# Lifestyles & Discussion > Open Discussion >  Who eats Hershey's and or Nestle's Chocolate?

## GunnyFreedom

Who here eats Nestle and Hershey chocolate?

Are you aware of where they get their cocoa beans?

Answer the poll and discuss.  The point (which causes this to fall under "General Politics") will be introduced once we have some good action on the poll.

1) Yes, I eat Hershey's and or Nestle's, and yes, I know how they get their cocoa beans
2) Yes, I eat Hershey's and or Nestle's, but no, I don't know how they get their cocoa beans
3) No, I don't eat Hershey's and or Nestle's, because I just don't eat chocolate
4) No, I don't eat Hershey's and or Nestle's, because I know how they get their cocoa beans

----------


## GunnyFreedom

bumping for poll action.  making store run for coffee sugar.  all will be explained in 2-3 hours.

----------


## jclay2

Bump for some more polling data, I am interested in what GunnyFreedom is up to.

----------


## torchbearer

I have eaten both, but don't really eat them much.
I had a hershey's dark chocolate bar several months ago. i enjoyed it.

----------


## roho76

Is it the byproduct of soilent green?

----------


## torchbearer

> Is it the byproduct of soilent green?


not sure how I would feel about that.

----------


## jclay2

> Is it the byproduct of soilent green?


"Soilent Green is People"

----------


## Danke

> "Soilent Green is People"


And pretty bland without Tabasco Sauce.

----------


## LittleLightShining

I said yes (the 2nd option) but I'm not crazy about either. I prefer very dark chocolate and that stuff is pretty junky, but I generally don't turn it down. I have a feeling I'm gonna wanna puke after Gunny enlightens us. We had smores at camp this weekend

----------


## GunnyFreedom

We are already well above the median of "people aware of the problem" than is normal for US population.  Don't fret.  I'll explain soon.

----------


## dannno

I stay away from hershey's and nestle because they are shady global corporations. I pretty much stay away from all the shady global corporations I can, but i do buy peanut m&ms (mars) at work occasionally cause it's the only thing here I can eat when I don't have food, besides the chocolate covered raisins. If I had more options here, like regular peanuts that aren't completely drenched in salt, then I'd go for those instead.

I voted no, even though I don't specifically know how they get their cocoa beans I do eat chocolate so I couldn't pick the third option, and on top of that I know that they have shady practices because global corporations are supported by the banks that control these third world nations that are exploited.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I said yes (the 2nd option) but I'm not crazy about either. I prefer very dark chocolate and that stuff is pretty junky, but I generally don't turn it down. I have a feeling I'm gonna wanna puke after Gunny enlightens us. We had smores at camp this weekend


Noooo, it's not like they mix bat-feces into the chocolate, but I kind of wish they did.  At least the average person would actually CARE about that enough to buy other brands that are actually responsible.

----------


## Agent CSL

I stopped eating the more common brands of chocolate, but I didn't cut them out entirely. I still eat a hersheys bar from time to time, but I more or less only buy Green & Blacks now (just wait - I'll find out they were sold to Hersheys in a moment here, just like Dagoba).  

Now tell me which fatal ill befalls the land of chocolate!

----------


## Bill M DC

I voted #2. I'm sure they get their beans through some form of human trafficking and/or exploitation. If you backtrack our imports you'll see that is the case with many.

Being involved with the Peace and (by default) Social Justice movement in DC I get educated regularly about what I'm putting in my mouth. Lot's of Vegetarian and Vegans here and not all are for health reasons. Many don't eat meat to boycott industrial farming and buy their veggies from small farm co-ops.

I have issues with Wal-Mart, McDonalds, etc. As people are educated and outraged perhaps market share will fall and these companies will mend their ways.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

OK here goes.

There are basically two ways you can buy cocoa beans in Africa.  Either you can buy them directly from the farmer, or you can buy them from a market in a kind of "mix trough" where the beans from hundreds of plantations are dumped into the same bucket.

It is a lot easier to purchase from the market, because you don't have to track down the plantations.  "Single-Source" cocoa is more expensive because nobody (but the "mix tough" markets) will buy from certain plantations who sell at half the price of single sourcers.

"Mix tough" cocoa is about 15% cheaper in the Ivory Coast. than mix trough cocoa in other nations that regulate production methods, an 20% cheaper than single source cocoa.

The vast majority of mix trough cocoa in the Ivory Coast comes from a black market slave trade.

Slave marketeers kidnap children aged between from 8 years old to 15 years old all over the African continent and sell them to cocoa plantations in the Ivory Coast for between $40 and $80 each.  These plantations then work those children literally to death, providing them only enough food and water to make their average survival rate 6 months to a year at most.  Why spend $150 to feed a child for a year when you can spend half that on a new slave when the old one dies?

Hershey's and Nestle's purchase their cocoa almost exclusively from mix trough markets in the Ivory Coast, because it runs 10% to 20% cheaper than markets in other nations where such practices are banned and the bans are enforced.  Cheaper wholly on account of the fact that 75% to 80% of the cocoa found in these markets are produced from the child kidnapping slavery and death practices mentioned above.

All Hershey's and Nestle's would have to do is to purchase their cocoa from South America, or a different nation in Africa, pay maybe 15%-20% more, and the slavery plantations would go extinct from the lack of a market.  Even in the Ivory Coast there are single-source plantations that do not use such practices that would cost 10% to 15% more than current.

When you confront Hershey's and Nestle's about this they both say the same thing word for word:  "We have no control over the practices of our vendors."

Nevermind that they can just go 100 miles down the coast and purchase cocoa beans that were NOT produced this way...

I have been on this issue for almost 10 years now.  I suppose it was one of the things I put on "hold" when campaigning for Ron Paul, but y'all deserve to know.

if you eat Hershey's or Nestle's, then some 80% of the cocoa that goes to make them is produced by kidnapped child slave labor where the children are literally and intentionally worked to death so that the plantation owners don't have to pay for food.  And all to save what amounts to 20% of the price of cocoa...or 5%  yes 5% of the total cost of the finished product.

5 cents on the dollar they save YOU, the consumer, in exchange for killing tens of thousands of kidnapped children. every year.

My biggest problem is that maybe half the people I have explained this to, who actually do the research to verify what I said is true, would still rather buy the Hershey's and the Nestle's when all you have to do it get an expensive chocolate like Ghiardellis and you don't contribute to this practice.

Yes, I have been on a crusade about "Blood Chocolate" for almost a decade now.  Although this may be the first time I have raised cain about it since giving myself over to the Ron Paul effort.

----------


## LittleLightShining

So it's just Nestle's and Hershey? And I'm assuming that's all candy bars made by those companies?

What a horrible, horrible thing. Thanks for telling me. I'll never spend my money on it again. Sometimes I do buy the Hershey's Reserve bars but even if those are made with single source beans I won't give those companies my business.

----------


## Theocrat

> OK here goes.
> 
> There are basically two ways you can buy cocoa beans in Africa.  Either you can buy them directly from the farmer, or you can buy them from a market in a kind of "mix trough" where the beans from hundreds of plantations are dumped into the same bucket.
> 
> It is a lot easier to purchase from the market, because you don't have to track down the plantations.  "Single-Source" cocoa is more expensive because nobody (but the "mix tough" markets) will buy from certain plantations who sell at half the price of single sourcers.
> 
> "Mix tough" cocoa is about 15% cheaper in the Ivory Coast. than mix trough cocoa in other nations that regulate production methods, an 20% cheaper than single source cocoa.
> 
> The vast majority of mix trough cocoa in the Ivory Coast comes from a black market slave trade.
> ...


Citations, please.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> So it's just Nestle's and Hershey? And I'm assuming that's all candy bars made by those companies?
> 
> What a horrible, horrible thing. Thanks for telling me. I'll never spend my money on it again. Sometimes I do buy the Hershey's Reserve bars but even if those are made with single source beans I won't give those companies my business.


It's not JUST Hershey's and Nestle's but they are by FAR the worst offenders.  I think Mars occasionally makes bulk purchases of Ivory Coast mix trough beans in an attempt to stay competitive.  

But I don't buy from ANY of the big companies.  I stopped buying Dove then Mars bought them.

Now I go to Fresh Market or such places to buy mom & pop produced chocolate.  Someone mentioned Green & Blacks.  I may be mistaken, but I am pretty sure they are one of the safe ones.

No, I haven't given up chocolate, but before I buy a brand I do intense research into where they source their beans FIRST.  There is still plenty of safe chocolate out there.  Even classier grocery stores like Lowes Foods carries it.  

I have been known to pick up a chocolate bar in the grocery store and call the info number on the back to reach the production company and inquire directly as to their source for cocoa beans before purchasing.

----------


## Zippyjuan

I don't like Nestle's products, too much sugar in them. 
Hershey's and others often buy through brokers who get beans from all over the world.  A delivery could include beans from several different countries even on different continents. 

http://www.organicconsumers.org/starbucks/val.cfm




> From the ports, the beans are shipped to cocoa processors. America's biggest are ADM Cocoa in Milwaukee, a subsidiary of Decatur, Ill.-based Archer Daniels Midland; Barry Callebaut, which has its headquarters in Zurich, Switzerland; Minneapolis-based Cargill; and Nestle USA of Glendale, Calif., a subsidiary of the Swiss food giant.
> 
> 
> *But by the time the beans reach the processors, those picked by slaves and those harvested by free field hands have been jumbled together in warehouses, ships, trucks and rail cars. By the time they reach consumers in America or Europe, free beans and slave beans are so thoroughly blended that there is no way to know which chocolate products taste of slavery and which do not.*





> The middlemen who buy Ivory Coast cocoa beans from farmers and sell them to processors seldom visit the country's cocoa farms, and when they do, it's to examine the beans, not the workers. *Young boys are a common sight on the farms of West Africa, and it's impossible to know without asking which are a farmer's own children, which are field hands who will be paid $150 to $180 after a year's work and which are slaves*.
> 
> "We've never seen child slavery. We don't go to the plantations. The slavery here is long gone," said G.H. Haidar, a cocoa buyer in Daloa, in the heart of Ivory Coast's cocoa region. "We're only concerned with our work."
> 
> The Chocolate Manufacturers Association, based in Vienna, Va., at first said the industry was not aware of slavery, either. After Knight Ridder began inquiring about the use of slaves on Ivory Coast cocoa farms, however, the CMA in late April acknowledged that a problem might exist and said it strongly condemned "these practices wherever they may occur."
> 
> In May, the association decided to expand an Ivory Coast farming program to include education on "the importance of children." And in June, the CMA agreed to fund a survey of child labor practices on Ivory Coast cocoa farms.
> 
> Finally, on Friday, the CMA announced some details of the joint study, which will survey 2,000 cocoa farms in Ivory Coast. "Now we are not debating that this is true," CMA President Larry Graham said Friday when asked about cocoa farm slavery. "We're accepting that this is a fact."
> ...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Citations, please.


Google is your friend.  It's not like this isn't well publicized.  It's just not well discussed.

Here is a good place to start, with tons and tons of source material:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_e...olate_industry

There are some 30-ish sources in the Wiki article alone, and that just brushes the surface.

If those 30 sources are not enough for you let me know and I will Google up a few hundred more.

----------


## Pericles

Free market at work - and I don't mean this in a critical of free markets way.

Fact is that a majority will buy at the lowest price and not give much consideration as to how that price was achieved.

There are basically two alternatives to a total hands off approach.

(1) provide additional information about the product and its quality in order to differentiate it from similar products in the market place - thise that have a code of ethics then pay the additional price for having a code of ethics

(2) place additional economic cost on produces who violate health and saftey laws, in order to "more level the playing field". Doing this via tariffs on imports make domestically produced goods (presumably subject to our worker laws) more competitive in our market

----------


## Brassmouth

> Citations, please.


I second that.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I don't like Nestle's products, too much sugar in them. 
> Hershey's and others often buy through brokers who get beans from all over the world.  A delivery could include beans from several different countries even on different continents. 
> 
> http://www.organicconsumers.org/starbucks/val.cfm


True enough, but it would not be very difficult to take one-two steps closer to the source and spend a few dollars more for beans KNOWN to be free of slavery.  The big companies arguments here do not hold water.  If they paid 15% more for slavery free cocoa beans, it would raise the cost of the finished chocolate bar some 5%.  

I don't think that's too much to ask from Hershey's.  

There are already PLENTY of chocolate companies who do not trade in blood chocolate.

----------


## Sandman33

Gunny thank you for the insight.  I appreciate it and will be boycotting the products myself.  I always thought they got the beans from south America, not Africa.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Free market at work - and I don't mean this in a critical of free markets way.
> 
> Fact is that a majority will buy at the lowest price and not give much consideration as to how that price was achieved.
> 
> There are basically two alternatives to a total hands off approach.
> 
> (1) provide additional information about the product and its quality in order to differentiate it from similar products in the market place - thise that have a code of ethics then pay the additional price for having a code of ethics
> 
> (2) place additional economic cost on produces who violate health and saftey laws, in order to "more level the playing field". Doing this via tariffs on imports make domestically produced goods (presumably subject to our worker laws) more competitive in our market


There is what I have been waiting for.  This thread came up because of the "Depleting all the tuna" thread.  The ONLY solution I could see to solve the 'tuna crisis' would be for an international agreement to impose tariffs NOT on 'all tuna' but specifically on the harvesting methodologies leading to 40% waste which has led to said resource depletion.

