). Fine Chocolate, Resistance, and Political Morality.Journal of Business Anthropology, 4(1), 54-81. Retrieved May 1, 2016.

[3] Torre, I. (2014, February 27). Cocoa-nomics explained: Unwrapping the chocolate industry. Retrieved May 1, 2016, from http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/13/world/africa/cocoa-nomics-explained-infographic/index.html

[4] Sylla, N. S. (2014). The Fair Trade Scandal: Marketing poverty to benefit the rich (1st ed.) (D. C. Leye, Trans.). Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Center for American Progress Energy and Environment Team. (2016, May 12). Agriculture and the Paris Agreement. Retrieved May 12, 2016, from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2016/05/12/137310/agriculture-and-the-paris-agreement/

[7] Scott, M. (2016, February 10). Climate & Chocolate. Climate Watch Magazine. Retrieved May 01, 2016, from https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-and/climate-chocolate

[8] Harris, N., Payne, O., & Mann, S. (2015, August 6). Tech tells you how much rainforest is in that chocolate bar. Retrieved May 1, 2016, from http://www.greenbiz.com/article/tech-tell-you-how-much-rainforest-chocolate-bar

[9] Healy, K. “Cacao Bean Farmers Make a Chocolate-Covered Development Climb.” In Llamas, Weavings, and Organic Chocolate: Multicultural Grassroots Development in the Andes and Amazon of Bolivia. Notre Dame, Indiana: the University of Notre Dame Press, 2001.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Attunes, P. (2013, May). Ecosystem Services. Retrieved May 1, 2016, from http://www.ejolt.org/2013/05/ecosystem-services/

[12] Ibid.

[13] Muriuki, T. (2014, January 21). Kenyans Earn First Ever Carbon Credits From Sustainable Farming. Retrieved May 1, 2016, from http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/kenyans-earn-first-ever-carbon-credits-from-sustainable-farming/

[14] Ibid.

[15]  Fortyr, P. (2015, November 05). Sweet: Chocolate goes climate-positive with carbon insetting. Retrieved May 1, 2016, from http://www.landscapes.org/insetting-turning-things-sweet-with-climate-positive-chocolate/

[16] Taylor, L. (2015, December 12). Paris climate deal might just be enough to start turning the tide on global warming. The Guardian. Retrieved May 1, 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/13/paris-climate-deal-gives-even-a-cynic-grounds-for-optimism

[17] Inderscience Publishers. (2016, February 26). Consumers care about carbon footprint: Do consumers care about carbon emitted during the lifecycle of consumer goods?. ScienceDaily. Retrieved May 1, 2016, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160226133615.htm

[18] Ibid.

[19] Vidal, J. (2011, May 11). UK’s Only Carbon-neutral Chocolate Arrives by Sailing Ship [blog post]. Retrieved May 1, 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/may/11/carbon-neutral-chocolate

[20] Ibid.

[21] Leissle, K. (2013). Invisible West Africa: The Politics of Single Origin Chocolate. Gastronomica, 13(3), 22-31. Retrieved May 1, 2016, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/gfc.2013.13.3.22?ref=search-gateway:521ecce351ea0879eb5addd32e7fa493

[22] Ibid.

[23] Martin, C. D., & Sampeck, K. E. (2015). The bitter and sweet of chocolate in Europe. Socio.hu, (Special issue 3), 37-60. doi:10.18030/socio.hu.2015en.37

[24] Ibid.

Multimedia  – Figures

  1. Torre, I., & Jones, B. (2014, February 27). The real cost of a chocolate bar [Digital image]. Retrieved May 1, 2016, from http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/13/world/africa/cocoa-nomics-explained-infographic/index.html
  2. [The Change Chocolate supports an afforestation project.]. (2015, December 09). Retrieved May 1, 2016, from http://i1.wp.com/www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/chocolate-e1449053074396.jpg?w=669
  3. Meadu, V. (2015, July 7). New manuals will help farmers in Kenya and Uganda earn carbon credits [Innovative training projects help farmers to sequester carbon and earn cash from carbon.]. Retrieved May 1, 2016, from https://ccafs.cgiar.org/research/annual-report/2014/new-manuals-will-help-farmers-in-kenya-and-uganda-earn-carbon-credits
  4. Harris, N., Payne, O., & Mann, S. (2015, August 6). Distribution of land-use change impacts across United Cacao’s production cycle [Digital image]. Retrieved May 1, 2016, from http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/uploads/chocolate_graphic_v3_english.png

