Page 17 - index

actual point of the LA Times story, which was not just that these Mexican laborers were working in poor conditions, but that the producers were merely responding to the product quality stan- dards their customers in America impose.
On product standards and food safety, the American retailers and foodservice distributors were concerned — after all, they carried legal liability for selling unsafe product and they needed attractive produce to sell — so they demanded and verified tough standards. While on labor standards, many American buyers were lax.
Some excerpts from the original LA Times piece:
In immaculate greenhouses, laborers are ordered to use hand sanitizers and schooled in how to pamper the produce. They’re required to keep their fingernails carefully trimmed
so the fruit will arrive unblemished in U.S. supermarkets. “They want us to take such great care of the tomatoes, but they don’t take care of us,” said Japolina Jaimez, a field hand at Rene Produce, a grower of tomatoes, peppers and cucumbers in the northwestern state of Sinaloa. “Look at
how we live.”
He pointed to co-workers and their children, bathing
in an irrigation canal because the camp’s showers had no water that day.
*******
The U.S. companies linked to Agricola San Emilio through distributors have plenty of rules, but they serve mainly to protect American consumers, not Mexican field hands.
Strict U.S. laws govern the safety and cleanliness of imported fruits and vegetables. To meet those standards, retailers and distributors send inspectors to Mexico to examine fields, greenhouses and packing plants.
The companies say they are also committed to workers’ well-being and cite their ethical sourcing guidelines. Retailers increasingly promote the idea that the food they sell not only is tasty and healthful but produced without exploiting workers.
But at many big corporations, enforcement of those stan- dards is weak to nonexistent, and often relies on Mexican growers to monitor themselves, The Times found.
In some low-wage countries, U.S. retailers rely on indepen- dent auditors to verify that suppliers in apparel, footwear and other industries comply with social responsibility guidelines.
For the most part, that has not happened with Mexican farm labor. American companies have not made oversight a priority because they haven’t been pressured to do so. There is little public awareness of harsh conditions at labor camps. Many farms are in areas torn by drug violence, which has discouraged media coverage and visits by human rights groups and academic researchers.
*******
At Agricola El Porvenir, also near Culiacan, workers were required to disinfect their hands before picking cucumbers. Yet they were given just two pieces of toilet paper to use at the outhouses.
*******
FROM PERISHABLEPUNDIT.COM
It is hard not to see in this initiative a confirmation that the industry is not prepared to treat labor standards with the same seri- ousness it treats food safety. Following the 2006 Spinach Crisis, the industry created the California Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement.
Let us look at how differently this initiative was structured:
1. The Standards
These had very little to do with what was the legal minimum requirement. The whole point of the standards was to demand a higher standard than what was legally required.
In contrast, the Ethical Charter on Responsible Labor Practices does little if anything to raise standards.
2. The Audit
Having created the LGMA standards, those who elect to join agree to be audited by State Inspectors in California.
In contrast, producers who endorse the Ethical Charter on Responsible Labor Practices are not audited for compliance with its standards.
3. The Consequences
Major buyers agreed to constrain their supply chain and only purchase California Greens from companies that agreed to the standards and audits required by the LGMA.
In contrast, buyers who endorse the Ethical Charter on Respon- sible Labor Practices have not agreed to constrain their procure- ment to producers who have endorsed its standards — much less required third-party audits to confirm adherence to its standards.
In the end, one has to endorse an effort like this simply because something is better than nothing. But nobody should have any illusions: This effort is thin gruel indeed.
Next time some producer somewhere in the world is caught mistreating employees — an incident almost guaranteed to happen — this initiative will not protect the industry. In fact, the industry will be more culpable because it endorsed an initiative that clearly was not going to solve the problem.
We should relook at the Worldwide Responsible Accredited Production organization and move the initiative in that direction, specifically including the following points:
1. The standards need to be developed and endorsed with cooperation from non-produce organizations: NGOs, academics, etc. This is how the industry builds allies! Then the adequacy of the standards is far more difficult to attack.
2. Whether it is a freestanding audit or added to a different audit, the whole thing is of little value if a buyer can’t quickly check vendors to make sure they conform to the standards. And when a report such as the LA Times piece happens again, distributors, retailers, foodservice operators and the reputation of the industry as a whole will all be in a far stronger position if they can point out they were buying produce audited for being produced in accordance with an agreed fair labor standard.
3.The initiative must be one where buyers are willing to constrain their supply chain to those producers who are audited and are in conformance with the new responsible labor initiative.
Anything not done with the seriousness of the California Leafy Greens Initiative will come back to haunt the industry. pb
PRODUCE BUSINESS / AUGUST 2018 / 17