Transcript Coffee - Makerere University

Coffee
From Cradle to Grave
By Monica Martinez and Crystal Mount
Race, Poverty and the Environment
Professor Raquel R. Pinderhughes
Urban Studies Program
SFSU Spring 2003
Public has the permission to use the material herein, but only If
authors, course, university and professor are cited.
Our presentation focuses on
Coffee. It is designed to make you
aware of the consequences of your
purchase of a cup of coffee. It
takes you through the cradle to
grave lifecycle of coffee, paying
particular attention to the social,
environmental, and public health
impacts of the processes associated
with coffee.
We start with a brief history of Coffee, and we look why it is important
to know where your coffee comes from.
We then look at the extraction and production processes, which
includes where coffee is grown, the two types of coffee, and the
environmental impacts of this processes.
Next, we explain the negative impacts on workers, which include the
health effects of pesticides, the worker’s poor living conditions, the
additional strains on women, children, and seasonal laborers, and
the difficulties of unionization.
Later, we examine the health impacts on the communities surrounding
the coffee plantations and we touch on the consumers’ health
impacts.
Distributions is our next section, where we cover the routes of coffee
from the small producer or plantation worker to the consumer.
Finally, we discuss the types of waste that comes from coffee, and
what happens to it.
Brief History of Coffee
Origin

Coffee’s origin can be traced to the 12th century in
Ethiopia, where it is believed to have been first
harvested (Waridel 32). “Traders brought coffee to
the Middle East, from where it began to spread
outward in the 15th century, penetrating every corner
of Europe over the next two hundred years”(32).
Moreover, coffee became a very important means of
European trade as it spread to the Dutch’s, French’s,
and British’s colonies during the 18th and 19th
century(32). At this time, people from Africa and
natives of the colonies were enslaved to work in the
coffee plantations (32). “During the period of
decolonization, coffee was put forward as a miracle
crop that would allow developing countries to achieve
economic growth.”(32)
Brief History Continued
Institutionalization of Coffee

Beginning the 1970s, institutions began promoting
technified coffee, which replaced the traditional shade
grown coffee.


USAID was the principal player in Central America and in
1978, promoted a program called PROMECAFE, a Spanish
acronym for “Coffee Improvement Project” (Rice 26) “At its
initiation PROMECAFE promoted the intensification of coffee
along the lines established by the USAID and its consultants.
In the 1980s, technification was defined and rationalized:
i8o9oooo
• “ ‘Technification’ refers to the combination of measures,
including scientific pruning, shading, application of fertilizers,
insecticides and fungicides, planting high-yielding rust resistant
varieties as soon as they become available, and increasing the
number of yields per manzana [1 manzana =0.69 hectare], so
that average yields will increase from 7-10 quintales [1 quintal
= 100 pounds] ‘dry bean’ to 30-35 per manzana.
Brief Story Continued
• “Existing coffee plantings are typically old, low–density
plantings which suffer from disease and insect problems,
lack proper nutrition, are unpruned and heavily shaded.
These conditions and practices greatly restrict yields and
reduce productivity. In order to effectively utilized
proven production practices which consistently yield 30
or more cwt. per manzana, it is necessary to completely
remove the present plantings and introduce new
varieties and a technical package of inputs and
procedures which farmers—through extension,
education, and training—can readily employ.” (Rice 8-9)

These are the reasons USAID used to convince
developing countries to switch from shade grown
coffee to technified coffee.
Brief Story Continued


“Between 1978 and 1997, USAID established and
implemented at least eight projects that either were
aimed specifically at or converged logically with the
coffee-technification process in Central America and
the Caribbean. Over the course of some nineteen
years, USAID funneled nearly $81 million into these
projects, aiming to affect more than 300,000 hectares
of coffee land and half a million producers in the
region” (Rice 9).
In Mexico, INMECAFE was another institution that
promoted changes in coffee production. “Over the
past three decades Mexico has seen a 73 percent
expansion in the area devoted to coffee, from
356,000 hectares in 1970 to …the current 615,000
hectares. (Rice 9)
Why is it important to know where your
coffee comes from?




People think that the $2 they pay for their cappuccino at
Starbucks is the real price of coffee, but in reality there are
other costs in the coffee that impose negative social and
environmental impacts, which are not included in the price.
“Coffee is the second largest US import after oil, and the US
consumes one-fifth of all the world’s coffee, making it the
largest consumer in the world” (FAQ par.1)
“North Americans consume more than 4 kg (9 lb.) of the black
drink per capita per year, which averages out to about two cups
per day for every man, woman, and child” (Waridel 31).
When consumers continue to purchase coffee without regard to
the external effects, the current conditions that coffee farmers
are going through will continue to persist. The disastrous
environmental and social effects will continue to wreck and
ravage the earth and the people.
Extraction and Production
Where is coffee grown?


Coffee is cultivated mainly in Latin America, Asia, and
Africa. Some of the main producer-countries are
Brazil, Columbia, Indonesia, Mexico, Ethiopia,
Guatemala, India, Uganda, and others (Waridel 51).
We think is important not to focus on one particular
country to tell the story about coffee because all of
these countries have one thing in common. That is
the intensification and institutionalization of coffee as
a monocrop, and the pressures put on these countries
to be part of the global economic market that
promotes free trade agreements such as The North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Where is Coffee Grown?
Gresser, Charis and Sophia Tickell. “Mugged: Poverty in Your Cup.” Oxfam
Extraction and Production

Under the excuse to integrate lesser
developed countries into the global market
economy, “The World Bank and the IMF have
encourage poor countries to liberalize trade
and pursue export-led growth….” (Gresser 3)
The NAFTA and the impending CAFTA
(US/Central America Free Trade Agreement)
are the only options given to these countries
to strengthen their economies.
Extraction and Production
Unfortunately, the globalization of trade and
the pressure to get greater yields to be part
of the global market have forced these coffeecountries to emphasized their agricultural
economies on cash crops such as coffee.
 Therefore, they had to abandon their
traditional cultivation methods to use the
technological methods necessary for higher
yields. As a result their economies became
dependant on the coffee trade.

