Super marketing: Does Asda have an unhealthy influence?

Supermarkets budget big for advertising - but reporting of a gaffe by Walmart-owned Asda this week suggests that they can wield influence to ensure the news is all good too, writes CI’s digital editor Vik Iyer.

Asda’s head of communications Sian Jarvis got herself into trouble during an interview when she acknowledged two thirds of Asda checkouts were ‘guilt tills’  - or to put it simply, they are tills filled up with unhealthy confectionary.

The term is often used within the industry – but nonetheless for campaigners who question the supermarkets’ desire to improve nutrition and healthiness it was a great story – a major issue in the UK this week, with supermarkets announcing an agreement on the use of traffic light food labelling.

CI tweeted the Daily Telegraph’s version of the story on October 24 – but just a few hours later it had mysteriously vanished.

Later a new story on Asda appeared, which was far more positive for the retail giant.

So I got curious and googled ‘Daily Telegraph Asda’. What popped up first was a negative story about both Asda and Tesco’s own brand bottled water coming from the mains supply.

But the next few stories read more like press releases. They included the launch of an Asda credit card,  new shop openings  and brand revamps.

Yet a search on ‘BBC Asda’ revealed the supermarket had been involved in a high profile employment tribunal and milk protests.

It should be said there were also stories about job creation and a product launch.

When we look at how the Telegraph covers other supermarkets, the results are more interesting still.

Of the top six Google results, the Telegraph’s coverage of Sainburys produced three negative stories, including claims that it is in the hall of shame (strong stuff?)  over supplier payments plus coverage of the Sunday trading debate.

And Tesco doesn’t fare too well either.  Its fine for hiring foreign workers illegally, profit problems and the possibility of it leaving the US  all figure highly in the search results.

Now you might say Tesco’s had a bad time. But from those search results, Asda was the only chain who got product launches into the news pages of the Telegraph.

We can’t say for sure what influence supermarkets have over the news agenda (or, specifically, the nature of the relationship between Asda and the Daily Telegraph), but the signs do point to consumers getting incomplete information about what they buy.

What we can say, is the disappearance of that Asda gaffe story helped the retail giant avoid paying the price for a slip which reaffirms the need for tough guidelines to keep us healthy all over the world.

India debates influx of big supermarkets

Feelings are polarized in India about foreign direct investment (FDI) in multi-brand retail trading. Alok Gupta from CI member Consumers Forum in India gives five reasons why FDI in the retail sector is good for India and its consumers.

1. Expansion of the market is good for consumers 

Our experience from the entry of Indian companies such as Reliance, Airtel and Big Bazaar or of multi-national companies such as PepsiCo, Adidas, etc. into the retail market has been excellent. These players have increased customer’s choice and competition.

Availability and choice under one roof and discounts on MRP were unheard of prior to their entry some eight years back.

With foreign direct investment (FDI), globally-prominent and popular single-brand retailers like IKEA, Apple, Nike and multi-brand retailers such as Walmart (USA), Tesco (UK), Metro (Germany) and Carrefour (France) will be able to open up shops here and, as a result, introduce world-class products to Indian consumer. Also it will give Indian products the opportunity to reach global retailers (and buyers) for their marketing.

2. A growing Indian economy needs a growing retail sector   

The retail sector of India is vast, and has huge potential for growth and development, as the majority of its constituents are unorganised.

The retail sector of India handles about $250 billion every year, and is expected to reach $660 billion by the year 2015. The organised retail sector of India is set to grow  at the rate of 15-20% every year, and will reach the level of $100 billion by the year 2015.

It is noteworthy that the retail sector of India contributes about 15% to the national GDP, and employs a massive workforce, second only to the agriculture sector. India's growing economy with a rate of approximately 8% per year needs a matching expansion of the retail sector.

3. A strong retail sector will strengthen the Indian economy   

FDI in multi-brand retail notification states that foreign investors should make a minimum investment of $100 million, 50% of which should be invested in back-end infrastructure. 

It states that investments made towards processing, manufacturing, distribution, design improvement, quality-control, cold chain, warehouses and packaging constitute ‘back-end’.