AND this is why this thread is in General Politics.  What is the solution to the problem?  If half of the people once informed still don't care...(I expect among this group that would more like 15% who would still buy Hershey's even knowing the background...instead of 50% of sheeple) then what is the solution?

Same as the tuna problem I imagine.  I HATE government based solutions, but what choice in this case?  It's not going to stop on it's own.  So all that would have to happen is for an international agreement to tariff non 'slavery-free' certified beans at 40% to 50% which will make the "slavery free" beans cheaper, naturally drawing the market AWAY from the use of slavery.

Only real solution I can see as of now.

----------


## dannno

> Free market at work - and I don't mean this in a critical of free markets way.
> 
> Fact is that a majority will buy at the lowest price and not give much consideration as to how that price was achieved.
> 
> There are basically two alternatives to a total hands off approach.
> 
> (1) provide additional information about the product and its quality in order to differentiate it from similar products in the market place - thise that have a code of ethics then pay the additional price for having a code of ethics
> 
> (2) place additional economic cost on produces who violate health and saftey laws, in order to "more level the playing field". Doing this via tariffs on imports make domestically produced goods (presumably subject to our worker laws) more competitive in our market



Slavery is not the "free market"

----------


## dannno

> I second that.


See post #20

----------


## Natalie

Wow, that's horrible!!  

I don't really eat chocolate anyway.  I just don't like sweet things.  When it comes to junk food, I'm more of a salt/cheese person.

----------


## Zippyjuan

I know that none would be a desirable number but does anybody know what percent of chocolate is produced via slave labor?  From other articles I read today the source is primarly small farmers in very poor countries. 

Slave Free Chocolate: http://www.chocolatework.com/slavery...-slavefree.htm
What percent of your car is slave labor from China or other coutry? Your computer? Your cell phone? Is using unpaid prison labor slave labor? That happens even in this country. http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/...s_slave_labor/

Or this. 
http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/stori...-big-bucks-fo/

Top Cocoa Bean Processors in the World: http://internationaltrade.suite101.c...ean_processors

•Archer Daniels Midland (US) ... 15% of global cocoa bean grindings
•Cargill (US) ... 14%
•Barry Callebaut (Switzerland) ... 13%
•Nestle (Switzerland) ... 5%
•Cadbury Schweppes (UK) ... 3%
•Hershey (US) ... 2%
•Ferraro (Italy) ... 2%
•Mars (US) ... 2%


http://internationaltrade.suite101.c...xzz0HrzpIs4p&D

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I know that none would be a desirable number but does anybody know what percent of chocolate is produced via slave labor?  From other articles I read today the source is primarly small farmers in very poor countries. 
> 
> Slave Free Chocolate: http://www.chocolatework.com/slavery...-slavefree.htm
> What percent of your car is slave labor from China or other coutry? Your computer? Your cell phone? Is using unpaid prison labor slave labor? That happens even in this country. http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/...s_slave_labor/
> 
> Or this. 
> http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/stori...-big-bucks-fo/


From the research I have done, nearly 80% of the open market (non-single-source) chocolate from the Ivory Coast is produced by slave labor, and about 80% of the cocoa purchased by the "Big Three" come from open markets in the Ivory Coast.  

0.8 x 0.8 = .64  so approx 64% of the cocoa in your average Hershey bar was picked by the hands of children probably already dead by the time you eat it.

As for other goods, I make a distinct effort to buy goods, technology, and vehicles produced using non-exploitative means, don't you?

----------


## FrankRep

> Citations, please.





> Google is your friend.


You created the thread.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

at 14% roughly double the awareness here on RPF's as compared to the general population, and because apparently ALL who are aware of the situation purchase their chocolate elsewhere, this doesn't even compare to the near HALF of the general population wonce informed who refuse to take their business elsewhere.

I have heard all kinds of excuses.

"Well, it's not MY children, why should I care?"

seems to be pretty common.  

Or, "I'm addicted to chocolate and can't afford the good stuff."

Is another commonly used excuse.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You created the thread.


and, I produced source material. 

My point was that you don't have to go digging for this information.  The people who DO know about it and DO care, are screaming about it from the rooftops.  Problem is they are getting zero coverage (sound familiar?)

----------


## Theocrat

> Google is your friend.  It's not like this isn't well publicized.  It's just not well discussed.
> 
> Here is a good place to start, with tons and tons of source material:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_e...olate_industry
> 
> There are some 30-ish sources in the Wiki article alone, and that just brushes the surface.
> 
> If those 30 sources are not enough for you let me know and I will Google up a few hundred more.


Thanks for the link.

----------


## angelatc

> T I HATE government based solutions, but what choice in this case?  It's not going to stop on it's own.  So all that would have to happen is for an international agreement to tariff non 'slavery-free' certified beans at 40% to 50% which will make the "slavery free" beans cheaper, naturally drawing the market AWAY from the use of slavery.
> 
> Only real solution I can see as of now.


The solution has to be a local solution.  Slavery seems to be a normal occurrence in emerging markets. When the parents, relatives and friends start defending themselves, they'll have a chance.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The solution has to be a local solution.  Slavery seems to be a normal occurrence in emerging markets. When the parents, relatives and friends start defending themselves, they'll have a chance.


Cocoa is not exactly an 'emerging' market in the Ivory Coast, unless '100 years in business and the worlds largest producer' can still be classified as emerging; and parents 1500 miles away don't even know where their kids ARE to rescue them...and even if they did, the kidnappers and the plantation owners have all the money, all the guns, and the local government is in their pocket.

----------


## LittleLightShining

> at 14% roughly double the awareness here on RPF's as compared to the general population, and because apparently ALL who are aware of the situation purchase their chocolate elsewhere, this doesn't even compare to the near HALF of the general population wonce informed who refuse to take their business elsewhere.
> 
> I have heard all kinds of excuses.
> 
> "Well, it's not MY children, why should I care?"
> 
> seems to be pretty common.


:cries:




> Or, "I'm addicted to chocolate and can't afford the good stuff."
> 
> Is another commonly used excuse.


This is just dumb. You don't need to eat as much if you eat the good stuff.

----------


## tremendoustie

> Free market at work - and I don't mean this in a critical of free markets way.
> 
> Fact is that a majority will buy at the lowest price and not give much consideration as to how that price was achieved.
> 
> There are basically two alternatives to a total hands off approach.
> 
> (1) provide additional information about the product and its quality in order to differentiate it from similar products in the market place - thise that have a code of ethics then pay the additional price for having a code of ethics
> 
> (2) place additional economic cost on produces who violate health and saftey laws, in order to "more level the playing field". Doing this via tariffs on imports make domestically produced goods (presumably subject to our worker laws) more competitive in our market


As has been said, slavery is not free market. I support an investigation showing the link, a cease and desist order, and if the practice continues, full compensation for all slaves, as well as possible imprisonment for knowing parties.

And I'm a voluntaryist. Slavery is violence.

Normally, for less that fully ethical practices, I support full disclosure, boycott, and ostracism. While I support these actions in this case, I believe a forceful response is also warranted.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Well, I expected that the numbers amongst RPF people would be a lot better than the general population, and they really are.  With 31 votes, we are at about 3% (or one person) who knows about the situation and still buys Hershey's.  that's 1/6 of the total of those who know the situation as compared to 1/2 of those who know about the situation yet still buy it amongst the general population.

That, at least, is encouraging. 8-)

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> There is what I have been waiting for.  This thread came up because of the "Depleting all the tuna" thread.  The ONLY solution I could see to solve the 'tuna crisis' would be for an international agreement to impose tariffs NOT on 'all tuna' but specifically on the harvesting methodologies leading to 40% waste which has led to said resource depletion.
> 
> AND this is why this thread is in General Politics.  What is the solution to the problem?  If half of the people once informed still don't care...(I expect among this group that would more like 15% who would still buy Hershey's even knowing the background...instead of 50% of sheeple) then what is the solution?
> 
> Same as the tuna problem I imagine.  I HATE government based solutions, but what choice in this case?  It's not going to stop on it's own.  So all that would have to happen is for an international agreement to tariff non 'slavery-free' certified beans at 40% to 50% which will make the "slavery free" beans cheaper, naturally drawing the market AWAY from the use of slavery.
> 
> *Only real solution I can see as of now*.


If the markets were truly FREE, a system would have developed to prevent the shortage (viz. producers would adjust their prices to reduce demand-they would have known beforehand because they have the profit motive to ensure that they set prices properly.  Government, as you may notice looking around, acts entirely arbitrarily-which is even worse than "capitalist greed" because there is no motive for the gov'ment to act wisely-as it has all the power/a monopoly on force.).

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> As has been said, slavery is not free market. I support an investigation showing the link, a cease and desist order, and if the practice continues, full compensation for all slaves, as well as possible imprisonment for knowing parties.
> 
> And I'm a voluntaryist. Slavery is violence.
> 
> Normally, for less that fully ethical practices, I support full disclosure, boycott, and ostracism. While I support these actions in this case, I believe a forceful response is also warranted.


There are really not very many situations where I advocate for "the government ought to do something," and when I DO advocate for such, I seek the kind of solution that is *closest* to mimicking a free market solution.  That's why I tend to lean on tariffing 'practices' with regards to this situation and the tuna situation as it created market motivation and a response to move away from such practices.

This is one of the very very few situations where I believe that something really needs to be done.

There are already measures in place where plantations can be certified "slavery free" but even those who do not use slaves often do not undergo certification because the big buyers don't care.  If the bulk of purchases were to migrate to slavery free certified plantations, a lot of the plantations already slavery free would certify.  

Minimal market disruption, I think.  Tariff the hell out of non-certified beans, and the plantations who already do not use slaves will certify immediately.  And chances are most of the plantations that DO use slaves, will cease and desist in order to avoid the tariffs.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

I tend to buy mostly Gertrude Hawk (best chocolate, in my opinion).

Will boycott.  Thanks for information (as horrible and sickening as it is).  

Idiots who say free market at work...  You libertarians make me sick sometimes.

----------


## Dr.3D

> There are really not very many situations where I advocate for "the government ought to do something," and when I DO advocate for such, I seek the kind of solution that is *closest* to mimicking a free market solution.  That's why I tend to lean on tariffing 'practices' with regards to this situation and the tuna situation as it created market motivation and a response to move away from such practices.
> 
> This is one of the very very few situations where I believe that something really needs to be done.
> 
> There are already measures in place where plantations can be certified "slavery free" but even those who do not use slaves often do not undergo certification because the big buyers don't care.  If the bulk of purchases were to migrate to slavery free certified plantations, a lot of the plantations already slavery free would certify.  
> 
> Minimal market disruption, I think.  Tariff the hell out of non-certified beans, and the plantations who already do not use slaves will certify immediately.  And chances are most of the plantations that DO use slaves, will cease and desist in order to avoid the tariffs.


Exactly.
Take the profit away from using slave labor and the problem will stop.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> If the markets were truly FREE, a system would have developed to prevent the shortage (viz. producers would adjust their prices to reduce demand-they would have known beforehand because they have the profit motive to ensure that they set prices properly.  Government, as you may notice looking around, acts entirely arbitrarily-which is even worse than "capitalist greed" because there is no motive for the gov'ment to act wisely-as it has all the power/a monopoly on force.).


Not sure I follow your logic.  

I agree with you in that I HATE the idea of a government 'solution' to ANYTHING.  But in a completely free market, what motivation would Hershey's actually have to buy cocoa beans costing 15% more just because they were produced without said slavery?

There are already scores of companies who buy slavery free cocoa to produce chocolate, but they tend towards the 'premium' market because they cannot compete with the big 3 in the 'cheap' market (economies of scale) so they don't bother to try.

You have to have the economy of scale in order to make slavery free chocolate bars only 5% more than slave produced chocolate.  That's scale that the smaller companies simple do not have.

----------


## Danke

I don't like Hersey Chocolate anyway, but how do I know what I buy is slavery free?  Is there a list somewhere...and yes, I'll try a Google search.

edit:  it appears my chocolate of choice is Slavery free, Lindt.

----------


## Kraig

> I don't like Hersey Chocolate anyway, but how do I know what I buy is slavery free?  Is there a list somewhere...and yes, I'll try a Google search.


It's a short list.  Maybe try looking for things made in Somalia?

----------


## Pericles

> I tend to buy mostly Gertrude Hawk (best chocolate, in my opinion).
> 
> Will boycott. Thanks for information (as horrible and sickening as it is). 
> 
> Idiots who say free market at work... You libertarians make me sick sometimes.


