Talk:Rainforest Alliance

Biased view-not suported by facts

I removed the name of Unilever from the Fairtarde Lite crticism in the introduction. It is simply impossible that crticism was made in 2004 to Unilever in regard to Rainforest Alliance, given the fact that Unilever only launched Rainforest Alliance product towards the end of 2007. I cannot vouch the same for the other companies so i've left the references.

There is a clear pattern here of a certain contributor who also contributes heavily tothe Fairtrade pages and whose sole aim is to make comparisons between Rainforest Alliance and Fairtrade, seeing Fairtrade as the golden standard. I think it would be fairer to judge each system on its merits and acknowledge that they can co-exist, rather than act like they're competiting Mtl1969 (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

I added references and tried to take the sales-y tone out of the timeline. If you have ideas for how to do the references differently, let's discuss.Greenbegood 00:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SNS Complaint

I've deleted the SNS sentence in the criticism section b/c the complaint referenced was not upheld by the Swedish Consumer Ombudsmun, so I mentioning the case is a moot point. For more information, see this link: [1] --SanDiegoLocal 20:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

I've noticed a few spots in the entry where the citations are rather vague. In certain places it says things like "opponents say," or "some have said," when in fact only one person has voiced a particular criticism. I'm going to go through the page and attempt to clarify the sources of these statements, and to add citations in spots where none exist. --SanDiegoLocal 20:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight: comparisons to Fair Trade

I deleted the comparison to Fairtrade in the introductory section b/c it doesn't cite the original source of the "Fairtrade lite" critique. If someone can establish the original source, I can see the validity in keeping the criticism. Otherwise, you're referencing an article that essentially says, "some have called the Rainforest Alliance Fairtrade Lite." We need to know the "who" before it's a credible statement.--SanDiegoLocal 18:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the intro to the Rainforest Alliance entry contain a comparison to an entirely different organization with a different mission and different goals? This is absurd. Vermonterinexile 14:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rainforest Alliance has repeatedly tried to mislead consumers into thinking it is fair trade (see http://www.beveragedaily.com/news/ng.asp?n=73252-mcdonald-s-fair-trade-coffee) - I think comparisons between the different certification systems are not only interesting to have, but necessary.152.2.62.44 17:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You actually believe that an inaccurate newspaper headline is grounds to believe that the organization is purposely misleading consumers? The organization would have zero ability to control what headlines are assigned to articles. Your sourcing is entirely inadequate. Vermonterinexile 20:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is remarkable that same people who insist that the introduction section should contain criticism and a comparison to Fairtrade are the same people who contribute heavily to the Fairtrade page. Of course no criticism appears in teh introduction there. This article is very biased. Mtl1969 10:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We all devote some time on Wikipedia trying to bring in our own perspective and improve the articles here. As I said before, all the contributions I've made on the RA page were made in good faith and I truly believe make the article more interesting and complete. As for the fair trade page, yes there are criticisms - even in the lead paragraph, please see it for yourself. Actually, there are so many criticisms I even created an extra page for them on top of that, see fair trade debate. And who are you to criticize my impartiality, all your contributions have been to Unilever-related articles and topics... Vincentl 11:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent1, i did not name any user in particular- so i cannot have been critisising your impartiality. If you feel that I am addressing you, that says more about how you see yourself. Also, I cannot see any criticism in the Fairtrade certification page(one word, not 'Fair Trade') introduction, which is the one i was referring to. i have refrained from making edits in any of the pages as i prefer to reach consensus first on the discussion page- no need to get offended. Also, if you look at my contributions you will see that your allegations that i only contribute to Unilever articles are simply not trueMtl1969 13:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I just added criticism sections on the Fairtrade page (including the lead). In the future, please assume good faith (WP:GF) and instead of bashing the work of editors, please try to make constructive comments and suggestions. Thank you Vincentl 15:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicous edits

I am noticing a trend: Vincent1 and now with 96.200.81.27 both seem to only add criticisms to this section, particularly negative comparisons to Fair Trade. Considering Vincent1's history of contributions to Fair Trade entries, I suspect a political bias is behind these edits.Vermonterinexile 21:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this any suspicious? I think Rainforest PR people are doing enough to promote the organization on wikipedia and clearly do not need help with that. All I am doing is providing a counter point of view, therefore making the article a bit more neutral overall. Judging from the number of registered users and ip addresses making edits on the page, I think I`m not the only one trying to add some critical elements to it.