Extraction and Production

This means that the livelihoods of the communities in
these countries also depend on the cultivation of
coffee. For example:



“In Mexico, coffee is still of great importance, especially to
the 280,000 indigenous farmers living mostly in the poorer
states of Oaxaca, Chiapas, Veracruz and Puebla.” (Gresser 8)
“In Brazil, although coffee provides less than five percent of
total foreign exchange earnings, it provides a livelihood for
between 230,000 and 300,000 farmers and employs a
further three million people directly in the coffee industry.”
(8)
The following graph illustrates the percentage of
coffee exports compared to total exports in some of
the producing countries.
Dependency on Coffee
Gresser, Charis and Sophia Tickell. “Mugged: Poverty in Your Cup.” Oxfam International
2002:8
Extraction and Production


The non-traditional methods based on the
intensification or technification of the coffee crops
gave rise to the differentiation between one type of
coffee to the next. As a result, we now hear the
names “Technified-sun-grown coffee” or “Traditionalshade –grown coffee as the most important ways to
refer to type of coffee you drink.
Although you may think that production methods do
not chance the flavor of your cup of coffee, we will
show you how “Technified coffee” might leave a
different “taste” in your mouth after you learn of the
hidden cost of the method used to make this type of
coffee.
Extraction and Production

It is only fair to tell you that there are two other
names by which people refer to the type of coffee
you drink. These have to do with the type of plant
specie cultivated with either technified methods or
traditional methods. These are Arabica Coffee and
Robusta Coffee. They are two of the more than
twenty species of the coffee plant and they “account
for the vast bulk of the coffee drunk worldwide.”
(Dicum 40).


“Arabica and [R]obusta species differ in taste, caffeine content,
disease resistance, and optimum cultivation conditions. Natural
variations in soil, sun, moisture slope, disease, and pest conditions
dictate which coffee is most effectively cultivated in each region of
the world.” (40)
However, it is the hidden costs of the technified
coffee that carries the greatest importance and the
one you will want to know more about.
Extraction and Production




If you buy ungrounded coffee at the supermarket,
you probably know that you are buying seeds. These
were once enclosed in the coffee fruit, “a drupe (a
fleshy fruit surrounding a hard seed, like a cherry).
Each ‘cherry’ usually contains two seeds, or coffee
‘beans,’ although occasionally only one seed
develops.” (Dicum 39)
Coffee is cultivated by either small producers in “small
farms with less that five hectares of coffee trees,” or
by large landowners. (Waridel 42)
“Cultivation begins with carefully choosing beans from
highly productive plants. The beans are planted and
raised in nurseries for their first year, after which they
are transplanted outdoors to the plantation.
Technification kicks in at the planting stage.
Extraction and Production
Technified-Sun-Grown Coffee




It is also called shadeless or near-shadeless technified coffee
because large amounts of an overstory of valuable non-coffee
trees that provides shade in traditional coffee farms are clear-cut
to plant the seedlings.
It is extracted by means of intense monocropping, chemicals
(fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides), and plantation workers.
It consists of rows that are spaced farther apart than traditionalshade-coffee with higher density of coffee plants. “Coffee plant
density increases up to ten fold." (Rice, sec. 2)
Once the seedlings are planted, “it needs to be carefully
maintained to protect against diseases and pests.” (Dicum 45)
Extraction and Production



Once the coffee plant is mature, which takes one to
three years after planting, “ [it] produces 2,000
coffee cherries per year or about 4,000 coffee beansthe equivalent of one pound of roasted coffee.”
(Dicum 40)
Mechanization is used during the picking stage. “Most
picking is accomplished with the help of mechanical
harvesters, monstrous machines that comb through
the coffee plants, denudating them of all their loose
cherries, but leaving the plants otherwise intact.
The result of such a rough massive scale
mechanization is “and inferior product…which allows
profit through volume.” (Dicum 51)
Extraction and Production



Farm workers on such farms must undertake regular application
of fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides, nematocides, and
herbicides (sometimes with known carcinogenic chemicals);
perform standardized pruning; help work the machines; and
perform the post harvest proccessing.” (Dicum 47)
“Whether by rows or by blocks, coffee shrubs are pruned via a
‘stumping back’ method, in which the truck of each plant is cut
at about 35-40 centimeters above ground level. The remaining
stumps then sprout new shoots, which are examined and
thinned the following year to encourage new growth.” (Rice and
Roberts sec. 2)
The tools that are used to prune the whole “blocks” or rows of
technified coffee are small handsaws or “hand held” gasolinepowered weed cutters fitted with a heavy-duty rotatory saw
blade (sec. 2)
Extraction and Production



“The standardized treatment emerges in stark relief
as one watches the workers walk down the rows of
coffee, toppling all bushes just below knee height
above the ground.” (Rice sec. 2)
This “scientific pruning” leads to shorter coffee plants,
only 5-8 meters in height compared to traditional
shade coffee. (sec. 2).
As a result ,the careful attention that trees need does
not occur in technified coffee farms. Unlike traditional
shade coffee, which receives individual attention,
technified coffee receives pruning at the level of
whole “block” or whole rows of coffee.
Extraction and Production

www.originscoffee.com/faq.html

The next step in this
stage is also
mechanized. The pulp
of the coffee cherries
have to be removed,
and “fine skin which
covers each bean must
be removed with
expensive machinery.”
(Waridel 50)
The pulp is thrown out
to the river as waste.
Extraction and Production

www.origenscoffee.com/sbs_coffeepicker.jpg
In the final process
before exportation,
“the fine skin which
covers the bean must
be removed with
expensive machinery.
The beans are then
graded according to
their shape, colour,
and density.
Sophisticated
machinery is [also]
used in this process.”
(Waridel 50)
Environmental Impacts
Technified coffee production causes a large
number of species’ extinction.