I posted that remark for a reason. A truly free market assumes that all of the market participants have accurate information available as to the makeup of the good being sold. If there is a cost of obtinaing that information, some participants will not bear the cost (even if only research), thus will make decisions based on incomplete information, using only market price as the criteron for purchase. Sellers witholding information (or even fraud) also distort the market. Thus, I posit that true free markets do not exist, and are a notional construct to explain economic theory.

An efficient market, depends on they players being subject to rules in order keep the market as free and therefore, efficient as possible. Enforcing these rules is the proper role of government - to ensure that the market participants have the information they want available to them in order to make a free decision.

There is no mention of free markets in the Constitution - the role of governemnt is to enforce individual rights (secure the blessings of liberty"), provide for the common defense, and promote general welfare (maintain an economic system that benefits the citizens).

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I don't like Hersey Chocolate anyway, but how do I know what I buy is slavery free?  Is there a list somewhere...and yes, I'll try a Google search.
> 
> edit:  it appears my chocolate of choice is Slavery free, Lindt.


Yes, Lindt is one of the good ones.

----------


## Danke

Ben & Jerry's appears to use Ivory Coast chocolate...kinda ironic.

----------


## LittleLightShining

> I don't like Hersey Chocolate anyway, but how do I know what I buy is slavery free?  Is there a list somewhere...and yes, I'll try a Google search.
> 
> edit:  it appears my chocolate of choice is Slavery free, Lindt.


Yay! The Dark Chocolate Chili is my favorite.




> Ben & Jerry's appears to use Ivory Coast chocolate...kinda ironic.


Ohhh... we need to do something about this. 

Gunny, I think you're absolutely right. Absolutely.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I don't eat Ben & Jerry's but before you just assume they are part of it, they may be buying single-source from the Ivory Coast (I don't actually know).  Not ALL Ivory Coast cocoa comes from slavery plantations, and some companies intentionally buy non-slavery beans from the Ivory coast in an attempt to make the practice of rejecting slavery more attractive.  

In other words, just because beans may come from the Ivory Coast does not automatically imply that they are harvested with child slaves.  But again, I don't KNOW about Ben & Jerry's because I have not researched them.

If it helps, the "white hats" that buy from the Ivory Coast while avoiding slavery plantations, usually do not hesitate to brag about it on websites and packaging.

----------


## BenIsForRon

It is because of things like this that I support bilateral trade agreements, with stipulations on things such as environment and working conditions.

----------


## paulim

> There are really not very many situations where I advocate for "the government ought to do something," and when I DO advocate for such, I seek the kind of solution that is *closest* to mimicking a free market solution.  That's why I tend to lean on tariffing 'practices' with regards to this situation and the tuna situation as it created market motivation and a response to move away from such practices.
> 
> This is one of the very very few situations where I believe that something really needs to be done.
> 
> There are already measures in place where plantations can be certified "slavery free" but even those who do not use slaves often do not undergo certification because the big buyers don't care.  If the bulk of purchases were to migrate to slavery free certified plantations, a lot of the plantations already slavery free would certify.  
> 
> Minimal market disruption, I think.  Tariff the hell out of non-certified beans, and the plantations who already do not use slaves will certify immediately.  And chances are most of the plantations that DO use slaves, will cease and desist in order to avoid the tariffs.


Thanks for the post and I agree with the private boycott. However I think that you shouldn't lose faith in individuals that soon:
I don't think that 50% is bad at all for a six pack audience. That means if all consumers would know, this would be a clear product requirement. No major company could afford losing 50% of market share. On top of that people would harass those who carry nestle bars despite their knowledge (unless the ADL prohibits it).
Conclusion: As Ron Paul said in regard to economics, its mainly a philosophical change that must be achieved. Transferred on your example that means, people must simply know what they are eating. Or in general people must take responsibility for the way they spend their money. You educated the RPF, go on.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

http://vision.ucsd.edu/~kbranson/sto...very/main.html




> You may also notice that we've included some companies - Ben & Jerry's, for example - that use ethically produced chocolate in some products but not in others. Naturally, we're not happy that they make money from slavery with some of their products, but as a practical matter, it seems sensible to encourage their more ethical products by purchasing them. Maybe someday - especially if they're also bombarded with enough angry letters - they'll go good altogether.


So Ben & Jerry's is a mixed bag, apparently.

Oh, anything that says "Fair Trade" is generally OK.  Anything that says "Organic" is probably safe, because as of yet there are no known 'organic' producers using child slavery.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Thanks for the post and I agree with the private boycott. However I think that you shouldn't lose faith in individuals that soon:
> I don't think that 50% is bad at all for a six pack audience. That means if all consumers would know, this would be a clear product requirement. No major company could afford losing 50% of market share. On top of that people would harass those who carry nestle bars despite their knowledge (unless the ADL prohibits it).
> Conclusion: As Ron Paul said in regard to economics, its mainly a philosophical change that must be achieved. Transferred on your example that means, people must simply know what they are eating. Or in general people must take responsibility for the way they spend their money. You educated the RPF, go on.


I agree that if the media were to make these things generally public it would raise an outcry and almost certainly change practices.  My problem is that Hershey's etc pay so much money in advertising that the media is loathe to expose this generally.   

This is similar to the media's reluctance to expose Monsanto and rBGH puss-milk, I think.  

So you may be right -- in a free market AND GIVEN that the media is not bought and sold, the free market solution may work.

ETA - LOL "rBGH puss-milk" and "blood chocolate" Yes, I am not above using loaded terms to try and make the products distasteful for people.

----------


## ladyjade3

Need another poll option:  I eat Lindt or Ferror-Rocher because it tastes better.

And yes, child slavery is indefensible in free market economics.  Consenting adults works as a labor standard for me.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Need another poll option:  I eat Lindt or Ferror-Rocher because it tastes better.
> 
> And yes, child slavery is indefensible in free market economics.  Consenting adults works as a labor standard for me.


You are right.  I didn't even think of "I don't eat Hershey's or Nestle's because I don't like it, and I do not know where they source their beans."

I am guessing it's too late to add it though.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I tend to buy mostly Gertrude Hawk (best chocolate, in my opinion).
> 
> Will boycott.  Thanks for information (as horrible and sickening as it is).  
> 
> Idiots who say free market at work...  You libertarians make me sick sometimes.


Looked at their site, can't find any information on sourcing at all.  Can't find anything elsewhere either.  My guess, being a 'premium' chocolate, they probably use single-source and reserve beans, which are almost certainly slavery-free.  The only way to actually KNOW would be to ask them.

----------


## Objectivist

I don't eat candy, chocolate or sweets.

----------


## Original_Intent

Not that different from all the $#@! we buy from China.  Alot of that cheap crap is made with essentially state slave labor.

And allow me to introduce my globalist conspircay angle here. You say if the free market quit eating any chocolate that came from these slave places, the slavery would dry up - I disagree, if they are managing to wipe out a few thousand or a few tens of thousands of African kids before they start reproducing and making more African kids, then the goal is being accomplished, these guys want 94% population reduction, best to get them before they reproduce and compound the problem, why do you think the globalists are so supportive of the abortion agenda - talk about getting them while they are young.

I agree wit boycotting Hershey and Nestle though - I just think they will get stimulus or whatever needed to stay in business, "too big to fail" or some other pretext, I honestly don't see the slave business ending when they are doing such a fine job for their masters.

I'd go way out on a limb and say the globalists are probably running these slave plantations, but then you would all think I was a tinfoil hat and wouldn't listen to anything I had to say ever again.

Or for a lot of you, nothing would change -

----------


## Danke

> I don't eat candy, chocolate or sweets.


We kinda figured that.

----------


## LibForestPaul

No, they suck... I eat Lindt, Milka, Ghirardelli...

Hersheys, and Friendlys ice-cream no doubt...

----------


## Golding

I eat M&M's, but otherwise dislike eating chocolate.  So I think I'm not contributing to slave cocoa.  :]

----------


## tremendoustie

> There are really not very many situations where I advocate for "the government ought to do something," and when I DO advocate for such, I seek the kind of solution that is *closest* to mimicking a free market solution. That's why I tend to lean on tariffing 'practices' with regards to this situation and the tuna situation as it created market motivation and a response to move away from such practices.
> 
> This is one of the very very few situations where I believe that something really needs to be done.
> 
> There are already measures in place where plantations can be certified "slavery free" but even those who do not use slaves often do not undergo certification because the big buyers don't care. If the bulk of purchases were to migrate to slavery free certified plantations, a lot of the plantations already slavery free would certify. 
> 
> Minimal market disruption, I think. Tariff the hell out of non-certified beans, and the plantations who already do not use slaves will certify immediately. And chances are most of the plantations that DO use slaves, will cease and desist in order to avoid the tariffs.


I don't know, that adds a whole certification bureacracy, and would potentially burden sellers who aren't even in areas of the world where slavery of this kind exists. This adds government control and oversight.

I think the better approach is just simple straight up prosecution of anyone who knowingly buys slave cocoa (perhaps after being warned), and civil suits for substantive damages, regardless of knowledge.

That way the situation can be dealt with by a judge and/or jury, without the need for a whole new bureacracy and certification system.

----------


## dannno

> I agree wit boycotting Hershey and Nestle though - I just think they will get stimulus or whatever needed to stay in business, "too big to fail" or some other pretext, I honestly don't see the slave business ending when they are doing such a fine job for their masters.


Well more important than NOT supporting hershey and nestle is to support the good people who do make good chocolate without using slaves. Our actions won't end child slavery, but our actions can lead to a few less child slaves as the demand for good products increase.





> I'd go way out on a limb and say the globalists are probably running these slave plantations, but then you would all think I was a tinfoil hat and wouldn't listen to anything I had to say ever again.
> 
> Or for a lot of you, nothing would change -



They most certainly are connected, though questionable who actually runs the operations and who knows about them. It is the installation of central banks which is what the globalists are after. They want control over the banks of country X, and they want country X to protect the corporations that the banks capitalize but not protect individuals within the society. They treat corporations like super individuals, when they should be treated as much less than individuals. The globalists take a country Venezuela and have the government give them control of native lands to their corporations, then the the government forces the people off of their land and protects the corporation. Then the bank finances the company that steals the resources, the corporation benefits and the people who once lived there are completely screwed. Then a bunch of people on RPF and elsewhere get upset when Chavez wants to distribute some of the wealth from those resources back to the people who it originally belonged.

----------


## Andrew-Austin

$#@!, well thanks for letting me know.

Next time I see someone munching on a chocolate bar I'll ask, "do you support child slavery?"

----------


## youngbuck

I don't really eat chocolate, except once in a great while I'll get some fair-trade organic chocolate from the health food store.

----------


## Rael

Who knew that slavery tasted so good. (munches candy bar)

----------


## Working Poor

I don't eat their chocolate because there are some much better brands out there. It would be interesting to know where they get their cacao.....

----------


## pinkmandy

Well hell.


I was already boycotting Nestle because of their shady formula marketing practices in third world countries and babies starving to death (actually dehydrating) because of those practices but now I'll be boycotting both.

Gunny, if you run across a good site w/the entire story on it can you pass it along? This is something I'd like to put out there on other forums I visit (especially mothering boards). However, many don't research or aren't willing to do so and a good site w/accurate info would go a long way for folks like that.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I will work on finding a good concise single source for that data pinkmandy.  I will also answer the other posts in this thread, but at the moment I am focusing on preparing for this C4L presentation to my local GOP.

I will get to this.  I will.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> Well hell.
> 
> 
> I was already boycotting Nestle because of their shady formula marketing practices in third world countries and babies starving to death (actually dehydrating) because of those practices but now I'll be boycotting both.
> 
> Gunny, if you run across a good site w/the entire story on it can you pass it along? This is something I'd like to put out there on other forums I visit (especially mothering boards). However, many don't research or aren't willing to do so and a good site w/accurate info would go a long way for folks like that.


That's another serious issue to point out.

Nestle was responsible for giving many villages in Africa powder milk formula that was supposed to help stop the spread of diseases in breastmilk... except you need *water* to mix with the powder... and what small village in Africa do you know of has good water?

Water was contaminated, leading to vulnerable babies dying of diseases.  6 to 25x more likely a child is to die if they drink formula than if they consume breastmilk.  The cessation  of mothers breastfeeding their children left their children completely vunerable (as breastmilk offers some protections - antibodies).

The formula's also aided in the women getting back to a normal cycle (hormonally), and getting pregnant again, quicker than normal.  Very, very sad

----------


## tremendoustie

One suggestion:

www.stopthetraffik.org
http://www.stopthetraffik.org/chocol...late_guide.pdf
http://www.stopthetraffik.org/eNews/easter0307.html
http://www.stopthetraffik.org/eNews/choc0107.html

They came and spoke at my church, and seem like good people.

----------


## KCIndy

I can't believe I'm even writing this... but...

The whole chocolate/child slavery thing sounds exactly like the sort of issue Oprah could tackle... "Coming up next:  Do you feel guilty when you eat a chocolate bar?  Well, forget the sugar and calories, we have news that will really make you sick!"

