And its reasonable that RichW took it as a “snipe”. As they say, 80% of communication is non-verbal. So maybe I should write with more care.

That said, I still stand by my basic premise that _certification_ is by its essence something granted by an un-interested third-party, and not something any of us can grant upon ourselves. I understand what Intelligencia is doing (and Starbucks and Endangered Species with its “ethical trade”, etc.) because for the first 10+ years of Equal Exchange’s existence there was no TransFair to certify what we did, so we, too, had no 3rd party seal, and even later after TransFair came into being we did not use them for our tea program because (at least at first) the Fair Trade system did not certify small-farmers - who are at the core of our mission. So people had to take us at our word - which also meant gaining their trust, just as Intelly has successfully done with RichW.

But there exists a real, and unfortunate, limit to how many RichW’s there are out there who have the time and interest to learn about their coffee/tea/cocoa/chocolate/sugar/rice/banana/wine suppliers, etc. I - respectfully - suggest that even RichW (& me) have limits for how much research we can do for all we consume. For example, I don’t _personally_ know that my cereal/tomatos/lemons/dairy products are organic, and I need the organic certification seal to do that homework for me (as flawed as that system can be.) Likewise most people who care about sourcing issues will usually need an honest information broker (certifier) to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Besides time constraints, the other 1/2 of the equation that increases the need for good certifiers is that there are plenty of less scrupulous firms out there who will either cut ethical corners or even engage in out-right deception in these areas. The recent effort by conventional factory egg & poulty producers to create their own bogus self-administered “humane” seal is a great case in point. And as long as that’s happening (which will probably be forever) the public needs to maintain a healthy skepticism whenever a company says, basically, “just trust us”. And, in turn, that skepticism means Intelly and others will be unable to persuade many consumers who need more than promises.

So, in summation, this is not to say that Intelly cannot _be_ trusted, but rather that some consumers simply will _not_ trust them, no matter how good their actual performance. Its a marketing problem more than an ethical one.

If we’re dealing with consumers who don’t want to think very much, then you need the decal and one certification authority.

But the folks that support that certification authority shouldn’t be dumping on Intelly and others with careless and mean-spirited snipes like the one Rodney used in his first paragraph.

I’m an Intelly customer. I know what they’re doing and actually feel much more comfortable selling their products than I would something where I’m simply relying on the FT decal to tell me it’s fair. The folks at Intelly have worked hard to gain my trust and they’ve earned it, not just with the philosophy and execution, but also with the quality.

I don’t understand why some people are so intent to undermine him and set the bar lower.

I understand your perspective.. but I’m also aware that you’ve come to it from the inside, cursed with the knowlege of Intelligentsia’s intent. ;)

If Direct Trade™ proves effective as a vehicle to make your customers more knowledgable and appreciative of your origins, and the tree to cup story, I think that can be nothing but a good thing all ’round. Still, I think that the mark *is* at competition with Fair Trade and Organic and Bird-friendly et al. in the marketplace of ideas — which I think is demonstrated by its inclusion by Ms. Eng in the Tribune article which prompted this post. And then there’s the implied question… are we going to see other coffee companies with a relationship model similar to Intelligentsia adopt the Direct Trade label as they adopt its philosophy?

In my own experience — and I recently saw this manifest at Salon.com — a vast number of coffee drinkers believe that certifications and trade labels are largely fungible. That suggests to me we’ve still got a lot of work ahead of us in advancing customer education.

…and Hi, Rodney! —

I agree that Fair Trade is gaining some traction of late (w00t!) even as I dread the chilling effect of the USDA decision on Organic group certification — which, frankly, I didn’t see coming — and I gather I’m not alone.

I think that decision, and the attention it will inevitably bring to most all sorts of third-party certs may have a treacle (as in slowing down) effect on the growth of double-, triple- and quad-certified (no kidding!) coffees… or at least the march toward collecting as many certifications as possible for a single offering… and few if any of them having something to do with the quality of the cup.

So, if you accept that, then we’re still left with a number - but its more manageable: Organic
Fair Trade
Rainforest Alliance
& SMBC’s “Bird Friendly”.

However, rarely does a consumer ever see more than 2 of these at a time (and even then, its the increasingly familiar duo of Org & FT). “Bird Friendly” sometimes appears with Org, and more rarely w/FT, too (as with Cafe Ibis). RA is usually by itself, as on the new Yuban coffee.

As for “when will people get blinded by so many labels” etc I think a big factor is “how often do they see X or Y label?”

For example, organic is now a permanently entrenched part of the grocery/food landscape. You see the words on thousands of products in the stores and all the time in the media. Thousands of food companies, retailers and restaurants are promoting it. So its here to stay (even if threaten in the coffee sector right now).

Likewise - though to a smaller degree - Fair Trade is pretty well established. For ex, there are already over 3,500 Fair Trade Certified products (from rice to chocolate to coffee to sugar) in US stores, and another 600 new products were launched just in 2006. Plus you have over 500 companies promoting it. Civic groups like United Students for Fair Trade, and Lutheran World Relief are advocating for it big time, too. So it’ll probably endure.

By comparison, my guess is that there are maybe a few dozen products with Rainforest Alliance seal, and only 10-20 companies using it.

Lastly, there is exactly one company promoting Intelligentsia’s “Direct Trade”. So I think its fair to say that that “seal” is going to have the hardest time establishing itself in the crowded landscape of seals & labels.