How much more are you willing to pay for forest-friendly chocolate?
Europe plans to ban the import of cocoa beans linked to deforestation in cocoa growing regions like West Africa.
Cocoa producers such as Ghana are willing to tackle the problem provided buyers pay more per tonne of cocoa beans. Are you ready to pay more for your favourite chocolate? What other ways do you think are there to make sure cocoa is sustainably sourced?
From the article West Africa braces for tough sustainable cocoa rules in Europe
Chocolate is one of the many facets of our unlimited consumption without ever taking into account what it generates elsewhere. Development is a lure, whose extreme form is the devastation of forests.
We must put limits to our consumer madness, return to the sobriety we knew at the end of the war, learn and re-learn austerity in ALL areas and stop believing that the planet is inexhaustible.
Le chocolat est une des multiples facettes de notre consommation illimitée sans jamais tenir compte de ce qu'elle engendre ailleurs. Le développement est un leurre, dont la forme extrême est la dévastation des forêts.
Nous devons mettre des limites à notre folie consommatrice, revenir à la sobriété que nous avons connue au sortir de la guerre, apprendre et réapprendre l'austérité dans TOUS les domaines et cesser de croire que la planète est inépuisable.
it is essential that we in the West respect all other countries, especially those from which we have benefited for centuries
that the farmers have a correct salary and that the foodstuffs are paid at their right price!
why so many traders who only deal between the producer and the consumer???
il est indispensable que nous en occident respections tous les autres pays , surtout ceux dont nous profitons depuis des siècles
que les cultivateurs aient un salaire correct et que les denrées soient payées à leur juste prix!
pourquoi tant de traders qui ne font que trafiquer entre le producteur et le consommateur ???
I believe that, whether it's for any food (or even product), people can afford to pay more. They go on vacation, buy online, so they are not that far away. So pushing local and ethical products is theoretically possible. But of course it's without counting on selfishness and individualism.
or ...
They do without if their budget is not able to put 1,2 ... 3 francs more.
The market is only made by the customers. If they don't buy, nobody will produce (or put on sale). So for example if people buy (but complain about) overpackaged vegetables, the vegetables will stay overpackaged.
Je crois que, que ce soit pour n'importe quel aliment (ou même produit), les gens ont les moyens de payer plus. Ils partent en vacances, achètent en ligne, donc n'en sont pas à ça près. Donc pousser les produits locaux et ceux qui respectent une éthique est possible théoriquement. Mais bien sûr c'est sans compter avec l'égoïsme et l'individualisme.
ou ...
Ils s'en passent si leur budget en est à ne pas pouvoir mettre 1,2 ... 3 francs de plus.
Le marché n'est fait que par les clients. Si ils n'achètent pas, personne ne produira (ou ne mettra en vente). Donc par exemple si les gens achètent (mais se plaignent) des légumes suremballés, les légumes resteront suremballés.
Sometimes tunnel vision, added to a static view of things, makes some people propose the wrong solutions to a misperceived problem. Here we try to relate the price of the cocoa bean to the price of the chocolate praline. It is concluded, for example, that if the praline is increased, it will be possible to pay more for the pod.
See the immense value chain that links the two being completely neglected. The contemporary praline is the result of more than 200 years of development of the cultural, technological, and logistical chain of chocolate, and its place in Western society, for example. When the cocoa producer complains about the price ratio between the two ends of the chain, he is actually trying to hide it.
In a globalised economy, from which everyone benefits in the end, including in the producer country, each economic player must find its place and devote all its intelligence, creativity, and energy to it. This is the only effective way to increase its share. A cartel of producers will never add value. Nor will the buyer at the other end of the chain be able to change anything. Because if the producer raises his prices, without increasing the value of his product, he will find a competitor elsewhere who will do better.
As for the issue of deforestation, let's ask ourselves the question: which is more effective in terms of nature protection, a few very large farms, as well managed as possible, respecting all the current issues on the one hand, or on the other hand a very large number of small, scattered farms, whose compliance will be much more difficult to control?
And if you really have to stop eating chocolate to be happy, then that's another matter entirely.
Cocoa growers in Africa are indeed trying to add value to their raw material by processing it on their own soil. Ivory Coast is now the world's number one grinder of cocoa beans. However, demand for chocolate in Africa is low which means value addition stops at semi-finished products stage such as cocoa powder or butter. Still, it is better to be halfway up the chocolate ladder than at the very bottom!