Multimedia  – Videos

  1. Carbon Control. (2012, March 10). How does the emission trading scheme work? [Video blog post]. Retrieved May 1, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReOj12UAus4
  2. Fair Trade Eastern Africa. (2015, December 15). Fairtrade Carbon Credits Animation [Video blog post]. Retrieved May 1, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C49FY3OKEhk

Sources

Attunes, P. (2013, May). Ecosystem Services. Retrieved May 1, 2016, from http://www.ejolt.org/2013/05/ecosystem-services/

Center for American Progress Energy and Environment Team. (2016, May 12). Agriculture and the Paris Agreement. Retrieved May 12, 2016, from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2016/05/12/137310/agriculture-and-the-paris-agreement/

Fortyr, P. (2015, November 05). Sweet: Chocolate goes climate-positive with carbon insetting. Retrieved May 1, 2016, from http://www.landscapes.org/insetting-turning-things-sweet-with-climate-positive-chocolate/

Goodyear, D. (n.d.). The Future of Chocolate: Why Cocoa Production is at Risk. The Guardian. Retrieved May 1, 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/fairtrade-partner-zone/chocolate-cocoa-production-risk

Harris, N., Payne, O., & Mann, S. (2015, August 6). Tech tells you how much rainforest is in that chocolate bar. Retrieved May 1, 2016, from http://www.greenbiz.com/article/tech-tell-you-how-much-rainforest-chocolate-bar

Healy, K. “Cacao Bean Farmers Make a Chocolate-Covered Development Climb.” In Llamas, Weavings, and Organic Chocolate: Multicultural Grassroots Development in the Andes and Amazon of Bolivia. Notre Dame, Indiana: the University of Notre Dame Press, 2001.

Inderscience Publishers. (2016, February 26). Consumers care about carbon footprint: Do consumers care about carbon emitted during the lifecycle of consumer goods?. ScienceDaily. Retrieved May 1, 2016, from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160226133615.htm

Leissle, K. (2013). Invisible West Africa: The Politics of Single Origin Chocolate. Gastronomica, 13(3), 22-31. Retrieved May 1, 2016, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/gfc.2013.13.3.22?ref=search-gateway:521ecce351ea0879eb5addd32e7fa493

Martin, C. D., & Sampeck, K. E. (2015). The bitter and sweet of chocolate in Europe. Socio.hu, (Special issue 3), 37-60. doi:10.18030/socio.hu.2015en.37

Mccabe, M. (2015). Fine Chocolate, Resistance, and Political Morality. Journal of Business Anthropology, 4(1), 54-81. Retrieved May 1, 2016.

Muriuki, T. (2014, January 21). Kenyans Earn First Ever Carbon Credits From Sustainable Farming. Retrieved May 1, 2016, from http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/kenyans-earn-first-ever-carbon-credits-from-sustainable-farming/

Scott, M. (2016, February 10). Climate & Chocolate. Climate Watch Magazine. Retrieved May 01, 2016, from https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-and/climate-chocolate

Sylla, N. S. (2014). The Fair Trade Scandal: Marketing poverty to benefit the rich (1st ed.) (D. C. Leye, Trans.). Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press.

Taylor, L. (2015, December 12). Paris climate deal might just be enough to start turning the tide on global warming. The Guardian. Retrieved May 1, 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/13/paris-climate-deal-gives-even-a-cynic-grounds-for-optimism

Torre, I. (2014, February 27). Cocoa-nomics explained: Unwrapping the chocolate industry. Retrieved May 1, 2016, from http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/13/world/africa/cocoa-nomics-explained-infographic/index.html

Vidal, J. (2011, May 11). UK’s Only Carbon-neutral Chocolate Arrives by Sailing Ship [blog post]. Retrieved May 1, 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/may/11/carbon-neutral-chocolate