Technified coffee farms have fewer bird species than
traditional shade coffee--ninety percent fewer
species. (Rice and Roberts ch.4)


Sun-grown coffee is a threat for birds because as more
shade-grown coffee is converted to sun-grown coffee, more
birds will loose their habitat.
Other essential diverse species that sun-grown coffee lacks
are beetles, ants, wasps, and spiders. Moreover, bats, which
are important seed dispersers and pollinators of many tree
species, can not be found in technified coffee farms (ch. 4) B
Environmental Impacts
 When
we lose the species by taking away their
habitat, we are not only exterminating the
biodiversity of the planet, but we are also
weakening Earth’s natural resource base which
supports all species including humans.

Technified coffee has worse soil quality than
traditional coffee.
 The
reduction of tree cover, natural predators, and
organic materials leads to higher rates of nutrientleaching, and higher erosion. “When you cut down
a forest [shade coffee], rain flows over the top of
the soil, causing erosion and saltation that winds
up in the river.” (Wexler, par 16)
Environmental Impacts

The clear cutting of the overstory of trees to
plant technified coffee adds to the global
warming problem that we face all over the
world.
 Trees
and plants absorb carbon dioxide and
balance the heat exchange between the
atmosphere and the planet.
 Researchers say that the value of such
sequestration services provided by shade grown
coffee is between $8 and $40 per acre. (Wexler,
par. 15)
Environmental Impacts

The large amounts of chemicals used in technified
coffee contaminate our environment and they do not
obey national or international boundaries. Damages
include:






Contamination of waterways and water tables (aquifers)
Damage to soil microorganisms.
Eutrophication (overgrowth of algae in river, [which depletes
the oxygen in the water.])
Creates air pollution.
Creates pesticide-resistant weeds and insects.
Contributes to the destruction of the ozone layer. (Waridel
49)
Health of the Community and
Pesticides
 A report on pesticides in Kenya, “Pesticide use and
Management in Kenya” by the World Wide Fund for
Nature




found that “[s]ignificant amounts of pesticides are used on
coffee estates, and sprayers are regularly exposed” (Partow
par.2).
The report showed that men predominantly do the spraying.
“However, coffee harvesting activities are almost exclusively the
domain of female laborers and their children, and the picking
period overlaps with pesticide application periods” Therefore,
they are frequently exposed when they are required to in
recently sprayed areas (Partow par.3).
“Workers sprayed from six to eleven hours a day” (Partow par.3)
“There are no lunch breaks or other rest pauses…[and the]
monthly wage was roughly US$11-14, placing pesticide
farmworkers in the lowest income group in Kenya” Partow par.3)






There was no soap, drinking water or field sanitation facilities
available for the workers during the spraying operations
(Partow, par.4).
The only water available was in drums that were intended for
mixing pesticide concentrate and therefore most of the workers
just waited until they got home to wash (Partow, par.4).
“Workers mixed chemical concentrates using bare hands and
stirred with a tree branch or stick” (Partow, par.5).
“Pesticide solutions were poured without use of funnels, making
spillage and splashes unavoidable” (Partow, par.5).
“Applicators sprayed both with and against the wind as spray
tractors were driven up and down the rows in succession to save
time and fuel” (Partow, par.5).
Protective gear was provided for only some of the workers.




59%
36%
53%
11%
of workers observed had overalls or aprons.
had boots.
were bare foot.
wore open toe slippers.


Of those who had overalls, “laundering was either
weekly (in 68% of cases) or at two to three week
intervals, forcing workers to use pesticide-soaked
clothing for long periods. Protective clothing often
was deteriorated, and rarely replaced” (Partow,
par.6).
“None of the workers had received formal training in
mixing, loading or application of pesticides” (Partow,
par.7).


58% “did not know the name of the chemical they were
applying” nor were they familiar with first aid procedures
(Partow, par.7).
The chemicals they were exposed to are extremely harmful.
They were “fungicides (such as captafol and chlorothalonil),
insecticides (azinphos methyl, diazinon and omethoate) and
herbicides (glyphosate and paraquat)” (Partow, par.7).
 For
Costa Rica, if all the chemicals were used in
the semi-technified and technified areas and no
chemicals were used on the traditional coffee, then
“approximately 83,000 metric tons of ‘formula’
[correct amount of dosage] fertilizer and 17,000
metric tons of urea are applied to coffee lands
each year” (Rice sec.2).
 “Nematocides, one of the most toxic of
agrochemcials, exceed 1,700 metric tons per year,
and some 120,000 liters of the herbicide paraquat
settle onto coffee lands [of Costa Rica] each year”
(Rice sec.2).

