Statement from Preda Fair Trade Foundation Inc. in response to FLO Internationals denial that FLO is responsible for having Preda Fair Trade products removed from the supermarket because they did not have the FLO label. The e-mail of Ian Bretman below is an evidence to prove that they did and harmed us by doing so. We ask justice and redress compensation and the restoration of our good name as a fair trader.

By Father Shay Cullen
preda@info.com.ph

Dear Friends of Fair Trade, Justice and Truth.

On 15 June 2006 I received from a Fair Trade partner in Germany a statement from the Fair Trade Labelling organisation, (FLO) The statement is addressed to no one in particular it is undated and it is not signed.
 
It states that an article I wrote contained incorrect accusations against the FLO- UK fair trade labelling organisation about the fact that Preda dried mangos were removed from the fair trade shelves in the UK supermarkets because of the influence of FLO-UK.

The statement says that:

“In May, during a round-table discussion of the Dachverband Entwicklungspolitik Baden-WŸrttemberg (deab) in Stuttgart, Father Shay Cullen repeated verbally the wrong accusations. In this event TRANS FAIR Germany was represented by Dieter Overath.

Father Shay’s main statement is that the Fair-trade Foundation had encouraged the Sainsbury’s supermarkets to remove the dried Preda-Mangoes from the sale as this product did not wear the Fair trade-label. This allegation is simply incorrect. When Sainsbury’s addressed themselves to the Fair-trade Foundation in order to talk about the Preda-Mangoes, the Fair-trade Foundation was the one who asked the supermarkets to go on with selling Preda-Mangoes.

 ......Furthermore Father Shay accuses the Fair-trade Foundation that, after having removed Preda’s products from the shelves, they tried to “sell” the Fair trade-label to them. He says that the Fair-trade Foundation would like to make money at Preda’s small farmers’ expense. Also this accusation is not correct”. Then the FLO statement goes on to explain the good it does for producers.

The response of Preda Fair Trade to FLO.
In reply to this statement of FLO I say that the E-mails from FLO-UK are sufficient at this stage to show that FLO acted unjustly and they admit in writing and on the record that they planned “actions that might create problems for (Preda)”, they postponed these actions when it was against their interest to do so. That means to implement those actions would be good for them, in their interests. They admit then that they intentionally planned to harm us with these actions.

1. This statement of mine supported by documents and common sense will show what those actions were and how they were implemented and created big problems for Preda. When you read the E-mails from FLO-UK to Preda and look at the facts and events stated below any intelligent reader will see the truth of the matter. At this stage there is no need to call witnesses from the Preda Importing partner or the supermarket. They may speak out when they so choose to do so at the appropriate time.

2. The open minded and reasonable person will make the correct judgment that FLO-UK did in fact influence the supermarket to remove (from the Fair trade shelves) Preda products in packages marked “Fair Trade” that were unregulated by FLO and did not have the FLO label. And FLO then after that wrote to Preda to offer us to take the FLO Label.

3. We cannot expect that FLO to admit doing this unfair act unless proven in a court of law and it might come to that. All FLO has to do to prove it is innocent is to release all the documents, e-mails and let their staff make signed statements to tell the truth of what happened and explain how our products were taken off the Fair trade shelves. They have not done this. Preda does release the e-mails we received from them. Please study the FLO confessions in these E-mails. Their own words of admission proves our allegations to be true.

4. FLO admits in writing it had action plans “create problems” for Preda but postponed them. The postponement was against their best interests they said. Meaning on the other hand to implement them was in their interests!

5. What were these postponed actions that might create problems for Preda? It is clear that the action was to pressure the supermarket to remove the Preda products unless we agreed to carry their label and pay their fee and 2% on sales. The supermarket and Preda have being doing good business for almost 8 years. Dried mango is one of their best products. Why would they throw us out? They did not. No reason. They are a good ethical business.

6. The mangos and Preda products could stay – conditionally we get FLO certification and pay the “necessary” costs and get the FLO label. FLO collects 2% on all sales of Fair trade that carried their label. That’s a huge profit. FLO wanted the Preda mangos to stay on the shelves on the condition-that the Preda products carried the FLO label-and paid for it! That would be FLO’s big benefit and biggest profit. To have a Fair Trade section in a supermarket in the UK all the products had to be certified by FLO and carry the FLO label. I believe that the supermarket will speak out and confirm this in the future.

7. FLO intervened and opened discussions with the supermarket and the Preda importing partner to have the Preda products marked with the FLO label. The evidence of this unfair tactic is clearly seen from the admissions and statements in the e-mail of Ian Bretman Assistant director of FLO-UK, to Fr. Shay at Preda.

I quote from part of the e-mail Mr. Bretman wrote: “.......Furthermore my staff and I have had several meetings with (Preda’s Importing Partners) to discuss how your organisation and products might be certified by FLO so that they could carry the FLO Fair Trade label which is the only such certification recognised by British retailers and consumers”.

8. From this, it is clear that FLO really did involve itself and took the initiative to start discussions to persuade and pressure the Preda Importing partner and the supermarket to get Preda to take their label.

9. Not only that but Mr. Ian Bretman admits that FLO planned several actions that would cause problems for Fr. Shay and Preda. It is an admission that FLO had plans to cause us problems but postponed them. It does not say the actions were cancelled, or forgotten, no, they were put on hold to be implemented later and create problems for Preda. Yes they did cause us big problems-huge financial losses of potential earnings worth US$22,000 in cancelled orders.