As far as the free market goes, I'm betting that if the issue can get enough attention and millions of consumers are bombarding the major companies with boycotts and protests, they WILL suddenly "see the light."  They'll change when - and ONLY when - they know they'll take a big fat hit in the bottom line.

The hard part is getting enough people to be aware and start lodging protests.

----------


## evilfunnystuff

> I can't believe I'm even writing this... but...
> 
> The whole chocolate/child slavery thing sounds exactly like the sort of issue Oprah could tackle... "Coming up next:  Do you feel guilty when you eat a chocolate bar?  Well, forget the sugar and calories, we have news that will really make you sick!"
> 
> As far as the free market goes, I'm betting that if the issue can get enough attention and millions of consumers are bombarding the major companies with boycotts and protests, they WILL suddenly "see the light."  They'll change when - and ONLY when - they know they'll take a big fat hit in the bottom line.
> 
> The hard part is getting enough people to be aware and start lodging protests.


this

----------


## almantimes2

> I can't believe I'm even writing this... but...
> 
> The whole chocolate/child slavery thing sounds exactly like the sort of issue Oprah could tackle... "Coming up next:  Do you feel guilty when you eat a chocolate bar?  Well, forget the sugar and calories, we have news that will really make you sick!"
> 
> As far as the free market goes, I'm betting that if the issue can get enough attention and millions of consumers are bombarding the major companies with boycotts and protests, they WILL suddenly "see the light."  They'll change when - and ONLY when - they know they'll take a big fat hit in the bottom line.
> 
> The hard part is getting enough people to be aware and start lodging protests.


Precisely.

A lot of people don't understand the power the people have in a truly free market.

The more efficient way to deal with this is to make more of the population aware of what is going on here.

Then.
Bam! There profits go down into the tank and the company realizes that if they want to start making money again they must change there ways.

Much better then the government passing a law forcing them to buy from a different source.

----------


## tremendoustie

> Precisely.
> 
> A lot of people don't understand the power the people have in a truly free market.
> 
> The more efficient way to deal with this is to make more of the population aware of what is going on here.
> 
> Then.
> Bam! There profits go down into the tank and the company realizes that if they want to start making money again they must change there ways.
> 
> Much better then the government passing a law forcing them to buy from a different source.


I agree that this is an effective tack, but we need to recognize that this is in the catagory of things for which force would be legitimate. Slavery is a real crime, so this is not a free market vs government intervention issue.

----------


## almantimes2

> I agree that this is an effective tack, but we need to recognize that this is in the catagory of things for which force would be legitimate. Slavery is a real crime, so this is not a free market vs government intervention issue.



Slavery is a crime. Correct.

However this is not happening in are country. 
So they may purchase from them if they choose to.

I brought it up because I did see some sarcastic remarks in this thread about the free market.

Why apply force to the company through a law of sorts. When we can easily stop them by boycotting and spreading the word?

----------


## akihabro

I haven't read the other posts and I'm going to guess slave labor.  Similar to how diamond are had.  Refined sugar is bad for your health and some places use slave labor too.

----------


## KCIndy

> I agree that this is an effective tack, but we need to recognize that this is in the catagory of things for which force would be legitimate. Slavery is a real crime, so this is not a free market vs government intervention issue.


Maybe not, but I would be willing to bet that an outraged customer base is going to effect change in a big corporation much faster than another set of easily dodged government regulations.

When a board of directors sees profits fall 60 percent in a single quarter, they'll "get religion" real quickly.

If congress passes a law saying a company can't buy beans from X, Y and Z sources but there's no outrage on the part of the consumer, the company will likely just use a loophole to get around the law.  Instead of buying directly from X, Y and Z sources, for instance, they'll just use a middleman who buys from X, Y and Z instead.

----------


## tremendoustie

> Slavery is a crime. Correct.
> 
> However this is not happening in are country. 
> So they may purchase from them if they choose to.
> 
> I brought it up because I did see some sarcastic remarks in this thread about the free market.


I disagree regarding jurisdiction, I believe anyone can morally hold another accountable for violent crime, if they do so justly. In the context of the current justice system, I would be quite happy to see a civil suit on behalf of the slaves, as well as a cease and desist order, and subsequent criminal prosecution.

Your point is a good one, however, that market forces can be brought to bear as well, and I would like to see greater awareness and ostracism.

----------


## akihabro

> I stay away from hershey's and nestle because they are shady global corporations. I pretty much stay away from all the shady global corporations I can, but i do buy peanut m&ms (mars) at work occasionally cause it's the only thing here I can eat when I don't have food, besides the chocolate covered raisins. If I had more options here, like regular peanuts that aren't completely drenched in salt, then I'd go for those instead.
> 
> I voted no, even though I don't specifically know how they get their cocoa beans I do eat chocolate so I couldn't pick the third option, and on top of that I know that they have shady practices because global corporations are supported by the banks that control these third world nations that are exploited.


You must have a helluva time trying to find products to by from non evil corporations.  Your house must be filled with a lot of independent food and products.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Maybe not, but I would be willing to bet that an outraged customer base is going to effect change in a big corporation much faster than another set of easily dodged government regulations.
> 
> When a board of directors sees profits fall 60 percent in a single quarter, they'll "get religion" real quickly.
> 
> If congress passes a law saying a company can't buy beans from X, Y and Z sources but there's no outrage on the part of the consumer, the company will likely just use a loophole to get around the law.  Instead of buying directly from X, Y and Z sources, for instance, they'll just use a middleman who buys from X, Y and Z instead.


It would be awful nice if education actually worked. It's been a decade since this became public knowledge, and what has happened?  Nothing. If there had been a 5% drop. Even a 1% drop in per-capita consumption in the last decade since this came out, I may have hope that an educational solution might work.  But it hasn't.  What now? More of the same stuff we've been trying for 10 years? 

After a while you just have to come to grips with the fact that it's not working. So what can we do that's so different from what we've already been doing for the last 10 years and has not had an ounce of impact?

----------


## libertarian4321

This sounds like a problem for the Ivory Coast to solve.

Call me a heartless bastard if you want, but I'm not going to run around questioning the source of the beans for every chocolate bar I eat.

Find me another brand that is competitive in price with those brands and I may consider switching, but I'm not going to pay a huge premium for one bar over another because one may or may not have a higher percentage of "free" beans.

----------


## tremendoustie

> This sounds like a problem for the Ivory Coast to solve.
> 
> Call me a heartless bastard if you want, but I'm not going to run around questioning the source of the beans for every chocolate bar I eat.
> 
> Find me another brand that is competitive in price with those brands and I may consider switching, but I'm not going to pay a huge premium for one bar over another because one may or may not have a higher percentage of "free" beans.


You don't care that slave labor is used to make your chocolate? Would you care if they lived next door, and you got to watch them every day? Perhaps you wouldn't mind running the camp, you know, if the alternative were to pay a significant premium?

You're better than that.

----------


## libertarian4321

> That's another serious issue to point out.
> 
> Nestle was responsible for giving many villages in Africa powder milk formula that was supposed to help stop the spread of diseases in breastmilk... except you need *water* to mix with the powder... and what small village in Africa do you know of has good water?
> 
> (


You're complaining because they GAVE AWAY expensive formula without first sending a team of scientists out to every city/village to test the quality of the water?  Wow, some of your folks are wound a bit tight.  On the scale of "evil", this is pretty lame.  At worst, they were a bit negligent.

----------


## libertarian4321

> You don't care that slave labor is used to make your chocolate? Would you care if they lived next door, and you got to watch them every day? Perhaps you wouldn't mind running the camp, you know, if the alternative were to pay a significant premium?
> 
> You're better than that.


If it was next door, I'd worry about it.  But I really don't have the time to worry about the supply source for every product I buy.

We all buy products every day that are made, in whole or in part, by slave labor/child labor/prison labor/sweatshop labor.   Its unfortunate and I sure its very sad, but I'm not going to waste a lot of time tracking down the supply chain practices of every product I buy.

Give me a reasonable alternative, and I'll buy it (and buying Ghiardelli at a 700+% price premium isn't a reasonable alternative).  Otherwise, I'll just keep buying the big brands that may, or may not, be made with "blood chocolate" or whatever.

If it makes you feel any better, about the only time I buy chocolate is to feed the brats who come begging at my door at Halloween.

----------


## silverhandorder

Gunny I reposted a version of this thread on a forum I frequent. I am getting heat for the 64% number. I need some help here.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> Well hell.
> 
> 
> I was already boycotting Nestle because of their shady formula marketing practices in third world countries and babies starving to death (actually dehydrating) because of those practices but now I'll be boycotting both.
> 
> Gunny, if you run across a good site w/the entire story on it can you pass it along? This is something I'd like to put out there on other forums I visit (especially mothering boards). However, many don't research or aren't willing to do so and a good site w/accurate info would go a long way for folks like that.


someone finally brings it up... on page 7 of the thread.... 

http://www.breastfeeding.com/advocac...y_boycott.html

  The Nestle Boycott


Why
In order to sell more of its infant formula in third world countries, Nestle would hire women with no special training and dress them up as nurses to give out free samples of Nestle formula. The free samples lasted long enough for the mother's breast milk to dry up from lack of use. Then mothers would be forced to purchase the formula but, being poor, they would often mix the formula with unsanitary water or 'stretch' the amount of formula by diluting it with more water than recommended. The result was that babies starved all over the Third World while Nestle made huge profits from this predatory marketing strategy.

Then
In 1977, a world-wide boycott was launched against the Nestle Corporation, which was found to be the most unethical of the several companies selling baby formula at the time.  Consumers all across the world stopped purchasing Nestle products.  The World Health Organization drafted the International Code on the Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes, which was signed by much of the world in the early '80's and finally by the United States in 1994. 

Now
After a brief hiatus the Nestle boycott was relaunched in 1988 and continues to this day.   A recent report called "Cracking the Code" outlines the many present-day violations of the W.H.O. code.  This report is available from UNICEF at:

UNICEF
Unit 1, Rignals Lane
Chelmsford, Essex
CM2 8TU
United Kingdom
Tel: (01245)476315

Presently, the International boycott of Nestle products covers 18 countries:  Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Philippines, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, UK and USA.  The International Boycott is presently being coordinated by Baby Milk Action.


What You Can Do
Nestl�, is the world's largest baby food company and increases it's profits by promoting artificial infant feeding in violation of the W.H.O. code that has been signed by the US and many other nations.  Nestl� knows that once a bottle has become between a mother and her child breastfeeding is more likely to fail and the company has gained a customer. Because of Nestl�'s continued disrespect for the International Code and infant health the best thing you can do is stop purchasing Nestle products.   

For more information about the boycott, and for recent news of code violations and more, contact Baby Milk Action;



http://www.babymilkaction.org/



-t

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> Slavery is a crime. Correct.
> 
> However this is not happening in are country. 
> So they may purchase from them if they choose to.
> 
> I brought it up because I did see some sarcastic remarks in this thread about the free market.
> 
> Why apply force to the company through a law of sorts. When we can easily stop them by boycotting and spreading the word?


If you pay taxes, you support slave labor.  It's called private prisons - forced labor of the majority of the 2 million prisoners in the USA, most of who are in for drug possession.

OK, so some pay prisoners around 14 cents an hour, but they also make them buy stuff like toothpaste and TP - so basically they pay nothing.  They are used mostly to make military boots, uniforms and stuff like that.

Its the US version of sweat shops / slave labor.

-t

----------


## UnReconstructed

it doesn't get any better than Hershey's Kisses and chocolate bars... except with almonds.

----------


## Danke

> If you pay taxes, you support slave labor.  It's called private prisons - forced labor of the majority of the 2 million prisoners in the USA, most of who are in for drug possession.
> 
> OK, so some pay prisoners around 14 cents an hour, but they also make them buy stuff like toothpaste and TP - so basically they pay nothing.  They are used mostly to make military boots, uniforms and stuff like that.
> 
> Its the US version of sweat shops / slave labor.
> 
> -t


I guess still better than Chinese prisoners.

"Agents for the firm have told would-be customers it is developing collagen for lip and wrinkle treatments from skin taken from prisoners after they have been shot...

...The agent told the researcher: "A lot of the research is still carried out in the traditional manner using skin from the executed prisoner and aborted foetus." This material, he said, was being bought from "bio tech" companies based in the northern province of Heilongjiang, and was being developed elsewhere in China.

He suggested that the use of skin and other tissues harvested from executed prisoners was not uncommon. "In China it is considered very normal and I was very shocked that western countries can make such a big fuss about this," he said. Speaking from his office in northern China, he added: "The government has put some pressure on all the medical facilities to keep this type of work in low profile."

The agent said his company exported to the west via Hong Kong."We are still in the early days of selling these products, and clients from abroad are quite surprised that China can manufacture the same human collagen for less than 5% of what it costs in the west." Skin from prisoners used to be even less expensive, he said. "Nowadays there is a certain fee that has to be paid to the court."...