As demand for organic food is driven by increased consumer interest in environmentally friendly and sustainable food products, the market share of zero-deforestation and sustainable products is increasing. In fact, buying sustainable and environmentally friendly products has become a trend, a statement that is characterized as distinctive and "sexy." People are therefore willing to pay more for an environmentally friendly product because this amounts to a statement that has social value and recognition. The role of citizens is absolutely crucial in influencing markets. Speaking in purely economic terms, I would say 10 percent more than the current price; if you go beyond this threshold you run the risk that the product will remain on the shelves and not be purchased
Dato l'aumento della domanda di alimenti biologici, che è sospinta da un maggiore interesse dei consumatori per prodotti alimentari compatibili con l'ambiente e sostenibili, la quota di mercato dei prodotti a deforestazione zero e sostenibili sta aumentando. In effetti, l'acquisto di prodotti sostenibili e rispettosi dell'ambiente è diventato una tendenza, un'affermazione che si caratterizza come distintiva e "sexy". Si è quindi disposti a pagare di più per un prodotto compatibile con l'ambiente perché ciò equivale a una dichiarazione che ha un valore e un riconoscimento sociale. Il ruolo dei cittadini è assolutamente fondamentale per influenzare i mercati. Parlando in termini prettamente economici direi il 10% in più del prezzo attuale; se si va oltre questa soglia si rischia che il prodotto rimanga negli scaffali e non venga acquistato
With food shortages and spiraling populations, procurement of non staple food items must take second priority. Agriculture is a labour intensive and strenuous activity. Cash crops are attractive for high return on investment. Local vigilantes must ensure that crop productions are maximized without encroaching on forest land. That too by organic farming, drip irrigation and superior seeds. In India agriculture is subsidized and tax free. Higher incentives and guaranteed price will moot production without need for encroachment.
Maybe I should stop eating chocolate at all. It is making me gain too much weight. 😉
I have no idea what the price tag must look like to curb the unspeakable deforestation. In any case, we are sawing the branch on which we are sitting. The problem is that we see nature, humans and animals as a resource. We see the benefit and have lost sight of the sense. The thinking is tilted in favor of an exclusiveness of the calculation. Not only since yesterday. Unfortunately, even a price tag will not change anything significant.
Habe keine Ahnung wie das Preisschild aussehen muss um die unsägliche Abholzung einzudämmen. Wir sägen damit jedenfalls am Ast auf dem wir sitzen. Das Problem ist das wir Natur, Mensch und Tier als Ressource betrachten. Wir sehen den Nutzen und haben dabei den Sinn aus dem Blick verloren. Das Denken ist zu gunsten einer Ausschliesslichkeit des Rechnens gekippt. Nicht erst seit gestern. Daran wird leider auch ein Preisschild nichts wesentliches ändern.
Just as Nestlé has done fair trade in coffee, I think it would be good for cacao to focus not only on fair trade but also on mitigating deforestation in the region and educating local people so that cacao producers can not only earn income from cacao but also from the local market.
ネスレがコーヒーでフェアトレードをしたように、カカオについてもフェアトレードだけでなく、地域の森林伐採の緩和やカカオ生産者がカカオの収入が稼げるだけでなく、現地の方の教育にも力を入れていくのが良いかと思います。
High percentages of cocoa in chocolate have good health benefits. I feel one should continue to support buying chocolate and yes if it is to become more expensive so be it. The deforestation caused to enable the cocoa plants to grow of course is a concern however one must consider those persons livelihoods they are also crucially important as is managing forests and thus the impact on the environment. I would wish that profits from selling chocolate are poured back into planting more trees constantly of course it takes time for trees to mature but it must happen on a recurring basis to replenish forests lost. To consider persons who need to grow cocoa to survive please give them a thought.
Chocolate is not esencial and if it contributes to deforestation I will simply stop eating it. It is delicious but we do not need it to survive. The survival of the planet is more important.
To be sure that the supplement really goes to save tropical forests and not just to the producer (!) I would certainly pay a supplement. But how do you get the guarantee of correct destination for these forest-saving supplementary payments?
Ad esser sicuro che il supplemento vada a veramente a salvare le foreste tropicali e non solo al produttore (!) pagherei certamente un supplemento. Ma come si fa ad ottenere la garanzia di corretta destinazione per questi pagamenti supplementari salva-foreste?
Chocolate is a delicacy, a treat, and deserves to be sold as such. It adds tremendously to many deserts but is not a basic ingredient. Yes, I would pay more.
Very much in agreement
Muy de acuerdo
Respect for goods should be reflected in the price.