Best practice of the multinationals in processing, cold chains, transportation and the like can be emulated by other players. This investment would strengthen the Indian economy and provide opportunities for consumers.

4. Promote acceptability of Indian products and services abroad and further investment in other sectors       

India’s opening up of its retail and other sectors will be matched by a similar response from other nations to Indian products and services.

Besides, it will boost India as a safe and  progressive economy. We need a revival in investor confidence domestically and globally.

This will integrate the Indian economy with the global economy and India’s success will be of interest to the rest the world.

5. The Government’s right to intervene   

Multi-brand retail trading is classified as a service and, therefore, covered by the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). India has not undertaken any commitments in this area under GATS.

The Bilateral Investment Promotion & Protection Agreement (BIPA) was a post-establishment investment agreement. This implied that once an investor entered the country, that investor must be treated the same as a domestic investor unless the limitations to national treatment were clearly spelt out at the pre-establishment stage.

The FDI policy is a pre-establishment instrument and, therefore, not covered by BIPA. However, the Indian Government retains the right to impose necessary conditions in case certain malpractices occur in the future.

It’s Go! Go! Go! for traffic light labelling

 Sue Davies, Chief Policy Adviser for Which?, looks at the welcome turnaround in UK supermarket attitudes to food labelling.

 Tesco recently announced that it will be using traffic light labelling on the front of its food labels to show the levels of fat, saturated fat, sugar and salt. 

It is hard to explain the significance of this announcement. Its impact immediately became clear when Aldi and Lidl quickly followed, announcing that they too have become traffic light converts.

Which? has campaigned for traffic lights on front of pack for several years. The UK has the worst rate of obesity in Europe. 

Nutrition information has been on the back of pack on most products for years, but our research testing different approaches showed that putting it on the front, with traffic light colour coding, makes it easier to tell at a glance what you are eating.

Several retailers committed early on to the scheme: Sainsbury's, Marks & Spencer, the Cooperative, Waitrose and Asda. Tesco even said it would use them at one point and then changed to a percentage guideline daily amount (GDA) label instead. 

This decision had a huge influence on the main food manufacturers who, with the notable exception of McCain, proceeded to fight off any attempt to legislate for traffic lights.

But suddenly everything is different. There's only two supermarkets left: Morrison’s and Iceland.

It's hard to see how food manufacturers can continue to hide the content of their foods behind %GDAs now that supermarkets are so widely embracing traffic lights on their own-label products that sit next to them.

It will be fascinating to see which one is the first to crumble and finally do the right thing for consumers.

Supermarkets’ not-so-special offers

Alice Judd from the UK’s Which? Magazine reveals misleading tactics of some supermarkets when it comes to bargain pricing.

In June, we published our third (and biggest) investigation into supermarket special offers.

We trawled through 700,000 prices on over 300 products to find out if these special offers are as good as they seem.

On previous occasions, we’d seen items at the higher price for only a few days before they were put on offer for weeks.

This time we uncovered a greater range of tactics designed to make bargains look unmissable when, in fact, they weren’t really bargains at all.


These include:

• Products sold with ‘was’ prices that hadn’t applied during our tracking;
• Products that increased in price for a few days before being sold on offer for months;
• Multibuys where the products were more expensive per item when they were on offer than when they weren’t; 
• And products that were on offer for longer than they were at the higher price.

We examined a year’s worth of data from the independent shopping website mysupermarket.co.uk.

In terms of the specifics, we spotted problems on everything from toothpaste to beer.

For instance:

Asda doubled the price of a single Muller Yoghurt from 30p to 61p as they went onto multibuy at 10 for £4.

They went back to 30p when the multibuy offer ended. This meant they were more expensive per yoghurt when you bought 10 under the offerthan when you bought one before or after it.

Aquafresh Milk Teeth Toothpaste was sold at ‘was £1.74, now £1.15’ at Asda. During our tracking, the highest price it was sold at prior to the offer was £1.17.

Tesco sold Becks beer for 190 days on discount and only 70 at the higher price.

Which? is calling on supermarkets to make their pricing clearer. We also want the Government to tighten the current UK guidelines about special offers as they’re too vague with too many exceptions – which means that you can’t guarantee that a special offer is special.