...Skin was said to be highly valued for the treatment of burn victims, and Dr Wang said that in 1995 he skinned a shot convict's body while the man's heart was still beating. Dr Wang, who was seeking asylum in the US, also alleged that corneas and other body tissue were removed for transplant, and said his hospital, the Tianjin paramilitary police general brigade hospital, sold body parts for profit.

Human rights activists in China have repeatedly claimed that organs have been harvested from the corpses of executed prisoners and sold to surgeons offering transplants to fee-paying foreigners.

Dr Wang's allegations infuriated the Chinese authorities, and in a rare move officials publicly denounced him as a liar. The government said organs were transplanted from executed prisoners only if they and their family gave consent.

Although the exact number of people facing the death penalty in China is an official secret, Amnesty International believes around 3,400 were executed last year, with a further 6,000 on death row."

----------


## Bill M DC

I just sent your explanation out over MCB Quantico and points beyond Gunny. Seems my suspicions were spot on. Thanks

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

I think the last chocolate I ate was when I went to the Tea Party on April 15th. _Snickers_ bar was what I had (isnt that MARS?) Didn't know about Hersheys, as that sucks. I've been trying for years now to find a replacement for the old Tropical Chocolate Bar (which was discontinued) to go in my Bug-Out Bag (since I live in the South where it can get quite warm in summertime). As for Nestle, I can't remember the last time I had anything of their's.

----------


## dannno

> If it was next door, I'd worry about it.  But I really don't have the time to worry about the supply source for every product I buy.
> 
> We all buy products every day that are made, in whole or in part, by slave labor/child labor/prison labor/sweatshop labor.   Its unfortunate and I sure its very sad, but I'm not going to waste a lot of time tracking down the supply chain practices of every product I buy.
> 
> Give me a reasonable alternative, and I'll buy it (and buying Ghiardelli at a 700+% price premium isn't a reasonable alternative).  Otherwise, I'll just keep buying the big brands that may, or may not, be made with "blood chocolate" or whatever.
> 
> If it makes you feel any better, about the only time I buy chocolate is to feed the brats who come begging at my door at Halloween.


700%??? WTF are you talking about?!

You are the worst kind of libertarian. I consider myself libertarian, but I hate libertarians like you, because you ruin it for everybody with your selfish BS. The whole idea behind libertarianism is that consumers make decisions about the products they buy within the free market instead of having the government do it for them, yet you aren't willing to take that responsibility nor do you care. You are a disgusting human being for knowingly continuing to buy products that you KNOW are from forced child slave labor because forced slave labor goes against EVERYTHING libertarian. You are a hypocrite and a jackass. A real libertarian knows how to make good consumer decisions, because that is the ideal world in which a libertarian would live. I'm pretty sure that if re-incarnation exists you are pretty much guaranteed to be brought back a child slave, so have fun with that.

----------


## dannno

I hate libertarians who go around saying that everybody is justified buying the cheapest $#@! available, and hail things like WalMart's corporatist strategy. It's so $#@!ing backasswards to what libertarianism actually is.

I'm not going to "force" you to change, it's just a stupid, illogical way to think.

I mean, think about if you had a bunch of people over to bid on painting your house. Are you going to take the lowest bid, or the bid with the highest value? You take the bid with the highest value, based on your decision process. If you're decision process is $#@!ed up, you will choose the guy who brings in a bunch of chained up slaves to paint your house at half the price. Bringing in slaves to paint your house is not a good libertarian decision, and neither is buying $#@!ing Nestle or Hershey.

----------


## Bill M DC

Ditto Dannno...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Gunny I reposted a version of this thread on a forum I frequent. I am getting heat for the 64% number. I need some help here.


64% was an estimate from the educated guess of slave-bean content in mixed market beans, and the educated guess of total mix market content in the final product. 

The tragedy is that nobody really knows the exact content because there is no way to track it. From one bar to the next, the slave-bean content will be different. One bar may have as much as 90% and the next one 5%. 

I am on my cellphone on a job at the moment, but when I get home and on my computer I will gladly source the research materials which led to the educated guess of 80% x 80% = 64%

----------


## tremendoustie

+1 to danno

Getting government off your back means taking personal responsibility.

----------


## Agent CSL

I suggest Green & Blacks. They post on their site exactly where their chocolate comes from and how they make it.
http://www.greenandblacks.com/us/fro...air-trade.html

----------


## tremendoustie

> One suggestion:
> 
> www.stopthetraffik.org
> http://www.stopthetraffik.org/chocol...late_guide.pdf
> http://www.stopthetraffik.org/eNews/easter0307.html
> http://www.stopthetraffik.org/eNews/choc0107.html
> 
> They came and spoke at my church, and seem like good people.


Did anyone check these out for info? If you look under newsletters, they have quite a few on the subject of chocolate.

----------


## silverhandorder

> 64% was an estimate from the educated guess of slave-bean content in mixed market beans, and the educated guess of total mix market content in the final product. 
> 
> The tragedy is that nobody really knows the exact content because there is no way to track it. From one bar to the next, the slave-bean content will be different. One bar may have as much as 90% and the next one 5%. 
> 
> I am on my cellphone on a job at the moment, but when I get home and on my computer I will gladly source the research materials which led to the educated guess of 80% x 80% = 64%


Hurry up I am getting hammered here. Forumfall does not forgive >_<.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Ivory Coast (where most of the slave cocoa comes from) provides 43% of the global cocoa supply.  There are over 140,000 private farms in the country which produce the cocoa beans according to Slate Magazine (I don't have a link for that right now). 

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/0424/096.html



> . The International Labour Organization, part of the UN, estimates 284,000 child laborers work on cocoa farms, most of them in one tiny country, Ivory Coast, source of almost half the world's cocoa. "These are either involved in hazardous work, unprotected or unfree, or have been trafficked," says the ILO.


This would average about two kids (not necessarily slaves- some may simply be children of the farmers helping out)  but still child labor) per farm. 

Additionally, from the article,



> This is a country where an estimated 215,000 children live on the streets, where teachers give children good grades in return for sexual favors and where there is no law against human trafficking, according to U.S. State Department reports.


Too bad I can't find the Slate article right now. It said that the average cocoa farmer does not even have a car to take his product to market.  They have to wait for a cocoa buyer to come buy, tell the farmer how much he will get- take it or leave it- and toss the cocoa into his own truck.

----------


## Vessol

> Hurry up I am getting hammered here. Forumfall does not forgive >_<.


No. No it doesn't.

Sup silva' bro!

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Hurry up I am getting hammered here. Forumfall does not forgive >_<.


http://www.purefood.org/starbucks/chocolate.cfm




> Ivory Coast is the world's biggest producer of cocoa beans with over a million cocoa farms and plantations. A British TV documentary,"Slavery," (http://truevisiontv.com/slavery/index.htm) claims 90 percent of Ivory Coast cocoa plantations use slave labour. Most are young men and boys from impoverished areas in Benin, Togo and Mali. They are enticed by traffickers who promise them paid work, housing and an education. Instead, they are sold to Ivory Coast cocoa plantation owners who beat them into submission and offer no pay for grueling, 18-hour days.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocoa_p...4te_d%27Ivoire

46% of all the world's cocoa comes from the Ivory Coast, which is 90% 'touched' with slavery

24% of the worlds cocoa comes from the balance of West Africa, which is 60% 'touched' with slavery.

So, not specific to any given company, (46% x 90% = 40.4%) + (24% x 60% = 14.4%) = 54.8%

Hershey's, of course, sources more from the cheaper Ivory Coast than from other sources in order to provide you the cheapest chocolate in the world.

The real problem here is that Hershey's is not going to tell anybody what ratio of their beans are picked by slaves.  You have to work from investigative reports, hidden-camera documentaries, and provide educated estimates.

http://www1.american.edu/TED/chocolate-slave.htm




> 19. Exporters and Importers: Top exporter--Cote d'Ivoire; Top importer--United States
> 
> Cocoa beans used to make chocolate come from different farms in different areas of Cote d'Ivoire. The beans are mixed together in transport to importing countries and also in the processing factories. Consequently, there are no solid data reflecting the possible amount of cocoa beans in the world market that are tainted by slave labor. Since it is nearly impossible to differentiate between cocoa beans harvested by child slave labor and coca beans picked by free labor, there is no way to distinguish between chocolate products associated with forced child labor either.


There are crap-tons of data available from reputable sources; but because of the NATURE of child slavery (even in west Africa, the slave traffickers don't exactly advertise to the rest of the world y'know)  The best anybody can do is provide an educated guess.

According to the best figures we have available in the word today, about 55% of ALL the world's cocoa beans (as a collective whole) are touched by slavery.  Furthermore Hershey's etc sources to a greater proportion from the Ivory Coast than anywhere else.

If they want HARD numbers, too bad.  Slavers don't exactly advertise.  I'll stand by my numbers.  In the way of educated estimates, they are well researched over the last decade.

You may as well ask what percentage of cocaine sold in the US is refined by this Bolivian gang vs that Columbian gang.  Only it is easier to work that problem than it is to work the slavery in the Ivory Coast issue.

Like I said, I stand by the 64% figure, and it comes from 10 years of looking at this problem.  If they want to justify ignoring this because they are too lazy to do the research and form their own conclusions, that is their wickedness, not yours or mine.

This is WELL documented.  If someone thinks that it's a good idea to continue to suck out the blood of dead children because the only ratios we have are estimates, then they are wrong in the head, and posses a corrupted soul.

I never tried to frame my estimates as anything more than estimates.  And like I said, I have been following this problem for a decade, and I stand behind that estimate.  Indeed, it is an intentionally conservative estimate, IMHO.

Rooting out child labour from cocoa farms. – Paper No. 4: Child labour monitoring:
A partnership of communities and government
Geneva, International Labour Office, 2007
ISBN 978-92-2-119737-9 (print)
ISBN 978-92-2-119738-6 (web PDF)

http://www.ilo.org/ipecinfo/product/...ctedSortById=4





ETA -- I would have provided this earlier, but I have not been back to RPF's in a couple days.  I only returned to answer a PM I received while I try to decide to remain here because of how wonderful and valuable this community is, or whether my principles concerning a certain double-standard are enough to force me to leave forever.  It is an agonizing decision because I truly love the vast vast majority of posters here -- including Josh and Bryan; but I hate the idea of a double-standard so very much that it is hard for me to conscience the idea that I might be contributing to it.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

So who all ate chocolate mixed with slave-blood over Christmas this year?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Afraid to admit that you caved?  or just forgot that this was an issue?

----------


## dannno

I made a bourbon chocolate pecan cheesecake using what I believe to be non-slave chocolate. 

I had a couple pieces of chocolate candy at the cousin's house, I didn't pay attention to what brand they were... it was pretty fancy stuff but it could have been slave.

----------


## Ninja Homer

Thanks for the info Gunny!  First time seeing this thread, and first time hearing about this issue.

I gave up big name chocolate about 5 years ago.  Once you develop a taste for organic 90% cocoa real chocolate there's no going back to Hershey's... it tastes like wax.  My wife likes Lindt truffles, and I think those would be ok.  For baking purposes, we get big bars from Trader Joe's... good chocolate for a really good price.  I'm guessing those are ok too.

I assume this holds true with all big name chocolate products?  Baking cocoa, chocolate syrup, chocolate ice cream, chocolate shakes, chocolate cookies, chocolate cake and brownie mixes, chocolate pudding, hot cocoa, etc.

I'll make sure to pass this info along, thanks again.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Nvm

----------


## LittleLightShining

> Afraid to admit that you caved?  or just forgot that this was an issue?


Totally caved. I didn't buy any of it but it's hard to resist when it's right there in front of you

----------


## MelissaWV

> I made a bourbon chocolate pecan cheesecake using what I believe to be non-slave chocolate. 
> 
> I had a couple pieces of chocolate candy at the cousin's house, I didn't pay attention to what brand they were... it was pretty fancy stuff but it could have been slave.



Why stop at chocolate... the Department of Labor has a 194-page document about slave labor products.  

http://www.dol.gov/ilab/programs/ocft/PDF/2009TVPRA.pdf




> A number of goods were found to be produced with child labor or forced labor in numerous countries. Examples include cotton (15 countries), sugarcane (14 countries), tobacco (13 countries), coffee (12 countries), rice (8 countries), and cocoa (5 countries) in agriculture; bricks (15 countries), garments (6 countries), carpets (5 c ountries), and footwear (5 countries) in manufacturing; and gold (17 countries) and coal (6 countries) in mined or quarried goods.


What one notices is that the same country names are on the list again and again.  It's obvious that some governments are far more prone than others to look the other way, and some of the names on the list are in a desperate state.