I quote FLO’s e-mail: “On several occasions we have postponed action that might create problems for you, even when it has not been in the interests of our organisation’s work to do so”.

10. So FLO admits it planned actions to cause us problems. Is this premeditated malicious plan to cause us harm, create problems? It was even against FLO interests to have postponed the actions Mr. Bretman said. Later they did implement the actions and cause us severe problems.

11. How could FLO plan to create for us problems? FLO is an organisation supposedly dedicated to helping the poor and exploited. Yet they admit having planned actions to create for us problems when we are an NGO working for the past 32 years for human development, Fair Trade and the rights of sexually abused and trafficked women and children.

12. What are the actions that “might create problems” for us was it to force the supermarket to remove the products unless we paid FLO the licensing fee and 2% on all sales for the label? Is it not more like something from a mafia crime novel to plan to cause another economic problems if we don't buy the FLO label? That’s a question not an accusation. But if we buy the label will the problems we suffer go away? Is that what FLO wanted us to believe?

Mr. Bretman even admits “On several occasions we have postponed action that might create problems for you, even when it has not been in the interests of our organisation’s work to do so.” He is saying that It was not in FLO's interests to postpone the action that would create problems for Preda which means to say that creating problems for Preda WAS in their interests.

This proves their negative and bad intentions.

13. Their interest was to pressure us to apply for their label and pay their fees; I quote Ian Bretman’s E-mail: “In all of these discussions, the primary concern of both the Fair-trade Foundation and (Preda Importing partner) has been to ensure that we did not add unnecessarily to your costs through the certification process.”

That makes it very clear they wanted to have Preda certified and collect the costs and payments. Not to add “unnecessarily² to our costs. Why is it a FLO practice to normally add “unnecessary costs”, but for us, if we take the label they wont do that. But nevertheless “necessary costs” would be big payments to them for the license fee and 2% payment on all sales.

14. As a result the Preda products were removed.
The Dried mango, papaya, coconut and pineapple were removed from the supermarket fair trade shelves. When Preda was suffering from this blow FLO wrote to say Preda should take their label.

There was an implied threat of more losses in other supermarkets. Preda was vulnerable to collapse and bankruptcy and its importing partner also. FLO took advantage of this and offered Preda the FLO label when it wrote to Preda persuading and encouraging Preda to apply for certification and get the FLO label.

15. FLO write to Preda to apply for the label.

Dated March 13, 2006 an E-mail from Philippa Roberts a marketing consultant of FLO came in inviting Preda to apply for the label and send all data.

I quote in part: “After reviewing your web site, there would seem to be opportunities to explore with you, synergies between the Fair-trade Foundation and our objective of increasing Fair-trade sales in the UK. If your organisation may have an interest, via existing/new programmes, in collaborating with the Fair-trade Labelling Organisations (FLO) network, and specifically with the Fair-trade Foundation to: (i) identify potential Fair-trade producers for priority products (i.e. those for which market demand outstrips supply, this includes the dried fruit market) and/or (ii) provide capacity building to producers of these products to establish viable Fair-trade export supply chains to the UK, it would be very helpful if you could provide the information which we request below”. (end quote)

16 Summary.
This is convincing evidence that points to the fact that Yes , FLO was responsible for removing Preda FT products from the FT shelves of the supermarket and that the supermarket was not the initiator or prime cause of their removal. The evidence shows that after the products were removed FLO invited Preda to have the FLO label.
 
17. The denial of FLO is the weakest defence. They should produce documentary evidence to prove that the supermarket wanted to remove the PREDA products. Can they show a letter from the Supermarket saying that unless the dried mangos have the FLO label they will be put off the shelves? I believe no such letter exists.

18. There was no benefit for the supermarket, only a loss. That is eight (8) years selling the Preda dried mango products and never even once did the supermarket ask Preda to get the FLO label. The supermarket did not need the label.

19. Whereas FLO is the only one to benefit and make money if Preda can be persuaded to carry the FLO Label. The purpose and mission of FLO is to have all products that claim to be Fair Trade regulated by them and to carry their label and licensing fees and at least 2% of all FT sales. They earn big money from wealthy corporations who want to appear as ethical fair trade businesses such as Nestle, Chiquita, Lidel, Wal Mart and other big corporations. Some have bad records of exploitation. It is in the interest of FLO to get their label on PREDA products. That is the motive for going after Preda.

20. FLO wants to make it appear that the supermarket wanted to get the label of FLO and were willing to throw out the Preda products. Supermarket loved the mangos, they did not want the FLO label or they would have demanded Preda to get it. The supermarket pressured by FLO to remove them wanted Preda products so much that the Supermarket management moved the dried mangos to another section of the supermarket in another packaging that did not have the words “FAIR TRADE” on its package. That's strong evidence that it was FLO-UK who insisted that the supermarket remove the Preda products that had the Preda “Fair Trade” mark from the FT section.

So today the Preda dried mangos are in that same supermarket but in another packaging and in the baking section. The sales have dropped by 80% and the Preda importing partner for the UK cancelled 2 containers of dried mangos.

21. What is right and just is that FLO pay just compensation for our loss that it caused and return our products to the supermarket shelves. We shall never cease to pursue Justice wherever we can and take all legal means to do it.

Father Shay Cullen
Preda Fair Trade
Preda Foundation Inc.
www.preda.org.
preda@info.com.ph