We also want to see an improvement in unit pricing – the price by weight, volume or unit – so that you can easily compare what you’re buying.

Supermarket investigation reveals a false choice

Zoya Sheftalovich and Elise Dalley of CHOICE, Australia, discuss the pressure that big supermarkets place on their suppliers – and what this means for consumers. 

Australia has a highly-concentrated supermarket sector. Our two big players, Coles and Woolworths, control more than 70% of the market. 

Anecdotally, CHOICE had been hearing for a while that relationships between the supermarkets and their suppliers and manufacturers were strained. People were ringing us to complain of their favourite products disappearing from supermarkets, and we became aware of a trend – seemingly successful product lines were being squeezed off the shelves by home brand products.

As a consumer watchdog, there was some reticence in the office about us looking into these reports – surely supermarkets increasing their home brand product lines would be beneficial to consumers, as long as these cheaper products provided good value and quality for consumers. But our members were increasingly upset, and we knew we had to investigate.

Extreme tactics

After asking our members to tell us about products they had noticed disappearing off the shelves, we compiled a list of dozens. We then got on the phone, calling manufacturers for several days.

We heard the same story again and again: yes, product lines had been deleted, with little or no notice, and for seemingly no reason. Yes, tactics leading up to the deletion had been extreme. No, I won’t go on the record. No, I can’t talk to you in more detail. No, you can’t use my name. I need the supermarkets, and I cannot afford to antagonise them.

And it was not just small manufacturers that were feeling the pain. Several large-scale operators spoke obliquely about the harsh Australian grocery market, but clammed up when it came to giving details.

But perseverance paid off, and several sources finally agreed to tell us their stories off the record. One even agreed to have his name put to his allegations.

What we heard was terrible in its implications for manufacturers and suppliers, but was also detrimental to consumers – the supermarkets seemingly had no qualms about using their buying power to push suppliers to the brink, and the number of people we spoke to who were either on the precipice of losing their businesses, or had already done so, was frightening. The competition from the supermarkets was wiping out the competition altogether.

Worrying signs

From demanding hundreds of thousands of dollars for marketing, to setting unrealistic sales targets, to hiding products behind vertical columns in store and releasing their own, home brand products in deceptively similar packaging, the tactics used by the supermarkets were worrying.

Was this what consumers wanted? We didn’t think so.

When we published our series of investigations looking at the situation on the shelves, the copycat tactics of home brand products, and the emerging issue of incognito home brand wine, the response was resounding. We received messages of support from a huge number of our members.

And over a thousand people voted in our poll for the best (or is it worst?) copycat product. The winner?  Coles home brand sunscreen, which came in a tube that looked uncannily like the one put out by Australia’s national cancer NGO, the Cancer Council, the proceeds of which go to cancer research.

When two supermarkets control such a large share of the grocery market, no product is safe, and the consumer is not always king.

You can read the full details of our supermarket investigation here: http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and-tests/food-and-health/food-and-drink/supermarkets

Consumers can make a difference to conditions in the banana trade

Eliana Guarnoni of CI’s Italian member organisation Altroconsumo explores the production conditions behind the world’s most popular fruit.

Bananas are the world’s most popular and internationally-traded fruit. The industry is an important source of employment and income for millions of people in developing countries, but all too often is associated with negative economic, social and environmental impacts.

With more and more of us concerned about the story behind the food we buy, consumer rights groups are increasingly looking at the ethics of the tropical fruit trade.  CI recently examined conditions within the pineapple supply chain, and this has led us to take a closer look at the altogether bigger banana trade.

The World Banana Forum (WBF) is the centre for action on this issue. It is a multi-stakeholder initiative that aims to improve conditions within the banana supply chain by bringing together producers, retailers, trade unions, NGOs, academics and exporters to share good practice and come up with solutions to the most urgent problems.

Working conditions

While attending the Second Conference of the WBF in Ecuador, I visited banana plantations in El Oro and Los Rios. It was particularly interesting to learn about the intensive use of chemicals in both the plantations and the packing areas.

Workers and the local communities surrounding the plantations have reported increasing levels of disease and believe that these chemicals are responsible.