By the way, for your information, I am not working for a fair trade organization therefore I have no "political bias". I would consider myself however a fair trade enthusiast and yes, I am knowledgeable on the topic and have written a lot on here on Wikipedia - as opposed to you Vermonterinexile who has only contributed to the RA page. Vincentl 18:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My earlier edits were intended to remove biased words like "lack of" and take each issue, such as implementation of standards, on its own, with points and counterpoints. It does not necessarily follow that these topics come under an overall header of Criticism. That POV is biased. I do agree that some of the language reads like an advert and I tried to take some of that out, but you removed that when you reverted all my changes.Vermonterinexile 21:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I reworded the subtitles.Vincentl 23:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mcdonald's UK

Mcdonald's UK have switched to rainforest alliance coffee and theres a lot of info on it on their Make up your own mind site. Can we add this info to the article. I am unsure how to phrase it. Magic Pickle 11:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious edits

The edits by 65.182.28.194 seem a bit suspicious to me... the Criticism section was deleted and replaced by some very Pro-Rainforest Alliance texts.

Next time, before deleting anything, please discuss changes on the discussion page. Quebecois1983 03:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

65.182.28.194 has once again deleted the Criticism section - I flagged the article for NPOV. I can't revert the deletion forever... anybody has any suggestions? Quebecois1983 18:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition is biased against the Rainforest Alliance

The definition of the Rainforest Alliance cites a criticism by a relatively small publication in the third line that makes the entry lopsided and biased against this organization. The citation is also the first in a list of many that contain praise and non-opinionated facts about what we do. That criticism was made by someone with an apparent bias and is given undue prominence. For example, the second article cited as backup for the criticism also contains the opposite opinion: "Some would argue that the fair-trade model itself is flawed, and that the Rainforest Alliance offers a better solution to help coffee farmers escape the poverty trap," which helps prove that the criticism, presented alone and with such prominence, misrepresents the reality of press coverage and praise we receive.

It is also biased in its narrow-minded focus on our agriculture program. While it's true we are one of the biggest certifiers of agricultural products in the world, we certify far more area of forestland for sustainable forest management than agricultural land -- more than 40 million hectares of forests compared to nearly 300,000 hectares of farms. We also do extensive work in sustainable tourism. Therefore, a criticism that compares Rainforest Alliance to Fair Trade is far less important in understanding what is the Rainforest Alliance since Fair Trade does not certify forests or work in tourism, so it should not be so highly placed in the definition.

My colleagues have tried to edit the definition but were countered by one or more people with a bias against this organization and apparent sympathies with Fair Trade.

I would appreciate it if the criticism of the Rainforest Alliance would be given its due prominence -- either toward the end of the definition or erased completely, considering it comes from only one article, hundreds of articles praise the work we do, and agriculture is only one of our three programs -- an unfavorable comparison to Fair Trade has nothing to do with sustainable forestry or tourism.

This year to date we have tracked hundreds of articles that are about us or mention us and few to none of those compare us unfavorably to Fair Trade. Rather, they simply talk about the conservation work we do. I made a short list of article for which I could find their links, which I will paste here:

From Popular Mechanics, “Timber Racket,” May 07 (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4215504.html) “Rainforest Alliance is one of a number of groups that track and certify legitimately logged lumber in order to provide consumers with a more informed choice. The group’s SmartWood program is the leading certifier for the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), a nonprofit organization that runs the gold standard of sustainable-forestry certification systems.”

From Audubon magazine, “Knock on Wood,” Nov-Dec 06 (http://audubonmagazine.org/audubonathome/audubonathome0611.html) "A scattering of small U.S.-based furniture manufacturers have very recently begun to take an important new step themselves. In the autumn of 2005 the Rainforest Alliance joined with South Cone’s Gerry Cooklin to organize a first-ever meeting in High Point, North Carolina, a traditional center for U.S. furniture making and wholesaling, aimed at establishing a green furniture manufacturer’s advocacy group. By early 2006, 17 small furniture manufacturers had formed the new Sustainable Furniture Council."

From Irish Independent, “Fair Play,” 2/23 (no link available) "...the Rainforest Alliance, an ecologically minded alternative to Fairtrade. Formed in 1986 in New York, their remit is to conserve biodiversity and ensure sustainable livelihoods. Part of their work involves certifying farms that meet their rigorous ethical and ecological standards. The produce of the farm is then stamped with the Rainforest Alliance logo and thus the consumer can be assured that they are buying ethical and quality goods."