It is globalism that has destroyed that order.
Labor is not something that should ever be taken poorly.
品物への尊敬は価格に反映されるのがいい。
その秩序を壊したのはグローバリズム。
労働力は、決して粗末にしていいものではない。
Chocolates are basic food items, joining patatoes, rice and bread in essentials. That said in Indonesia sometimes I have to buy the Indonesian version of a Swiss chocolate, manufacutres 'under Swiss licence'. Not quite as good as the real Swiss chocolate, but nearly.
They are not "staple" foods at all: so they are something extra, for which a surcharge should be paid against deforestation. The problem is that these payments must be guaranteed to go to the right place, and certainly not to the producer!
Non sono affatto alimenti di "base": quindi sono qualcosa di extra, per cui si dovrebbe pagare un supplemento contro la deforestazione. Il problema è che questi pagamenti devono avere la garanzia che vadano al posto giusto e non certo al produttore!
I rarely eat chocolate and I am ready to pay for it. Countries who will loose export due to their negligence to environment will have to adopt their ways.
The high cost of cocoa will not solve the problem but make it more complicated. Everyone will plant the implant in order to earn profits and thus expand the land instead of shrinking it. Therefore, they should avoid high prices as in other items sold. The high cost of goods in order to incite their production.
غلاء الكاكاو لن يحل المشكلة بل سيزيدها تعقيدا. ذلك أن الجميع سيعمد إلى زرع الغرسة لحصد الأرباح وبذلك تتوسع الأراضي عوضا عن انكماشها. لذا عليهم أن يتحاشوا الأسعار العالية كما في المواد الأخرى المُباعة. غلاء البضاعة يمثل تحريضا على إنتاجها.
I don't see it that way because the point is to make production more eco friendly and not to increase production. With price increase the number of customers will decrease so even if there are producers who will try to benefit of deforestation, there will be less people to buy it anyway.
Precious goods are more attractive to buy. Producers of cheap goods disappear from the market and remain masters of precious goods. Chocolate will be bought by everyone even if its price reaches exponentially. Indeed, people will overbuy them - it is human nature!
البضائع الثمينة أشدّ جذبا لشرائها، فمنتجو البضائع الرخيصة يختفون من الأسواق ويبقى أسياد البضائع الثمينة، والشوكولاته لسوف يشتريها الجميع حتى لو بلغ سعرها أضعافا مضاعفة، بل - لسوف يُبالغ الناس في شرائها - إنها الطبيعة الانسانية!
Most of the time I am buying the best chocolate that I can find (Swiss) in the US but when I have a chance to visit family I always stock up in country. The problem is that now I can barely afford Swiss chocolate now and left for special occasions only. Could somebody give a real reason for the sustainable push. Frankly it looks like ****. The cocoa farming and industry has been around for hundreds if not thousands of years in various parts of the world. One example would be the Maya people in central America who drank cocoa over two thousand years ago.
Sad to hear Swiss chocolate has become a luxury for you Expat.
One of the main drivers for the recent push in sustainability has been commitments by countries and companies to reduce carbon emissions. Clearing forests is one of the bigger sources estimated at around 15% of global emissions. It is a low hanging fruit (unlike fossil fuels or animal agriculture) which makes it an attractive option to invest in.
NOTHING — a chocolate bar is already highly expensive, it is a high-margin item in stores. If,, indeed, deforestation restrictions should reduce supply, let the market decide on the price, and, the decision may well be reduced demand if the price increase is deemed unacceptable. Such demand reduction will bring the price down again.
Thanks for your comment Pendak Carrer. The price of cocoa beans is indeed based on global supply and demand. Removing thousands of African farmers from the cocoa supply chain is not a wise move in that regard. Especially for us chocolate lovers in Europe!
You can always switch to milk chocolate, it uses less cocoa.
Why one need a chocolate is the first question? Rest one can put thousand reasons for getting money out of the industry!
The old Romans have an answer to your question: DE GUSTIBUS NON EST DISPUTANDUM.
chocolate is an essential food item. What would life be without it? To escape huge Swiss prices I am purchasing in Indonesia a chocolate that says it is produced 'under Swiss licence'. It is really quite good, not up to real Swiss chocolate, but close. What would be life without it?
I don't see it as essential, I buy chocolate only when we have guests or for big celebrations and not because of the pricing. Sweets are not essential in my family life and I can't imagine a person who can't survive happily without chocolate?! I mean howuch chocolate you can eat before you die of diabities?
Join the conversation!