Methods of applying toxins





Open cab tractors.
hose pipes attached with a spray lance.
knapsack spraying.
“Equipment was generally in poor condition, with leaks
occurring regularly” (Partow, par.7).
Workers Health Affects From The Toxins






“Many described their dizziness as ‘feeling drunk or a
‘spinning sensation’” (Partow, par.8).
“Eye irritations included complaints of ‘burning inside’ and
‘seeing darkness’” (Partow, par.8).
84% had skin irritation.
71% had breathing difficulties.
58% had stomach problems.
20% had nausea.

Women’s main health problems
skin irritations
• dizziness
• nausea
• vomiting (Partow, par, 10).
•


“Many pickers were adamant that pesticides were the cause
of such ailments, noting that these symptoms did not arise
when they were processing coffee or weeding manually”
(Partow, par.8).
The majority of the farmers knew the pesticides caused their
health problems but their fear of no job was more important
than the illnesses. One laborer said, “If the pesticides don’t
kill us, then hunger will” (Partow, par.10).
 To give an idea of what these pesticides can do to a
human, we are going to describe paraquat, which is
used in technified coffee.

Paraquat is an extremely poisonous but effective herbicide.


“Paraquat’s acute toxicity is extreme; 3-5 g (approximately 3-5 ml,
or less than a teaspoon) is the approximate lethal dose (LD50) of
paraquat for an adult male” (O’Brien, par,2).
When paraquat is absorbed through the skin, inhaled, or
ingested, “Paraquat is toxic to epithelial tissues such as”






skin
nails
cornea
liver
kidneys
the linings of the gastrointestinal and respiratory tracts (O’Brien,
par.4).

At very low levels of contact, paraquat causes




second degree burns
a rash all over the body
discolored, itching hands
premalignant skin lesions where paraquat exposed skin is
also sun exposed (O’Brien, par.5)
Endosulfan is also used in technified coffee.




Endosulfan has been linked to “high rates of cancer,
cerebral palsy and other serious disorders” (Thanal
Conservation Action).
It is “classified as an organochlorine”, which is the
“same family as DDT and dieldrin” (Thanal
Conservation Action).
It stays persistent in the environment, with a half-life
of nine months to six years (Thanal Conservation
Action).
There is strong evidence that endosulfan is an
endocrine disrupting chemical (Thanal Conservation
Action).

Endosulfan “bioaccumulates in humans and
other animals, collecting particularly in the”
 liver
 kidneys
 fatty

tissues (Thanal Conservation Action).
“[M]ore than 100 human poisoning and one
death were attributed to endosulfan use in
coffee during 1993; more than 100 poisoning
and three deaths were reported in 1994”
(Rice and Roberts ch.4).
Worker’s Living Conditions
www.grida.no/aco/imf2f3.htm/
www.originscoffee.com/sbs_coffeep
icker.jpg
Workers Poor Living Conditions
 The price farmers receive for their coffee is devastating
to their livelihood.


When taking inflation into account, “it is just now 25 per cent of
its level in 1960, meaning that the money that farmers make
from coffee can only buy one-quarter of what it could 40 years
ago” (Gresser and Tickell 9).
Production costs are not even covered.


“In Viet Nam…in Dak Lak province…at the beginning of 2002, the
price farmers were receiving covered as little as 60 per cent of their
production costs” (Gresser and Tickell 9).
The following graph illustrates that “individual farmers did
not capture the full ‘producer’s profit’ as indicated here, since
much was absorbed by intermediaries and inefficient
marketing chains” (Gresser and Tickell 17).

Mohammed Ali Indris is an Ethiopian coffee farmers
from the Kafa province. He is 36 years old and his
household consists of 12 people, including the
children of his deceased brother.

He estimated that about five years ago, he could have made
$320 for the year with the combined sale of coffee and corn.
This year he will only make $60 for his coffee and his family
has already eaten the corn (Gresser and Tickell 10).
• “ ‘Five to seven years ago, I was producing seven sacks of red
cherry [unprocessed coffee] and this was enough to buy
clothes, medicines, services and to solve so many problems.
But now even if I sell four times as much, it is impossible to
cover all my expenses. I had to sell my oxen to repay the loan
I previously took out to buy fertilizers and improved seed for
my corn, or face prison”
• “‘Medical treatment expenses are very high as this is a malaria-
affected area. At least one member of my household has to go
to hospital each year for treatment. It costs US$6 per
treatment. We also need to buy teff [stable starch], salt,
sugar, soap, kerosene for lighting. We have to pay for
schooling. Earlier we could cover expenses, now we
can’t…Three of the children can’t go to school because I can’t
afford the uniform. We have stopped buying teff and edible
oil. We are eating mainly corn. The children’s skin is getting
dry and they are showing signs of malnutrition. (Gresser and
Tickell10).’”

Families Going Hungry



In March 2002, the World Food program said that the “coffee
crisis left 30,000 Hondurans suffering from hunger, with
hundreds of children so malnourished that they needed to be
hospitalized” (Gresser and Tickell 10).
The EU and USAID reported in January 2002 that “there
would be increased poverty and food security issues for
coffee farmers in Ethiopia, saying that farmers were selling
their assets and cutting down on food” (Gresser and Tickell).
The income of the worst-off farmers who are dependent
solely on coffee are now categorized as “pre-starvation” in
Viet Nam’s Dak Lak province (Gresser and Tickell 10).