From Financial Times, "Rainforest Alliance: Activists invoke business ethic" May 04, 2005 (http://search.ft.com/iab?queryText=Rainforest%20Alliance&aje=true&id=050504006470&location=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.ft.com%2FftArticle%3FqueryText%3DRainforest+Alliance%26aje%3Dtrue%26id%3D050504006470&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.ft.com%2Fsearch%3FqueryText%3DRainforest+Alliance) "Recent campaigns such as the anti-sweatshop protests against big clothing manufacturers have shown that activists can push companies into changing business practices. But once an issue has been highlighted, the next step is not as clear. This is often where the Rainforest Alliance, a New York-based conservation group, steps in. "The Rainforest Alliance has developed a system of auditing and certification to overhaul, for example, the way that crops and timber are produced, or the way that tourism is managed. It now operates in more than 50 countries, working with farmers, governments, businesses, scientists and local communities."

From Associated Press (reprinted in the link here on the Chicago Business site and in dozens of major world media) "McDonald's UK to sell eco-friendly coffee" (http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=23398) "(AP) - Fast-food giant McDonald's Corp. announced Monday it would sell only eco-friendly coffee at its 1,200 restaurants in the United Kingdom and Ireland. The Kenco coffee, sold by Kraft Foods Inc., is certified by the conservation organization Rainforest Alliance — a distinction that comes from products grown on farms that meet the alliance's standards for environmental and worker protection."

Dozens or more than 100 media around the world published stories recently highlighting the Rainforest Alliance's role in helping Scholastic source sustainably produced paper for the final Harry Potter book. This is one:

USA Today "Hefty final Harry Potter book will go easy on trees," 3/20 (http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2007-03-20-potter-green_N.htm) "Scholastic announced Tuesday that it had agreed with the Rainforest Alliance, a conservation organization that works with the business community, on tightened environmental standards for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, coming out July 21 in the United States with a first printing of 12 million."

Rainforest Alliance Guatemala 19:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rainforest Alliance might deserve a little flak for its some of its programs. It would appear from its success a certifing agricultral goods to be raisng environmental awarenss, and I'm sure it is. However, in reviewing and researching RFA I can find almost no reference to how many times corps. or producers have lost their certifications for being out of compliance. Very suspicious. It makes them at least appear to be a semi-rubber stamp for industry. Solarking 03:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant Criticism -- It's Cited Twice

The criticism in the second paragraph is redundant. It is already written in the same words in the designated criticism section. It should be erased from the general overview of Rainforest Alliance and retained only in the criticism section. Leaving it as is has sabotaged the definition, obviously ruining its neutrality.Rainforest Alliance Guatemala 22:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Lead policy, "the lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies" - the second paragraph describing the criticism therefore should stay. In the future, please assume good faith (WP:Good faith) and refrain from using words such as "saboteurs" in discussions on the talk page. Thank you, Vincentl 12:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent1, note that a line from a narrowly distributed newspaper like the Manchester Evening News does not deserve a place in the lead to this definition when weighed against the hundreds of other articles published this year alone that praise the Rainforest Alliance, as I noted in the entry above. The article you cited to back up the second criticism in the lead, from the Guardian, also says the Rainforest Alliannce model is superior to that of Fairtrade, a fact you do not mention. Therefore, those criticisms do not amount to the "most important points" of the article, but rather they are trivial. You might also notice that the Fairtrade definition does not suffer criticisms in the lead, another indication that our definition is unorthodox and biased against us.Rainforest Alliance Guatemala 18:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with you that a little too much prominence might be given to RA criticism - I am however reluctant to cut anything from the existing page since these are all valid points backed up by credible sources. What I do suggest however is adding content: both to the lead and to the article. Writing a neutral history of the organization might be a good start. Flesh out the article a little more and the criticism will not be as nearly as prominent.Vincentl 20:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary Opponents Are Not Valid

22:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Rainforest Alliance GuatemalaThere is no citation to back up the claim in the "further criticism" section to back up the claim that "opponents claim Rainforest Alliance standards lack strict guidelines on child labor." There is, however, a link to the standards that clearly state our rules about child labor: no children under 15 can work. Making up imaginary criticisms and couching them in the phrase "opponents claim" has undermined the neutrality of this definition. These baseless criticisms ultimately hinder our work to improve the quality of life for thousands in developing countries and conserve forests and wildlife. Saboteurs of this page, please consider that fact above the more trivial goal of promoting your favorite competing certifier.

That's fine. I removed the reference to the issue. Again, in the future, please assume good faith before insulting contributors to the page.Vincentl 12:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the child labor issue, the minimum implenentation of standards 'criticism' was not cited except to link to the Rainforest Alliance standards page, which delinated standards not criticism, so I moved up. Vermonterinexile 21:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comparissons

Should we compare fair trade as a "light green peace"? We better should be punishing companies, that does not care about the environment & people; instead of criticizing between certifications, who (to varying degrees) are concerned about the future of all.