Specifically, they say a lack of protective equipment and inadequate measures to prevent contamination in surrounding areas are to blame.

Discussing strategies to reduce the negative impact of chemicals on human beings and the environment is a top WBF priority, and in El Oro and Los Rios it was clear to see why.

But chemicals aren’t the only thing that poses a health risk on a banana plantation. The weight of a bunch of bananas is around 40 kilos. Workers in the packing area are required to move hundreds of banana boxes (each weighing 18 kilos) every day.

But workers are paid a piece-rate and in many cases they cannot earn enough to satisfy their family’s basic needs, even if they work 12 hours a day.

Women on the banana plantation

I also attended a meeting focusing specifically on conditions for female workers. Around 30 women from morethan 15 countries shared their views and experiences. It was striking to see how many of the issues facing women are common across borders.  

For example, women find it more difficult than men to get hired by banana producers – even though they could be easily employed in the washing area – and are often dismissed when they get pregnant. Challenges like this make it much harder for women in the major banana-exporting countries to make a significant contribution to their family’s livelihood.

The role of consumers

It was not uncommon to hear consumers used as an excuse to avoid taking responsibility for making real improvements to supply chain conditions.

One of the most recurrent arguments is that increased costs translate into higher prices for consumers, which, in turn, causes demand to decrease so that in the end nobody benefits.

But, in fact, studies conducted in several EU countries show that a significant proportion of consumers are ready to pay more for more sustainable products.

In any case, the price increase is often negligible. It is estimated that plantation workers only receive around 3%-4% of the final retail price paid by consumers.

Raising this share to 5% would mean either asking consumers to pay 0.05 Euros more per kilo or requiring companies and supermarkets to decrease their profits by 1%.

Consumers as a key stakeholder

WBF demonstrated to me that taking part in multi-stakeholder initiatives can be a useful strategy for consumer organisations.

It is clear that the consumer voice – which is so often missing in platforms like this – is very much respected and appreciated by other stakeholders.

WBF also shows how multi-stakeholder initiatives can be a really effective way to focus on the most relevant and urgent issues in a specific sector and to improve the research methodologies used by consumer organisations.

It is also important to demonstrate to other key stakeholders – whether its producers, exporters, trade unions, supermarket chains, intergovernmental organisations, research institutions or NGOs –  that consumer groups are monitoring how products bought by consumers are produced.

This scrutiny can play a vital part in bringing about better conditions in production and trade, while at the same time fostering constructive partnerships between stakeholders to achieve common goals.

Developments in Costa Rica spell sweet news for pineapple growers and consumers

CI’s Catherine Nicholson on the lasting impact of Consumers International’s pineapple trade investigation.

A year ago CI were busy finalising the documentary Pineapples: Luxury fruit at what price? with the help of Banana Link and The Guardian. The film, is part of our ongoing work on the social responsibility polices of supermarkets, illustrates some of the harsh working conditions and environmental degradation resulting from large scale pineapple production in Costa Rica.

The reaction to the film – in Costa Rica and elsewhere – ranging from support to suspicion and denial reflected the intransigence of the situation. At the time, CI supported the call by trade unions in Costa Rica for a multi-stakeholder dialogue on the issues – a move that seemed to be the only possible constructive way forward.

The recent launch of the National Platform for Responsible Pineapple Production and Trade seems like a very positive step in the right direction – it brings together all players including government, growers, exporters, the retail giant Walmart and crucially, trade unions, round the table – a first for the industry in Costa Rica.

It is too early to say what this initiative will deliver for those who work in the industry now and for Costa Rica in the future. The initial focus on environmental issues is perhaps a reasonable (and less controversial?) first step but key social issues that featured in our research – freedom of association, wage trends, and the treatment of migrant workers have yet to be firmly defined on the agenda.

Proof of the commitment by all members of the platform to a truly responsible industry will be in the tangible results that we hope to see in terms of improvements in the lives of workers, their families and communities as well as the environment in which they live. Then pineapples really will taste sweeter...

How socially responsible are Belgium's biggest supermarkets?

Christian Rousseau is the Project Coordinator for Test Achats’ Supermarket Project. Here he gives an insight into his team’s continued dialogue with the three biggest supermarkets in Belgium.