Worsening health care



Earlier, Mohammed talked about medical expenses, this is a
problem for many coffee farmers and their country’s ability
to deal with other health concerns like HIV/AIDS (Gresser
and Tickell 11).
“In Ethiopia, where coffee is the major export and 700,000
households depend on it for their livelihoods and millions
more for part of their income, the fall in coffee export
earning poses serious challenges to the country’s ability to
deal with the HIV/AIDS crisis”(Gresser and Tickell 11).
It is estimated that over three million Ethiopians are infected
with HIV/AIDS and “The Ministry of Health has projected that
treatment for HIV/AIDS alone will account for over 30 per
cent of the total health expenditure by 2014” (Gresser and
Tickell 11).
 “The
burden of the disease not only has the
potential to make extraordinary and unrealisable
claims on the government’s health budget, which
in part but must be funded by coffee revenues”
(Gresser and Tickell 11).
 HIV/AIDS has huge economic affects which are
• low productivity due to sickness
• the problem of finding money for medical care
and drugs
• funeral expenses (Gresser and Tickell 11).
 “Women are particularly badly affected, both
because of the added responsibilities arising from
ill-health in the family and because they tend to go
without when families have to make choices about
who receives treatment” (Gresser and Tickell 11).

National Economy Problems
 “The
drying up of coffee cash in the local economy
is one of the main reasons behind the collapse of
several banks” (Gresser and Tickell 12).
 “In Central America, the crisis has been said to be
having the ‘impact of another [hurricane] Mitch’ in
terms of income losses: these countries have seen
revenue from coffee exports fall 44 per cent in one
year alone, from $1.7 bn in 1999/2000 to $938m
in 2000/01. Forecasts for 2001/02 are grim: a
further fall of 25 per cent” (Gresser and Tickell
12).
 In one year, Ethiopia’s coffee export fell 42
percent from $275m to $149m (Gresser and Tickell
12).
 “In
Uganda, where roughly one-quarter of the
population depends on coffee in some way, coffee
exports for the eight months to June 2002
remained at almost the same volume as the year
before but earning dropped by almost 30 per cent”
(Gresser and Tickell 12).
 Even though export prices decline, the price of
imports to producer countries does not fall nearly
as fast, which then leads “to a deterioration in
terms of trade” (Gresser and Tickell 12).
• “[A] coffee farmer would have to sell more than twice as
many coffee beans now as in 1980 to buy a Swiss Army
Knife” (Gresser and Tickell 12).
 Debt
repayment becomes extremely difficult
because the debt remains fixed in US dollars but
the value of coffee is steadily falling (Gresser and
Tickell 12).

Breaking up Families
 Farmers
are forced to sell their land or leave in
search for other work to survive
• “In some communities, we see that migration to Mexico
city is very big. In one community, about three or four
months ago, about eight trucks came in and took away
all the people who could work to Mexican fincas…they
stayed there between four to six months. That means
social disruption of the family is incredible.’ Says
Jeronimo Bollen, from a Guatemala co-operative, Manos
Campesinos” (Gresser and Tickell 9).
 “[C]offee workers are forced into
town to find work and housing
resulting in a near collapse of the
urban infrastructure in many
coffee-growing regions of
Guatemala. The population of
Columbia, for example, a town
about an hour away from
Quezaltengo, has grown from
16,000 in 1994 to 35,000 [in
2001]. New residents are forced
into squalid slums, living in oneroom shacks made of wood,
plastic sheeting and sheet metal,
with no plumbing or electricity.
Crime in rampant.” (Laslett,
par.10).
www.stevendaniel.com/index.html?=coffe
epicking.html
 Women are effected by this crisis very
directly because as their husband goes
off to find other work, the women and
children are left to work the land. This
results in children having to leave
school to help the family (Gresser and
Tickell 9).

www.oxfam.org.uk/coolplanet/teachers/
makemeal/images/pic5sm.jpg
Child Labor
 Children are forced to work in
the coffee plantations because
fathers are forced to leave and
also just do to the fact that
families need additional hands
to make ends meet.
• “Because of this situation,
many coffee workers bring
their children to help them
in the fields in order to
pick the daily quota.
These child laborers are
not officially employed
and therefore not subject
to labor protections.
While children in most
rural families work at an
earlier age than urban
children, a February 4
investigative report by
ABC-affiliate KGO
television in San Francisco
revealed children as young
as 6 or 8 years old at work
in the fields.” (FAQ par 7).

Children Leaving School
 Children
are forced to leave school because fathers
leave and also because families cannot afford to
send their children to school.
• “Bruno Selugo (aged 17) and his brother Michael (15),
who live in Mpigi District, Uganda, have both had to drop
out of school because they cannot afford the fees”
(Gresser and Tickell 11).
 “ ‘I can’t be successful if I don’t go to school,’ says Bruno.
‘…I have been send home again and again from secondary
school…They just send you away if you don’t have the
fees…This is the main coffee season. Everyone used to go
back to school with the money from coffee, but now the
money is not there…All I want is to go to school’” (Gresser
and Tickell 11).
• A head teacher at Bruno’s school, Patrick Kayanja
explains
 “The number of students is very low. Much as we try to
reduce the fees, the parents cannot pay. They always
took cash from selling coffee but now it is gone. There
was a time, between 1995 and 1997, when we had 500
students. Three years ago we had 250. Last year we
started with 140 and ended with 54. This year we cannot
go beyond 120, the way I see the situation with farmers’”
(Gresser and Tickell 11).