A short list of items on the list which, at least in part, come from "forced labor":

artificial flowers, bamboo, beans (soy, green, yellow), brazil nuts/chestnuts, bricks (this is on there for six different countries), carpets (on there for 3 countries), cattle, (3 countries), cement, charcoal, Christmas decorations, coal (three countries), coca, cocoa, coffee, corn, *cotton (on there EIGHT times)*, cottonseed, diamonds, electronics, embroidered textiles, fireworks, footwear, garments (six instances), gold (three times), granite, gravel, iron, jade, nails, palm oil, palm thatch, peanuts, physic nuts/castor beans, pornography (we'll dismiss this one, even though it's on here, because it's unfair to paint some countries with this brush and not others), rice (3 times), rubber, rubies, sesame, shrimp, stones, sugarcane (five times), sunflowers, teak, textiles, tilapia, timber, tobacco, toys, wheat.

Now, which companies?  Well, you'd have to sift through the various names companies tend to use when dealing internationally, follow the money/supply chain, and determine who gets supplied from where.  Mind you, what I listed was JUST forced labor.  Child labor creates a much longer list.  Much, much longer.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

There are currently no slave sources that are certified organic, so any "organic" chocolate is OK.  Trader Joe's is slave free.  Green and Blacks is Slave Free.  

Unfortunately, Lindt buys from the open trough where slave chocolate is mixed in.  When I learned all of this years and years ago, frankly, Lindt was the toughest one for me to give up.  but I did it.  

There is a pretty good list of slavery free chocolate available here: link

It doesn't list ALL of the people you can buy from without slavery, but it does a pretty good job of who how and where.  A bit of research will reveal even more safe sources than the list above.

And yeah, sadly, most of the "big-name" product sources buy from the open bins that are some 50% or more slave-picked.

----------


## Dieseler

You need an option for,
Yes, I eat Hershey's and or Nestle's, and yes, I don't give a $#@! how they get their cocoa beans

----------


## MelissaWV

> Thanks for the info Gunny!  First time seeing this thread, and first time hearing about this issue.
> 
> I gave up big name chocolate about 5 years ago.  Once you develop a taste for organic 90% cocoa real chocolate there's no going back to Hershey's... it tastes like wax.  My wife likes Lindt truffles, and I think those would be ok.  For baking purposes, we get big bars from Trader Joe's... good chocolate for a really good price.  I'm guessing those are ok too.
> 
> I assume this holds true with all big name chocolate products?  Baking cocoa, chocolate syrup, chocolate ice cream, chocolate shakes, chocolate cookies, chocolate cake and brownie mixes, chocolate pudding, hot cocoa, etc.
> 
> I'll make sure to pass this info along, thanks again.


Found a site that lists a whole bunch of companies that responded to a request about whether or not they use slave chocolate.  Lindt was listed as not responding (to requests dating back to 2001).

Child slavery is likely used in at least some of the cocoa production:  
ADM Cocoa Aeschbach Chocolatier Anette's Chocolate Factory Ben & Jerry's Bonnat Chocolatier and Confectioner Cadbury Ltd Cemoi Chocolat Frey AG Chocolate Manufacturers Association Chocolates à la Carte Chocolates by Bernard CallebautDavid Alan Chocolatier Fazer Group, Cloetta Fazer AB Fowler's Chocolate Guittard Chocolate Company Hauser Chocolates Hershey Food CorporationKraft Lammes Candies Maestrani Schweizer Schokoladen AG (Munz) Mars Confectionary aka M & M's, Snickers, Twix, others Necco Candy Factory aka Clark Nestlé Pulakos 926 Chocolates South Bend Chocolate Speck The Chocolate Vault ThorntonsTobleroneWockenfuss Candies

Of course, you will also need to give up other Nestle, Kraft, Hersheys, etc. products, if you're going to be consistent...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Why stop at chocolate... the Department of Labor has a 194-page document about slave labor products.  
> 
> http://www.dol.gov/ilab/programs/ocft/PDF/2009TVPRA.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> What one notices is that the same country names are on the list again and again.  It's obvious that some governments are far more prone than others to look the other way, and some of the names on the list are in a desperate state.
> 
> A short list of items on the list which, at least in part, come from "forced labor":
> ...


I don't buy artificial flowers at all, or bamboo.  All the beans I have in long term storage are grown in the USA.  I don't eat Brazil nuts or Chestnuts.  I don't buy bricks.  I have hardwood floors, and the fre throw-rugs I do own were made in the US.  Whatever beef I eat is grown in the US, and I avoid fast food like the plague.  I don't use cement, and almost never use charcoal, but I always look for "made in the USA when I do.  I don't celebrate Christmas, and have no use for coal, I always carefully research my sources for coca and coffee.  My corn is free trade or organic, all my cotton shirts SAY "Made In The USA," I could go on.

The point is I *don't* just stop at chocolate.  I know you are arguing that we shouldn't care, but *I do*.  You argues in the other thread that my boycott of Hershey's might make some poor Hershey worker lose his job.  boo hoo.  He shouldn't have a job that relies on killing children.

Much of this has to do with our failure as a nation with regards to foreign policy.  If we weren't so focused on bombing irrelevant nations, then we could instead focus on diplomatic relations and therefore use trade leverage to put an end to most if not all of this.

I get it.  Whether or not the chocolate you eat was picked at the expense of dead children that were stolen from their parents and worked to death doesn't matter to you.  Well, it matters to me.

And chocolate is by far the most egregious of the abuses available to us right now.  You have to start somewhere, may as well start on the worst one first.  We mostly fixed the blood-diamond problem, now we are working on the blood-chocolate problem.  In time we will get to the corn and the cotton and the beans.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Found a site that lists a whole bunch of companies that responded to a request about whether or not they use slave chocolate.  Lindt was listed as not responding (to requests dating back to 2001).
> 
> Child slavery is likely used in at least some of the cocoa production:  
> ADM Cocoa Aeschbach Chocolatier Anette's Chocolate Factory Ben & Jerry's Bonnat Chocolatier and Confectioner Cadbury Ltd Cemoi Chocolat Frey AG Chocolate Manufacturers Association Chocolates à la Carte Chocolates by Bernard CallebautDavid Alan Chocolatier Fazer Group, Cloetta Fazer AB Fowler's Chocolate Guittard Chocolate Company Hauser Chocolates Hershey Food CorporationKraft Lammes Candies Maestrani Schweizer Schokoladen AG (Munz) Mars Confectionary aka M & M's, Snickers, Twix, others Necco Candy Factory aka Clark Nestlé Pulakos 926 Chocolates South Bend Chocolate Speck The Chocolate Vault ThorntonsTobleroneWockenfuss Candies
> 
> Of course, you will also need to give up other Nestle, Kraft, Hersheys, etc. products, if you're going to be consistent...


Thanks for the list!  That certainly will help those of us who care, but didn't know how extensive the problem really is.

What I don't understand is this attitude that "the problem is too big, so why even try?"

If removing my annual chocolate consumption from those companies who steal and kill children to make their products keeps even one child from being stolen and killed, then I've at least done *something*.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You need an option for,
> Yes, I eat Hershey's and or Nestle's, and yes, I don't give a $#@! how they get their cocoa beans


LOL -- I did have a Yes I eat, but no I don't know, and a Yes I eat, and I know but don't care... it never even occurred to me that "don't know don't care" was an option amongst RPFers.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Totally caved. I didn't buy any of it but it's hard to resist when it's right there in front of you


Yeah, that's why trying to pressure Hershey's to stop buying slaver cocoa is so hard, people are addicted.  I try to use it as an educational opportunity.  Someone tries to hand me a Hershey's I say, "Hey man, I love chocolate and all, but I can't eat Hershey's.  Thanks man, really I mean that, but if I tried to eat a Hershey's bar I'd get sick and end up hunched over your toilet."

They ask why and I tell them.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Nvm


Sorry, I was getting back to this post...  really I was

----------


## MelissaWV

> Thanks for the list!  That certainly will help those of us who care, but didn't know how extensive the problem really is.
> 
> What I don't understand is this attitude that "the problem is too big, so why even try?"
> 
> If removing my annual chocolate consumption from those companies who steal and kill children to make their products keeps even one child from being stolen and killed, then I've at least done *something*.


No, the argument is "you don't have time or resources to check out everything, but you're going to come on a forum and try to make people feel like crap because they ate a piece of chocolate over Christmas."

It's great if people DO take the time to check things out, but it's often the case people are patting themselves on the back when they haven't put very much time into the scope of what they think they're accomplishing.  Eat a slice of Kraft cheese lately?  Then, Gunny, you are still contributing to the problem while simultaneously implying other people are heartless for contributing to the problem.  

THAT is my point.

(Oh and I know... I personally don't have Kraft cheese in my home.  It's nasty.  However, you're sure they didn't use it in a restaurant?  Your friend's house, or family's, at which you ate a holiday meal?  (The last two shouldn't really count, to be fair, since you're not paying for the product.))

----------


## SelfTaught

> Thanks man, really I mean that, but if I tried to eat a Hershey's bar I'd get sick and end up hunched over your toilet."


Liar.  You know you'd like it.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> No, the argument is "you don't have time or resources to check out everything, but you're going to come on a forum and try to make people feel like crap because they ate a piece of chocolate over Christmas."
> 
> It's great if people DO take the time to check things out, but it's often the case people are patting themselves on the back when they haven't put very much time into the scope of what they think they're accomplishing.  Eat a slice of Kraft cheese lately?


Nope.  Aside from their shady business practices, Kraft also uses BGH.




> Then, Gunny, you are still contributing to the problem while simultaneously implying other people are heartless for contributing to the problem.  
> 
> THAT is my point.


So I should just avoid educating anybody that they may be eating slave chocolate?    Because *you* think it's impossible for me to conscientiously avoid products that are produced by slaves, therefore I have no business telling others that we should all be avoiding slave-made products?




> (Oh and I know... I personally don't have Kraft cheese in my home.  It's nasty.  However, you're sure they didn't use it in a restaurant?


I can't afford to eat at restaurants anymore since I basically gave up my whole life for Ron Paul, and then to run for office.  But when I did, yes, I was quite careful about the products I ordered and ate.  I usually only ate in restaurants I had serviced, so I could see for my own eyes if they were clean, where their products came from etc.




> Your friend's house, or family's, at which you ate a holiday meal?  (The last two shouldn't really count, to be fair, since you're not paying for the product.))


For our last holiday dinner, we had stuffed green peppers with meatloaf made from wild deer.  I educate my own family on these things first.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Liar.  You know you'd like it.


I get waves of revulsion just thinking about it.

----------


## dannno

There's nothing wrong with avoiding slave labor products and educating people about what they are eating and where it comes from. Even if you do other things that are bad. Nobody is claiming to be perfect.

By not eating slave labor chocolate, and instead eating good chocolate, gunny is lowering the demand for slave labor and increasing the demand for consensual labor. Even if he eats something else that is bad for the environment unknowingly or knowingly is completely irrelevant of the fact that he is decreasing the demand for slavery.

----------


## tmosley

I don't eat them, but only because I don't eat chocolate that has any dairy product in it, as that neutralizes much of the health benefit.  100% cocoa bars are about the healthiest thing you could eat, with damn near a whole day's worth of fiber in a single bar.  Of course, most people can't handle that much cocoa.  70 or 80% is almost as good, and tastes much better as well (but the sugar means you can't eat as much as you want).

So I guess I'm glad I'm a chocolate snob, as I haven't bought a product from the aforementioned companies in many years, save an occasional bag of Halloween candy.  That is stopping next year, and will remain that way until I see "Slavery Free" on the packaging.

One would think that it would catch on, as "dolphin safe" did in the 80's and early 90's.

----------


## Dieseler

Chocolate Kills Dogs and gives People Worms.

----------


## dannno

Conservatives like to talk about "personal responsibility" but a lot of them don't seem to like to be responsible for knowing what they are buying and where it comes from. That doesn't mean you need to research every little thing you buy, but guess what? You COULD. And the more you do the better.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I don't eat them, but only because I don't eat chocolate that has any dairy product in it, as that neutralizes much of the health benefit.  100% cocoa bars are about the healthiest thing you could eat, with damn near a whole day's worth of fiber in a single bar.  Of course, most people can't handle that much cocoa.  70 or 80% is almost as good, and tastes much better as well (but the sugar means you can't eat as much as you want).
> 
> So I guess I'm glad I'm a chocolate snob, as I haven't bought a product from the aforementioned companies in many years, save an occasional bag of Halloween candy.  That is stopping next year, and will remain that way until I see "Slavery Free" on the packaging.
> 
> One would think that it would catch on, as "dolphin safe" did in the 80's and early 90's.


Except (IIRC) Hershey's (or was it ADM?) sued to ban such labeling, just like Monsanto sued to ban "BGH Free" labels on milk and cheese.

I agree 100% that if those who produced slavery-free chocolate were allowed to label it such, that would really put pressure on the big guys.  People would start to wonder, "Why isn't this other chocolate labeled 'slavery free?'  they would do their own research, and Hershey's etc would start to lose heavily on the bottom line until they fixed their business practices.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Most cocoa is sold through brokers who buy the cocoa from numerous sources. It is nearly impossible to know if you are eating "slave" chocolate or not. I like Hershey's with almonds. 