Since the publication of the retailer survey in April 2010, Test Achats has engaged in dialogue with the three leading supermarkets in Belgium, which represent over 70% of the country’s groceries market. The goal has been to stimulate change inspired by our 10 point recommendations, and to address more specifically the priorities for each supermarket.

Eventually the supermarkets took the results of the retailer survey quite seriously - the ranking of supermarkets in the report and our benchmark for this being an implicit driver (eg Lidl was included in the top 4, how so?!). We found that goodwill and openness to ethical concerns is generally present in the mind of spokespersons, but discussions also revealed a lack of insight into specific food chains like pineapples (read more in French). Consumers and retailers are however, not on an equal footing - we are still facing good intentions from supermarkets, but not enough proven facts and actions. Taking responsibility for the full supply-chain remains a sensitive point.

Here is a snapshot of our findings:
Colruyt is the most active in the social responsibility field, although a discrete player (no green-wash addict!). The supermarket has made significant achievements since 2009 when our campaign began, including developing a new purchasing charter with full supply-chain commitments. It is also mainstreaming its own line of ethically labelled products and embedding sustainability in the private label product specifications. The management is also involved in capacity building and support for small scale food suppliers in developing countries.

Delhaize was at first rather, err, unenthusiastic about the survey results and the 'unbalanced' picture regarding supermarket power. However the company has now moved a step further and answered each of our ten action points. Significant achievements since 2009 include the supermarket signing up to a BSCI-based retailer code of conduct for social compliance; providing training for all its buyers; moving towards responsible sourcing of its fish; and a greater focus on fair-trade on the shop shelves.

Carrefour Belgium is willing to move forwards but seems impeded by the inertia of the wider mother company. Its social agenda is lagging behind the environmental one. There has been no significant achievement since 2009.

I’d like to leave you with these thoughts....
Food supply chains are clearly challenging by their complexity. It is therefore the task of all stakeholders to collaborate about the prioritisation of social issues. Local European suppliers of food, too, deserve the attention of both retailers and consumers. They are often the supermarkets’ main business partners, especially for basic products like milk, fruit and vegetables and they must not be forgotten.

Test-Achats will definitely have to update its baseline survey to hold supermarkets to account in the coming years, and hopefully achieve further progress. The case of local producers should also be included in the wider picture.

In the meantime our awareness-raising campaign is running, with the practical help of a responsible shopping guide – the first of its kind for Test Achats and for Belgium. So let’s go shopping…but shop differently!

Why consumers benefit from grocery Unit Pricing

Australian consumer advocate, Ian Jarratt, says consumers benefit from unit pricing (pricing per unit of measure) on packaged grocery items.

I am a volunteer advocate with the Queensland Consumers’ Association in Australia. I believe that, because a good unit pricing system can provide so many benefits for consumers, consumer organisations in places where there is no unit pricing should now begin campaigning for its provision and for high standards.

Unit pricing makes it easier for consumers to make informed decisions about ‘value for money’, for example, to choose between cornflakes in cartons if:
480g of Brand A costs $7.60 per kg
775g of Brand A costs $7.10 per kg
but
500g of Brand B costs $6.40 per kg.

Unit prices are provided in addition to selling prices and help consumers overcome the confusion created by the ever-increasing number of package sizes, brands, products, types of packaging, and product forms on sale. Consumers who use unit prices can save significant amounts of money and time.

The provision of unit pricing varies greatly around the world. In some places, provision is compulsory and there are usually legislated standards. But, where provision is voluntary, normally there are no, or only minimal, legislated standards and the extent of provision varies greatly. Depending on the system in place, the quality and usefulness of unit pricing for consumers can vary enormously.

In the European Union, some parts of the United States, and now in Australia, supermarkets are required to provide the unit price of packaged grocery items as well as the selling price.

Since December 2009, large supermarkets in Australia must provide the unit price of most pre-packaged grocery items.

The Australian system is a result of a lengthy campaign by several Australian consumer organisations, including Consumers International members, Australian Consumers Association (CHOICE), and the Consumers Federation of Australia. Most supermarkets strongly opposed the concept and refused to provide unit prices even voluntarily.