Seasonal Plantation Workers





These are coffee workers who are always away from home
who work on small to medium plantation (10 to 50 hectares,
and big plantation (more than 50 hectares) (Gresser and
Tickell 11).
Seasonal workers are faced with not being able to
supplement food with crops and suddenly having no job
because they can be fired (Gresser and Tickell 11).
“According to a UN report, 87.5% of rural workers had
temporary or migratory jobs in 1992” (Laslett, par 7).
Traditionally coffee workers lived on the plantations they
worked but now owners have thrown them off and replaced
them with temporary workers (Laslett par 7).
Housing conditions are awful
• “They are typically housed in large barns or bunk-houses with
no privacy, lacking basic requirement such as clean water and
adequate sanitary arrangement” (Gresser and Tickell 12).
• “Many times they cook, wash, and bathe from the same water
source” (FAQ par 7).
 Seasonal
workers were paid a daily wage but now
they are paid a piece rate (Laslett, par9).
• According to several coffee workers, the standard pay for
cleaning one cuerda (24.5 square yards) of land is $1.
Cleaning two cuerdas a day is possible, but a lot of work.
This means that an average daily wage for coffee
workers is $1.75 per day, significantly below the daily
legal minimum of $2.75. Women and children are often
paid half that amount.” (Laslett, par 9).
 During
the coffee season (3 to 4 months, which is
not long) is when seasonal workers earn the most
(Laslett par9).
• Workers can earn $2.50 for 100 pounds of coffee. On a
good day, workers can earn $3.50 for 150 pounds of
coffee (Laslett par 9).
• After the season is over, seasonal workers find
themselves in the same situation as coffee farmers who
have to migrate to the city in search of other income.

Denied Worker Rights
 Seasonal
workers do not have the basic rights to
unionize or negotiate wages (Gresser and Tickell
12).
• In Guatemala, the coffee workers tried to unionized but
•
•
•
•
received much opposition (Laslett par2).
The head of the union, Otto Rolando Sacuqui, received
death threats (Laslett par2).
His family was thrown out of their house on the
plantation where his family lived for generations (Laslett
par 3).
The union’s paper work and the union’s funds were
stolen (Laslett par 3).
Where there is labor legislation, it is often overridden or
ignored (Gresser and Tickell 12).
 Workers
at Finca Maria de Lourdes unionized in
1992 and tried to negotiate wage raises, from
which they were earning half the legal minimum
wage (Laslett par 4).
• Negotiations failed and 125 of 150 workers joined, in
response the owner raised wages but fired 31 workers
(Laslett par 4).
• The union went to court and won reinstatement and
back pay for all fired workers but two years later the
owner fired 21 more workers and another 34 in 1997
(Laslett par4).
• The owner tried to pass management to pretend to be
workers and have the union’s legal status dismissed
(Laslett par 4).
• The owner denied children school and refused to sell
cornmeal for tortillas, which is the staple of the
Guatemalan diet (Laslett par 4).
• “In their struggle to win justice and a union contract, a
majority of the 55 fired union members continue to live
on the plantation, refusing to leave. As of today [June
2001], they have still not been reinstated, despite the
fact that the courts have ruled in their favor many times”
(Laslett par 5).
• There was a warrant issued for the owner’s arrest but
this also goes unenforced (Laslett par5).
 Owners
get out of giving their workers their rights
such as benefits by cheating the system.
• Guatemalan law states that workers must work
continuously for 3 months to be eligible to unionize or to
be eligible for social security programs (retirement or
disability benefits) (Laslett par8).
• Workers must work continuously for the same employer
for 6 months in order to receive their legal two annual
bonuses (= to 2 months pay) (Laslett par 8).
• Owners cheat the system by rarely keeping workers for
more than 90 consecutive days (Laslett par8).
 Another
example of unfair treatment of coffee
workers is of 57 workers at a plantation called
Finca Asuncion in Quezaltenango, Guatemala.
• The four members who organized the union in
September 1997 were immediately fired (Laslett par 14).
Of the 57 who were in the union, only 3 members still
worked at the plantation 2 yrs. later (Laslett par 14).
• When the union first started, the ownerf tried many
things to destroy the union.
 “ In December 1998, he accused the union of being
connected to armed guerrillas-after the peace Accords had
been signed. Early one morning, over 300 military
personnel and police occupied the community searching
for guns and other proof of guerrilla activity. There was
nothing to be found” (Laslett par 16).
• The owner tried to sell his plantation to his wife and two
•
•
•
•
•
daughters to avoid any legal obligations (Laslett par 17).
He tried to deny union workers access to water and
firewood (Laslett par 18).
He pulled out fruit trees, which were planted by the
worker’s grandparents because the union workers were
eating them (Laslett par 18).
He order the church to be boarded up with the
justification that it was being used for union meetings
(Laslett par 18).
He denied children school (Laslett par 18).
“He also blacklisted the union supporters by sending
their names to other employers…As a result, union
members were forced to travel long distances to find
work or work under false names in local plantations”
(Laslett par 18).
 Another
plantation called Finca Violetais another
example.
• “In 1992, Mario Acabel Peres and his family of nine lived
in a one-room bamboo shack with a leaky roof” (Laslett
par 20).
• Mario and his coworkers demanded
 decent housing
 a doctor visit once a month
 school beyond the third grade
 a non-abusive supervisor
 the legal minimum wage
 women to be paid the same as men (Laslett par 20).
• Mario was fired 4 months after helping start the union
(Laslett par 21).
 “The owner accused him of drunkenness and missing
work, even though Mario doesn’t drink alcohol. As in other
cases, Mario and the other union leaders were blacklisted”
(Laslett par 21).
• In 2001, 8 unionists were left (Laslett par 23).
• Mario’s house was surrounded by the army twice.
• “During one of Mario’s many trips to the city for a court
date, his wife had to fend off the owner’s effort to
remove the roof from their house” (Laslett par 23).
• The owner removed the water system that provides
water to their house (Laslett par 23).
• “In October 2000, one of the supervisors threatened
Mario with death” (Laslett par 23).
 “There
are almost no national unions that attempt
to organize all the workers in a particular industry.
Rather, with few exceptions, workers are
organized into small, company-based unions that
remain isolated from other workers in their
industry, even those that are unionized” (Laslett
par 24).
 This lack of organization makes code-of-conduct
campaigns, like the one aimed at Starbucks (which
we address later), difficult to win because without
organized workers to confirm or deny claims of
improvements, codes of conduct have limited
effect (Laslett par 26).
More Health Impacts
For communities surrounding the coffee
farms:

Pesticide use in technified coffee farms
threatens the water supply of rural residents.
 “For
example, serious public health and water
quality impacts have been linked to pesticide use
in Mexico: in one documented case in 1987, more
than 200 people became sick from drinking water
contaminated with agricultural pesticides and
fertilizers in the western Mexican state of Jalisco.”
(Rice ch. 4)
More Health Impacts
For the regular consumer:




“An average cup of java contains about 80 to 150
milligrams of caffeine.” (Dicum 116)
“Too much coffee brings on ‘caffeinism,’ a condition
characterized by anxiety, irritability, nervousness,
lightheadedness, and even diarrhea.” (118)
“Scientific research on the physiological and
psychological impacts of moderate coffee drinking has
turned up very little evidence implicating the drink in
serious harmful effects.” (119)
Regardless of lack of scientific proof, remember that
is not to the multinational’s advantage to fund more
substantial studies. It is, however, your responsibility
to make sure that better studies are performed.
Distribution of Coffee
How do coffee get finally in our cup?

The distribution of coffee varies from country to
country depending on the mechanisms of local and
national regulations. More importantly, in the freetrade route, small farmers and farm workers are at
the expense of the middle man and the big plantation
owners. Those farmers who are able to sell their
harvest, do so for very little money in exchange for
loans or services. The following illustrates the path
that coffee generally follows from tree to cup.
Distribution of
Coffee
Continuation
Source: (Waridel,43)
Distribution of Coffee Continued

It starts off at the farmer’s plantations. Small scale
farmers, who produce “roughly half of the world’s
coffee supply…, are caught in the vicious cycle of
poverty. They have limited land and limited
resources…,and they do not produce enough to
export directly, [so] most have to sell their crop to
the local merchant (known as ‘coyotes’ in Latin
America) at low prices.” (Waridel 42)


Because small farmers do not get enough money to meet
their financial needs from harvest to harvest, they also have
to borrow money from the “coyote” or middle man (Waridel
42).
It is usually the case that governments promote technified
coffee crops by offering loans “oriented towards specific
projects, such as the purchase of pesticide or the planting of
certain export crops.” (Waridel 44)
Distribution of Coffee Continued


Then, depending on the situation, the farmer would mill their
coffee themselves to get a better price for it. However, some
farmers “don’t have enough coffee to justify the cost of the
pick-up truck, and are too far away to take their coffee to
the mill by bicycle. These farmers have to take the lower
price offered by the local middleman for their unprocessed
cherries.” (Gresser and Tickell 24)
The plantation workers at the large landowner’s farm
have more to loose that small farmers because they
have to migrate from plantation to plantation
following the harvesting season (usually traveling
with their families-women and children), and they are
paid by the amount of coffee they pick. (Waridel 44)
Distribution of Coffee Continued


“Because the need for labor in large plantations is seasonal—
peaking during the harvest– many regions have developed
systems of migrant labor. Usually, these temporary laborers
come from regions even worse off than the coffee-producing
areas. Plantation labor in Guatemala, for example is trucked
to the coastal plantations from the impoverished highlands.
Similarly, the Costa Rican harvest is undertaken by poor
Nicaraguans and Panamanians.” (Dicum 47)
From the local middleman or the large landowner,
coffee is sent to the processors, which “are often
small entrepreneurs—also called ‘coyotes’ by
producers—although in some cases, processing is
done in factories owned by multinational
corporations.” (Waridel 50
Distribution of Coffee Continued


Next the exporter, who makes sure the beans are of
the best quality for export, “makes sure that the right
coffee is sent to the right place at the right time.
Their goal, naturally is the same as of that of every
intermediary, to buy coffee at the lowest time and
resell it at the highest profit.” (Waridel 50)
Here comes the broker. These are “international
businesspeople who buy and sell on commission
without ever owning or handling the coffee they
trade.” (50) They are the middleman between the
exporter and the producer.

“Giant multinational corporations such as Nestlé or Phillip
Morris (owner of Kraft General Foods) have their own
brokers. The huge buying and selling power of these
corporations allows them to speculate and exercise great
influence on the coffee exchanges.(50)
Distribution of Coffee Continued



These companies,
“whose brand names
appear on the coffee
we buy usually roast
and distribute the
product.” (Waridel 53)
They are also the ones
who reap most of the
profits of the coffee
trade.
This graph shows the
five top roaster which
buy “almost half of the
world’s supply of green
coffee beans.” (Gresser
25)
Coffee Distribution Continued

Then roasters distribute the coffee to the
retailer, usually supermarkets or specialty
coffee shops.
 “Although
you may find 15 to 20 brands of coffee
on the supermarket shelf, the majority are owned
by a few large multinationals.” (Waridel 53)

Finally, Coffee reaches us, the consumer.
 “The
fact that is drunk by almost everybody,
makes coffee one of the world’s most valuable
commodities and, as we have seen, gives big
players in the coffee trade an enormous influence
over the world market, and hence over the lives of
producers in [those] countries.” (Waridel 56)
Coffee Price to Farmers
Gresser, Charis and Sophia Tickell. “ Mugged: Poverty in Your Cup.” Oxfam
International 2002:9
The
Real
Profit
Makers
Gresser, Charis and Sophia Tickell.
“Mugged: Poverty in Your Cup.”
Oxfam International 2002: 24
Coffee Waste
What kind of waste is derived from the
production and consumption of coffee?