Most of the world's cocoa comes from the Ivory Coast and is considered a "slave labor" produces because children have been observed helping with the crops- but most of the farms are family run and the kids help the rest of the family out.  Is that slavery? I am not claiming that slavery does not occur or that workers may or may not be misused or abused just that knowing what you are getting is difficult at best. Wikki says that up to 12,000 children in the Ivory Coast are believed to be slaves- out of 200,000 children working there or six percent.  If that is proportional then six percent of Ivory Coast cocoa would be from slave labor (probably a lower percent if you include adults workers). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childre...coa_production  The Ivory Coast provides 46% of the world's cocoa. This would seem to indicate that less than five percent of all cocoa comes from slave labor. 




> [edit] 2005
> A report from the International Labor Organization noted that of the 200,000 children working on cocoa farms in the Ivory Coast, 12,000 are not working with or in the vicinity of their relatives, suggesting possible trafficking in a maximum of 6% of cases of child labor.[1]


Gold is also produced from slave labor- as is silver and other minerals.  Are people here willing to avoid buying gold or silver for the same reason?

http://www.idexonline.com/portal_FullNews.asp?id=32952



> The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DROC), Liberia and Sierra Leone use child labor in their diamond activities, according to a recent report by the U.S. Department of Labor. Sierra Leone is also accused of using forced labor in its diamond industry. The three are just a few of the countries that are accused of using children to produce a long list of products that also includes gold, silver and gems.
> 
> 
> These three countries are all diamond producing countries and do not have any meaningful manufacturing or diamond cutting operations. It is therefore understood that the child and forced labor is taking place in diamond mining in these countries.
> 
> 
> 
> The report also states that children are working in India’s gem industry and that child labor is heavily used in gold mining too. Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Colombia, DROC, Ecuador, Ghana, Guinea, Indonesia, Mali, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Niger, North Korea, Peru, Philippines, Senegal and Tanzania are listed in this connection.
> 
> ...

----------


## dannno

> Why stop at chocolate... the Department of Labor has a 194-page document about slave labor products.  
> 
> http://www.dol.gov/ilab/programs/ocft/PDF/2009TVPRA.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> What one notices is that the same country names are on the list again and again.  It's obvious that some governments are far more prone than others to look the other way, and some of the names on the list are in a desperate state.
> 
> A short list of items on the list which, at least in part, come from "forced labor":
> ...


There are a lot of forced government monopolies and our monetary policy and world banks have a lot to do with slavery existing today in the first place. 

You are correct that it would be very difficult if not impossible to live life without buying or utilizing slave labor in some form.

But when you KNOW that the hershey bar has some slave labor mixed in there, and you know you can buy a different bar of chocolate that isn't slave labor, then only by being educated will that option be at least seriously considered.

----------


## Dieseler

It's difficult to smoke a blunt without wondering if someone might not have been beheaded over that particular sample.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> There's nothing wrong with avoiding slave labor products and educating people about what they are eating and where it comes from. Even if you do other things that are bad. Nobody is claiming to be perfect.
> 
> By not eating slave labor chocolate, and instead eating good chocolate, gunny is lowering the demand for slave labor and increasing the demand for consensual labor. Even if he eats something else that is bad for the environment unknowingly or knowingly is completely irrelevant of the fact that he is decreasing the demand for slavery.





> Conservatives like to talk about "personal responsibility" but a lot of them don't seem to like to be responsible for knowing what they are buying and where it comes from. That doesn't mean you need to research every little thing you buy, but guess what? You COULD. And the more you do the better.


Thanks! I appreciate it, and I agree.  Even if we individually can't do much, man, we gotta do SOMETHING!  I've tried writing to Hershey's etc, and all I got was "we can't control the practices of our vendors" nonsense.  I've tried writing Congress and got "That's not my problem" letters.  So I do the only thing left I can do -- boycot them personally, and tell everybody I know about their business practices.

And I really DO make a serious effort to avoid slavery produced products in every way I can.  I am nearly insane with the research I have to do now before buying any product, since our world is so infested with evil right now.

I only buy made in Florida or Hawaii sugar, I go to specialty shops for my coffee, I pick electronics manufacturers who, while many do source in China, at least pay their workers a decent wage compared to other electronics manufacturers.

But chocolate is the biggie.  No other example in the world is even half as evil.  If we could end chocolate slavery, we'd end at least HALF of this evil remaining in the world today.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Chocolate Kills Dogs and gives People Worms.


I knew it killed dogs, had no idea it gave people worms.  o O

----------


## dannno

> I like Hershey's with almonds.


Why do you like Hershey with Almonds when it is the worst tasting and guarenteed to be mixed with slave labor? 

I can get a bar that is guaranteed to be slave labor free and tastes much better. But I can't get it on demand. Convenience. I understand. That's reasonable. Hershey is available at grocery stores and gas stations. The better chocolate is available at higher end grocery stores only. 

I still think that chocolate companies should have free speech and be able to say 'slave labor free'. If the label is wrong, people can call them out. But if you don't allow it on the label, then everybody is uninformed.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Most cocoa is sold through brokers who buy the cocoa from numerous sources. It is nearly impossible to know if you are eating "slave" chocolate or not. I like Hershey's with almonds.


Actually, it's very easy to know if your chocolate is slavery free.  there are free trade chocolates that are safe, organic chocolate is all safe (organic, like free-trade, must be certified, and no slave-grown cocoa has every been certified organic)

It's just a matter of paying attention to your sources.  Most of your single source plantation chocolates are safe, especially those in South America...but I usually go with free-trade certified as they ate 100% guaranteed to be safe.

Same with coffee.




> Most of the world's cocoa comes from the Ivory Coast and is considered a "slave labor" produces because children have been observed helping with the crops- but most of the farms are family run and the kids help the rest of the family out.  Is that slavery? I am not claiming that slavery does not occur or that workers may or may not be misused or abused just that knowing what you are getting is difficult at best. Wikki says that up to 12,000 children in the Ivory Coast are believed to be slaves- out of 200,000 children working there or six percent.  If that is proportional then six percent of Ivory Coast cocoa would be from slave labor (probably a lower percent if you include adults workers). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childre...coa_production  The Ivory Coast provides 46% of the world's cocoa. This would seem to indicate that less than five percent of all cocoa comes from slave labor.


Actually, we don't think there is slave labor because children are seen helping with the crops, we know there is slave labor because we have uncovered mass graves, and investigates child-theft rings, and heard from children who escaped telling stories of other stolen children being beaten to death, and made to pick cocoa without food or water until they died.

But hey, if it helps to assuage your conscience...




> Gold is also produced from slave labor.  Are people here willing to avoid buyin gold for the same reason?
> 
> http://www.idexonline.com/portal_FullNews.asp?id=32952


Another good reason to stick with US manufactured silver.  Though, I am sure you can find slave-free gold also, you just have to do a little research.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Does US manufactured gold come only from US gold supplies?  Hershey's is US manufactured chocolate.

----------


## rancher89

Great thread Gunny!  I too have been absent from rpf's for quite a while.  I'll show up from time to time just to see what's up.

I stockpile at least 80% natural chocolate for munching and try to find 90% + when I can.  I love the chili chocolate and like the orange almost as much.

It sucks that Ben & Jerry's has slacked on the sourcing of their chocolate, letter will get sent today re: my not buying anymore of any of their ice cream until they straighten up.  I'll be sure to pat them on the back for continuing to use "real" milk from "real" cows.....I think they will feel the pinch of my not buying their product....LOL

The two containers of hershey's cocoa that I use for baking pumpernickle bread will have to go I suppose....they are close to a year old.....crap...........  8-(

I too try, to the best of my low budget way, buy USA and locally grown.  I'm sure that I fail, but I do try.

I need new sneakers and I'm already stressing the sourcing on those......

----------


## coyote_sprit

I prefer Mars>Nestle>Hershey and could give two $#@!s where the beans come from.

----------


## constituent

I don't know, the fact that humans sacrifice their lives and liberty to bring little 'ol me something as sweet and delicious as a chocolate bar kinda makes it taste that much better.

----------


## MN Patriot

Our mighty Congress to the rescue!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6517695.stm




> In 2001, under pressure from the US Congress, the chocolate manufacturers promised to start eradicating forced child labour. They failed to meet an initial deadline of 2005, were given until 2008, and now patience is running out.
> 
> Sanctions threat
> 
> Next year, Congress is expected to draft legislation against the global chocolate industry, unless serious inroads are finally made against children being forced to work on cocoa farms.
> 
> "The deadline came and went and we were very unhappy," says Democrat Congressman Eliot Engel, who initiated the original agreement known as the Cocoa Protocol.
> 
> "They now need to live up to that agreement. If they don't, personally I would be for implementing some sanctions, because I think six years is enough."
> ...


Which brings up some interesting questions: 
If we had a Ron Paul / non-interventionist foreign policy, would issues like child labor be any of our business?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Great thread Gunny!  I too have been absent from rpf's for quite a while.  I'll show up from time to time just to see what's up.
> 
> I stockpile at least 80% natural chocolate for munching and try to find 90% + when I can.  I love the chili chocolate and like the orange almost as much.
> 
> It sucks that Ben & Jerry's has slacked on the sourcing of their chocolate, letter will get sent today re: my not buying anymore of any of their ice cream until they straighten up.  I'll be sure to pat them on the back for continuing to use "real" milk from "real" cows.....I think they will feel the pinch of my not buying their product....LOL
> 
> The two containers of hershey's cocoa that I use for baking pumpernickle bread will have to go I suppose....they are close to a year old.....crap...........  8-(
> 
> I too try, to the best of my low budget way, buy USA and locally grown.  I'm sure that I fail, but I do try.
> ...


It ain't easy, that's for sure.  Tho if the choice is between eating it or the garbage, I'm conflicted.  Is it more of an insult to those children to just throw it away?  But then, if you are like me, the thought of it haunts you if you try and eat it. :sigh:

I'm not an "organic nut" but I tend to pick organics because I happen to know that the organic people refuse to certify slavers.  Same with coffee, cocoa, sugar, etc etc.  Free Trade, Organic, Made in USA, people wonder why I spend hours at the grocery store looking stuff up on my iPhone before putting it into my cart LOL!

I remember once standing in a Fresh Market researching a chocolate brand, couldn't find the info, so I called the company with the product in my hand to ask where they got their cocoa from.  In the end I went with another brand (they didn't know and couldn't speculate .. hmm) but it led to a great opportunity to educate the guy behind the counter who kept trying to help me.

----------


## LibertyMage

I wish I had enough time to learn about all the companies I should boycott because of shady practices.  Thanks for pointing this out.

----------


## BenIsForRon

I try to buy most of my gas from Citgo, because they have financed less assassinations than the other oil companies.  They also buy a lot from Venezuela, so you know that a higher portion of your money will end up being spent on people as opposed to palaces for kings.

It's still very much a lesser of the evils situation.




> I wish I had enough time to learn about all the companies I should boycott because of shady practices.  Thanks for pointing this out.


That's why its just best to try and by most of your food from local sources.  Avoid the corporate food structure all together.

----------


## coyote_sprit

> I try to buy most of my gas from Citgo, because they have financed less assassinations than the other oil companies.  They also buy a lot from Venezuela, so you know that a higher portion of your money will end up being spent on people as opposed to palaces for kings.
> 
> It's still very much a lesser of the evils situation.
> 
> 
> 
> That's why its just best to try and by most of your food from local sources.  Avoid the corporate food structure all together.



I buy my gas from BP...

----------


## constituent

> I buy my gas from BP...


really?  I get mine here.

----------


## dannno

> Which brings up some interesting questions: 
> If we had a Ron Paul / non-interventionist foreign policy, would issues like child labor be any of our business?


Yes, it would be our decision whether to support it or not.. by either buying it or not buying it.

That's one of the reasons I find this thread highly appropriate to be on this forum.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Our mighty Congress to the rescue!
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6517695.stm
> 
> 
> 
> Which brings up some interesting questions: 
> If we had a Ron Paul / non-interventionist foreign policy, would issues like child labor be any of our business?


Yes.  The Constitution gives the Federal Government the direct responsibility to regulate foreign trade.  A law stating "it is illegal to buy from and sell to slaver states" would be entirely within the bounds of the Constitution.

Plus, it was "trade and diplomacy" which Ron Paul stated that he would use to influence other nations instead of war.  Is not a policy stating "We will buy from free states, but deny trade with slaver states" not the very definition of influencing policy through trade and diplomacy?

----------


## MelissaWV

> So I should just avoid educating anybody that they may be eating slave chocolate?    Because *you* think it's impossible for me to conscientiously avoid products that are produced by slaves, therefore I have no business telling others that we should all be avoiding slave-made products?
> 
> I can't afford to eat at restaurants anymore since I basically gave up my whole life for Ron Paul, and then to run for office.  But when I did, yes, I was quite careful about the products I ordered and ate.  I usually only ate in restaurants I had serviced, so I could see for my own eyes if they were clean, where their products came from etc.
> 
> For our last holiday dinner, we had stuffed green peppers with meatloaf made from wild deer.  I educate my own family on these things first.