During the campaign I visited parts of the USA and Europe to study the diverse systems in use there to report on the best system for Australia. A copy of my report is available here.

I have discovered there are many places where existing compulsory and voluntary unit pricing systems are sub-standard and believe that consumer organisations there should be campaigning for improvements.

Some examples of sub-standard practices are: unit prices that are very difficult or even impossible to read; provision for only some sizes and brands within a product type; and use of more than one unit of measure within a product type.

A critically important standard is that unit prices on shelf edge labels should be very prominent and very easy to read - for example as displayed on the label from the USA in the photo of tinned salmon (above).

Consumer advocates currently involved in, or wanting more information about grocery unit pricing can contact me at unitpricing@australiamail.com. Currently, I am assisting consumer organisations in Canada (Option Consommateurs, Quebec) and New Zealand (Consumer NZ).

Pineapple workers: dignity in the face of oppression

Anna Cooper of Banana Link talks about her experiences meeting workers in Costa Rica.

I arrived in Siquirres in the South Atlantic coast of Costa Rica, with my Banana Link colleague Iain Farquhar, after a long and slow journey of multiple planes, taxis and buses. We were welcomed by the friendly and familiar faces at the SITRAP office – our base during the Consumers International case study research.

Tom, Felicity, Anna, Jenny, Carlos

Despite working for Banana Link for a number of years on issues along banana and pineapple supply chains, I arrived with what seemed like a daunting number of questions about the realities on the ground in the Costa Rican pineapple industry. It was exciting to think of what lay ahead in the next two weeks, after which these questions would all be answered - hopefully!

The first week was spent travelling round the plantations and communities in the Atlantic coast, visiting workers and community activists in their homes, at plantation accommodation or at the local trade union offices. Carlos Arguedas, the SITRAP Health and Safety Officer, was our devoted and dependable guide.

Many of the workers lived with their families in very basic housing made out of wood and corrugated iron with mud floors. Some did have concrete houses but generally only when the wives were working too, bringing in two incomes into the household. Some of the bachelor workers – mainly Nicaraguans who had left their families to come and work in Costa Rica – lived in accommodation provided by the company.

The interviews with workers were very open – they all had their own story to tell and different information about the working conditions on the plantations depending on their role, how long they’d been there, whether or not they were union members etc.

It was quite difficult to find women workers that were prepared to talk to us; there was a lot of fear amongst workers who were worried that if they spoke to us and the company found out, then they may lose their jobs. However, we luckily managed to find a number of workers who were glad of the opportunity to speak out and share their experiences of working on the plantations, in the knowledge that this information would get back to the consumers in Europe who are buying the pineapples they produce.

On return to the UK I then had the mammoth task of writing up the case study research into a full technical report - I won’t bore you with the details of this bit! The report was then used to inform Consumers International and the Guardian filmmakers in preparation for the filming trip to Costa Rica in June.

I returned to Costa Rica with the Guardian journalist, Felicity Lawrence, and the film director, Tom Pearson (both pictured) – all of us with worries of torrential rain in the middle of the Costa Rican monsoon season! I was really looking forward to seeing everyone again back in Costa Rica, this time with the very different role of assisting the filming trip on the ground and doing the translation for the journalist and director.

We had ten days to make the film and luckily this time, due to the previous research done in March, we had a pretty good idea of the people we needed to visit and the questions we needed to ask to get the right footage for the film.

This time the experience in Costa Rica was very different – rather than sitting down with workers and community activists for a few hours to talk about their story in their own time, everything had to be much more precise and well planned. The task of language translation therefore seemed to also be one of cultural translation too; mediating the laid back and relaxed tempo of Costa Rican life with the fast and exact demands of UK film production! Thanks to the unwavering support from our local guide, Carlos (pictured), the filming trip was a real success and an amazing experience to be a part of.

Looking back, the most inspiring part of the research and filming process for me has got to be the people I met in Costa Rica – the workers, their families, trade unionists, community activists – all with their own story to tell. Many of them had suffered life times of poverty and repression but their dignity, morality and generosity in the face of these struggles was a powerful reminder of the strength of the human spirit, and one I will never forget.