“A major source of river pollution is from the discharges of
coffee processing plants. The process of separating the coffee
bean from the coffee cherries produces “enormous volumes of
waste material in the form of pulp, residual water and
parchment.” (Rice and Roberts ch.4)
“El Instituto Centroamericano de Investigacion y Technologia
Industrial in Guatemala estimated that over six month period in
1988, “the processing of 547,000 tons of coffee in Central
America generated 1.1 million tons of pulp and polluted 110,000
cubic meters of water per day, resulting in discharges to the
region’s waterways equivalent to raw sewage dumping from a
city of four million people.” (Rice and Roberts ch.4)
Coffee Waste

The ecological impact of these discharges of
organic pollutants from processors into rivers
results in taking oxygen from aquatic plant
and wildlife, which is essential for life. (Rice
and Roberts ch.4)
 “According
to Costa Rican government’s estimates
from the early 1980s, coffee processing residues
account for two-thirds of the total biochemical
oxygen demand (the principal measure of organic
pollutant discharges) in the country’s rivers. (Rice
and Roberts ch.4)
Coffee Waste

This illustrates what
the pulp looks like
before is thrown out to
the river.
Coffee Waste
Although we were unable to obtain information
on the waste generated after the coffee beans
have been brewed, it is fair to assume that it is
not treated any differently that the pulp. That
is, it is simply thrown away as garbage.
Along with the coffee grounds thrown away are
chemicals that were absorbed in the coffee
beans. We speculate they could end up
anywhere from your drinking tap water to the
ocean, after it has gone through the sewers.
Conclusion
 Although technified coffee has been the panacea
recommended by International lending associations and
other “pro-development” agencies to develop economic
growth in lesser developed countries, this type of coffee
and its trade benefits only the big corporations and
impoverishes the producer-countries involved in the
trade.
 In order to allow this countries and their communities to
capture the production costs without suffering huge
social, health, and environmental impacts, we as
consumers must not keep our eyes closed to the impact
we make when we buy a cup of coffee. In reality we
support all these negative practices every time we buy
coffee.
Conclusion
We can find many alternatives to support the
communities in these countries if we only look
for them. The simplest one of them is buying
“Fair Trade Coffee,” which among other things,
promotes fair prices for farmers and technical
assistance to grow non-pesticide-produced
coffee.
The choice is yours now that you know more
about what is really involved in your cup of
coffee, so what type of coffee will you buy?
References
 Gresser, Charis and Sophai Tickell. Mugged Poverty in
your coffee cup. Ed. Kat Raworthand David Wilson.2002.
Oxfam International. 14 Mar. 2003
<http://www.maketradefair.com.>
 O’Brien, Mary. “An Introduction to Paraquat.” Dirty
Dozen Campaigner A Publication of the Pesticide Action
Network. Sep. 1989
 Rice, Robert. A Place unbecoming: The Coffee Farm of
Northern Latin America. 1999. Academic Search Elite. 16
Feb. 2003
http://0web16.epnet.com.opac.sfsu.edu/citation.asp?tb=
1&_ug=dbs+0+ln+en%2
References
 Zielinski, Mike. “Trouble brewing at Starbucks Coffee.”
Progressive 59.3 (1995): 12 .Academic Search Elite. 19
Feb. 2003
http://0web16.epnet.com.opac.sfsu.edu/citation.asp?tb=
1&_ug=dbs+0+ln+en%2
 Wexler, Mark. “The Coffee Connection”. National Wildlife
41.1 (2001): 37-42. Academic Search Elite. 16 Feb. 2003
http://0web16.epnet.com.opac.sfsu.edu/citation.asp?tb=
1&_ug=dbs+0+ln+en%2
 Wille, Chris. “Clouds in the Coffee.” E Magazine: The
Environmental Magazine 8.5 (1997): 20-25. Academic
Search Elite. 16 Feb. 2003.
http://0web16.epnet.com.opac.sfsu.edu/citation.asp?tb=
1&_ug=dbs+0+ln+en%
References
 “Frequently Asked Questions” Global Exchange. 20 Feb.
2003
http://globalexchange.org/economy/coffee/coffeeFAQ.ht
ml#environment
 “Action Alert: Uphold Kerala’s Endosulfan Ban”
Endosulfan Spray protest ActionCommittee White Paper.
Sep. 2001 Thanal Conservation Action and Information
Network. 20 Feb. 2003
 Waridel, Laure. Coffee With Pleasure: Just Java and
World Trade. Montreal: Black Rose Books,2002.
 Dicum, Gregory, and Nina Luttinger. The Coffee Book:
Anatomy of an Industry from Crop to the Last Drop. New
York: The New Press, 1999.
References
 Rice, Robert and Justin Ward. Coffee, Conservation, and
Commerce in the Western Hemisphere How Individuals
and Institutions Can Promote Ecologically Sound Farming
and Forest Management in Northern Latin America. 1996
Smithsonian Bird Center and National Resource Defense
Council. 20 Feb. 2003
<http://www.nrdc.org/health/farming/ccc/cptinx.asp>