Costa Rica will pay the price for cheap fruit

The Guardian's Felicity Lawrence on making Pineapples: Luxury fruit at what price for Consumers International.



While making our film about the pineapple industry in Costa Rica, I interviewed the buyer of one of the major European supermarket chains, who wanted to remain anonymous(they usually do).
He was worried that the most intense production of pineapples is based in Costa Rica's flat Atlantic region where the humidity is highest and pests on the monoculture plantations are the most troublesome. They need more pesticides there than the farms in the hilly, more windy area further west, but without the same economies of scale and with the extra distance from the port, it's more expensive to produce where the environmental cost is lower.
When it came to growing bananas, he wasn't sure Costa Rica was even the right country from an environmental point of view. The humidity of the region meant that 54 agrochemical treatments are typically needed in a cycle compared to only 14 or 15 in parts of Ecuador where the climate is less favourable to the sigatoka fungus that is ravaging the crop around the world.
Agrochemicals are an issue for pineapples too. Clearing old pineapple plants after harvest so that you can replant the next crop again is done fastest and mostly cheaply with very high doses of paraquat. Paraquat is banned in Europe because it is so acutely toxic. Some Costa Rican plantations avoid it – notably those with Rainforest Alliance or Fairtrade certifications, but they then have to plough in the old stalks and wait for the plant matter to decompose. Time is money and if no one will pay a premium for your efforts, it's harder to justify.
Other environmentally beneficial techniques don't come cheap either: buffer zones between the edge of plantations and water ways, protection of rainforest areas, making sure workers who spray agrochemicals only do so for a couple of hours at a time so that they are not out sweating in the heat and therefore more exposed to toxic effects – all these things cost money.
One of the greatest problems is that the transnational traders' and retailers' power outstrips the government's ability to regulate. Costa Rica is more stable, democratic and ecologically minded than many developing countries, which is precisely why it is so attractive to foreign investors, yet its environmental laws remain weak and have barely kept up with an industry that has seen explosive growth.
And, of course, the situation isn't helped by price wars that are driving producers towards the kind of industrial agriculture that takes a heavy toll both on the environment and on the lives of those who live and work in the plantations' shadow.

This blog first appeared on the Guardian's Green Living blog. Find out more about the CI's work on Corporate Social Responsibility.

Undercover video exposes Serbian supermarket overcharging

A Serbian consumer organisation has taken video footage showing how one supermarket rebrands food past its expiry date. It is quite eye-opening how sloppy the supermarket tries to cover it up. The video was anonymously shared with Consumers International on our Contact Us page.

Attack on 'Fair Play in the Supermarket'

Claus Jørgensen, Senior Environmental Officer at the Danish Consumer Council (Forbrugerrådet), talks about the Fair Play in the Supermarket campaign.

On 26 of August we launched the little film, Fair Play in the Supermarket, to put focus on consumer goods (coffee, chocolate and fruit) produced in the developing countries.

We chose a typical setting for Denmark (and, I suppose, for a lot of European countries), Friday evening, at home having a cosy time with the kids and enjoying delicious products. The film rewinds to show that the joy we all experience does have a hidden price for the people producing the goods. On 1 September we also had the film shown in 35 movie theaters across the country in a showing of the film Blood in the Mobile.

At the time of the release of the film, we also launched a postcard, which was distributed nationwide in cafés, restaurants, movie theaters and universities. The postcard encourages consumers to make a difference by visiting our website and from here send an electronic postcard to their favourite supermarket asking for more fair trade!

We have a Fair Play in the Supermarket Facebook site where we bring relevant updates two to three times a week.

The latest development has been an attack on our campaign in a letter to the editor in one of the national newspapers. The two authors claim that by supporting and promoting Fair Trade labeled products, the Danish Consumer Council are advocating not using the market economy and its instruments.

We have responded, saying that we believe they have misunderstood our campaign, and that we actually ask supermarkets to demand more ethically produced goods, and we have asked consumers to push this demand from supermarkets by buying or asking for more Fair Trade labeled products to put pressure on the supermarkets. And this in our view, is actually using the instruments of the market economy.

What do you think? Leave your opinion in the comments.