Where was the oven made?  

Also, please understand that it's the tone of your posts that inspired ire, not the education.  If you believe the following to be educational:




> So who all ate chocolate mixed with slave-blood over Christmas this year? ... Afraid to admit that you caved? or just forgot that this was an issue?


...then your concept of "education" is a bit off the mark in my opinion.  The lists of companies that do or do not participate in slave labor are of great value, and people can do their best.  They will not, though, ever purge ALL slave labor from every product and service they ever use.  Every component, every bit of metal, every scrap of material that goes into what you purchase (or into making it) cannot be traced reliably.  Asking people "who ate slave blood?" is one of those questions like "who killed babies by smoking pot today?", which the Government loves to use.  

Now, purchasing from what one knows are companies TRYING to do the right thing?  That's great.  When you have the choice, do that.  Boycotting, though, without explaining WHY you're doing it, is just stupid.  Your not purchasing a Hershey bar because it's slave chocolate doesn't even make a dent.  In fact, you could give up chocolate altogether and it hardly registers on the radar.  Now, the success of companies who DO use more humane methods, even if their chocolate costs a wee bit more... that starts to register after awhile.  I've already said I think that advertising one's chocolate as "slavery free" would be a great marketing tactic that isn't being used.  It also gets people to question why Hershey, Nestle, etc. aren't making similar claims.

I could easily ask "who ate slave blood mac & cheese?" or who fed it to their kids, but I don't see that as particularly educational.  Your original posts were educational, and even typing "bump for the holidays" would have been educational.  How can you not see a difference?

I have two more points to make, and I'd like you to think about them.  The first is a hypothetical:  If Hershey stops using slave cocoa tomorrow, would you use their products?  The trouble here is, if the answer is "yes" then aren't you ignoring the fact they are building their "clean" image on the backs of all those years of using slave cocoa?  If the ansewr is "no" then there's no incentive for these companies to stop, is there?  They're doomed, so they may as well keep their costs as low as possible.  As an aside, if it is in fact proper to punish companies for using slave labor during their foundation and as part of their profits, then how long does that stigma last?  Should we still be boycotting companies which had any part in profits/technological benefits from Nazi Germany, and the camps/experiments that took place there?

The second is simply another list, which I will post separately   If we're being consistent, as I mentioned, Kraft should be boycotted.  They are more than just cheese and cheese products... though thankfully most RPF members avoid overprocessed convenience garbage, so most of the list is moot.

----------


## MelissaWV

As promised, Kraft makes:

100 Calorie Packs
A1
Arrowroot
Athenos
Baker's Chocolate
Bagel-Fuls
Balance Bars
Barnum Animal Crackers
Boca (as in Boca Burgers)
Breakstone's 
Bull's-Eye BBQ
California Pizza Kitchen
Cameo
Capri Sun
Caramels
Cheez Whiz
Chips Ahoy
Claussen
Cool Whip
Corn Nuts
Country Time
Crystal Light
Deli Creations
DiGiorno
Easy Cheese
Easy Mac
Garden Harvest Toasted Chips
General Foods International Coffees
Gevalia
Ginger Snaps
Good Seasons
Grey Poupon
Honey Maid
Jell-O
Jet-Puffed Marshmallows
Knox Gelatin
Knudsen
Kool-Aid
Kraft Cheese Nips
Kraft Deluxe
Kraft Handi-Snacks
Kraft Mayo with Olive Oil
Kraft Natural Cheese
Kraft Parmesan
Kraft Salad Dressing
Kraft Singles
Light 'n Lively
Live Active
Lunchables
Macaroni & Cheese
Mallomars
Maxwell House
Miracle Whip
Nabisco
Newtons
Nilla Wafers
Nutter Butter
Oreo
Oscar Mayer
Peek Freans
Philadelphia Cream Cheese
Planters Nuts
Polly-O
Premium
Red Oval Farms
Ritz Crackers
Snackwell's 
South Beach Living
Stove Top Stuffing
Sure-Jell
Taco Bell Home Originals
Tang
Teddy Grahams
Toasted Chips
Triscuit
Velveeta
Wheat Thins
Wheatsworth
Yuban 
Zweiback

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> As promised, Kraft makes:
> 
> 100 Calorie Packs
> A1
> Arrowroot
> Athenos
> Baker's Chocolate
> Bagel-Fuls
> Balance Bars
> ...


Great!  Nothing on that list!

----------


## dannno

I don't buy anything on that list, either. I did have some triscuits over Christmas, they were spread out on a plate for everyone.

It's really easy... just don't shop at super markets. There are a lot of people who are really conscious about what they eat, and there are plenty of alternative stores. Those stores have things that are expensive, but you can find a lot of healthy food at those places that isn't expensive at all.. in many cases it's actually cheaper than super markets. And the food that is expensive you can find cheaper from other sources that do not include super markets.

There is plenty of affordable food out there that isn't manufactured and sold to the entire population via television commercials. If it is on TV and it has a colorful shiny package, it's probably bad some how.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Where was the oven made?  
> 
> Also, please understand that it's the tone of your posts that inspired ire, not the education.  If you believe the following to be educational:


you started giving me hell over this in the other thread where I had raised the issue, before I had even posted in this one again.  And when it comes to chocolate specifically, I have learned that's the only kind of imagery that works.  That's why Hershey's has the kind of hold on people it does.  People are addicted.  We didn't even make an inch of progress on the diamond slavery rings until people started calling them blood-diamonds, and now diamond slavery is almost wiped out completely.

And the phrase is even more appropriate for chocolate than diamonds, as more people..._children_...die to get you that Hershey bar than ever died to get you that diamond.

You don't like it?  Oh well.  I hope it makes you gag the next time you try and eat a Hershey bar, thinking about all the dead children, with their blood spilling out around the roots of the cocoa bushes.

Nothing else works, so I resort to drastic measures.  I don't fight a battle to lose, I fight to win.  The slave-chocolate battle is one I have been fighting for a long, long time.  Unless you really drive the point home that children are _dying_ to get them that Hershey bar, they just don't care.  And that's not rhetoric, that plain fact.

Sorry this makes it tough to enjoy your Hershey bar.  Well, not sorry at all really.  We hit enough of their business, take enough off their bottom line, maybe they will reform their practices.

If people like you don't give a damn and keep buying their product, then they have no motivation to change.  So I will use every tool I have available, even telling you that Hershey bars mix a pint of slave-blood into every gallon of chocolate they produce.  Really let you visualize the thing.

If that's what I gotta do to impact their bottom line -- a gigantic company like Hershey's then that's what I'll do.  Because you know what?  If Hershey's stops buying slave chocolate, so will Mars, and so will Kraft.




> ...then your concept of "education" is a bit off the mark in my opinion.  The lists of companies that do or do not participate in slave labor are of great value, and people can do their best.  They will not, though, ever purge ALL slave labor from every product and service they ever use.  Every component, every bit of metal, every scrap of material that goes into what you purchase (or into making it) cannot be traced reliably.  Asking people "who ate slave blood?" is one of those questions like "who killed babies by smoking pot today?", which the Government loves to use.  
> 
> Now, purchasing from what one knows are companies TRYING to do the right thing?  That's great.  When you have the choice, do that.  Boycotting, though, without explaining WHY you're doing it, is just stupid.  Your not purchasing a Hershey bar because it's slave chocolate doesn't even make a dent.  In fact, you could give up chocolate altogether and it hardly registers on the radar.  Now, the success of companies who DO use more humane methods, even if their chocolate costs a wee bit more... that starts to register after awhile.  I've already said I think that advertising one's chocolate as "slavery free" would be a great marketing tactic that isn't being used.  It also gets people to question why Hershey, Nestle, etc. aren't making similar claims.
> 
> I could easily ask "who ate slave blood mac & cheese?" or who fed it to their kids, but I don't see that as particularly educational.  Your original posts were educational, and even typing "bump for the holidays" would have been educational.  How can you not see a difference?
> 
> I have two more points to make, and I'd like you to think about them.  The first is a hypothetical:  If Hershey stops using slave cocoa tomorrow, would you use their products?  The trouble here is, if the answer is "yes" then aren't you ignoring the fact they are building their "clean" image on the backs of all those years of using slave cocoa?  If the ansewr is "no" then there's no incentive for these companies to stop, is there?  They're doomed, so they may as well keep their costs as low as possible.  As an aside, if it is in fact proper to punish companies for using slave labor during their foundation and as part of their profits, then how long does that stigma last?  Should we still be boycotting companies which had any part in profits/technological benefits from Nazi Germany, and the camps/experiments that took place there?
> 
> The second is simply another list, which I will post separately   If we're being consistent, as I mentioned, Kraft should be boycotted.  They are more than just cheese and cheese products... though thankfully most RPF members avoid overprocessed convenience garbage, so most of the list is moot.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I don't buy anything on that list, either. I did have some triscuits over Christmas, they were spread out on a plate for everyone.
> 
> It's really easy... just don't shop at super markets. There are a lot of people who are really conscious about what they eat, and there are plenty of alternative stores. Those stores have things that are expensive, but you can find a lot of healthy food at those places that isn't expensive at all.. in many cases it's actually cheaper than super markets. And the food that is expensive you can find cheaper from other sources that do not include super markets.
> 
> There is plenty of affordable food out there that isn't manufactured and sold to the entire population via television commercials. *If it is on TV and it has a colorful shiny package, it's probably bad some how.*


*QFT* (emphasis added)

----------


## coyote_sprit

> *QFT* (emphasis added)


What about Budweiser?

----------


## Ninja Homer

> What about Budweiser?


Watch Beer Wars.  Anheuser-Busch is evil.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> What about Budweiser?


Dunno anything about them.  Never did the research, I only drink micro-brews.  Had a roommate that liked Busweiser, I tried one and couldn't drink it.  Tasted like stale water with texture.

----------


## coyote_sprit

> Watch Beer Wars.  Anheuser-Busch is evil.


What about Samuel Adams? I hear it's always a good decision.

----------


## Mini-Me

> Where was the oven made?  
> 
> Also, please understand that it's the tone of your posts that inspired ire, not the education.  If you believe the following to be educational:
> 
> 
> 
> ...then your concept of "education" is a bit off the mark in my opinion.  The lists of companies that do or do not participate in slave labor are of great value, and people can do their best.  They will not, though, ever purge ALL slave labor from every product and service they ever use.  Every component, every bit of metal, every scrap of material that goes into what you purchase (or into making it) cannot be traced reliably.  Asking people "who ate slave blood?" is one of those questions like "who killed babies by smoking pot today?", which the Government loves to use.  
> 
> Now, purchasing from what one knows are companies TRYING to do the right thing?  That's great.  When you have the choice, do that.  Boycotting, though, without explaining WHY you're doing it, is just stupid.  Your not purchasing a Hershey bar because it's slave chocolate doesn't even make a dent.  In fact, you could give up chocolate altogether and it hardly registers on the radar.  Now, the success of companies who DO use more humane methods, even if their chocolate costs a wee bit more... that starts to register after awhile.  I've already said I think that advertising one's chocolate as "slavery free" would be a great marketing tactic that isn't being used.  It also gets people to question why Hershey, Nestle, etc. aren't making similar claims.
> ...


Here's my best guess as to why competitors are NOT marketing their chocolate as "slavery free," and why this problem still exists in the first place:
I can't cite a specific law, but I'm fairly certain marketing regulations make it illegal to differentiate your product in this way.   We all know who to thank for that.

----------


## MN Patriot

If we had a Ron Paul / non-interventionist foreign policy, would issues like child labor be any of our business?



> Yes.  The Constitution gives the Federal Government the direct responsibility to regulate foreign trade.  A law stating "it is illegal to buy from and sell to slaver states" would be entirely within the bounds of the Constitution.
> 
> Plus, it was "trade and diplomacy" which Ron Paul stated that he would use to influence other nations instead of war.  Is not a policy stating "We will buy from free states, but deny trade with slaver states" not the very definition of influencing policy through trade and diplomacy?


Good answer. But then I got to thinking more about it, doesn't "influencing trade" violate free market principles? Should the federal government tell American companies and consumers who they can do business with? And if the Congress start deciding who we can trade with, all sorts of insider deals are apt to be made. Especially if there is no income tax to fund government, but tariffs and excise taxes like those that originally funded the federal government.

This also ties in with national security. Didn't Lenin say capitalists will sell them the rope that will be used to hang them with? Trade restrictions makes sense, but can be abused by Establishment insiders to limit competitor's business. 

Dealing with the harsh realities of tyranny certainly opens a can of worms.

----------


## MelissaWV

Gunny.  I'm not going to fight with you over timelines.  You bumped this thread with the blood comment.  

My point with asking about the stove is that you're being a bit unfair.  The products you buy are all blood-free?  Awesome.  Were all of the machines used to make them?  All the packaging?  All the warehouses?  Your money is going all manner of places, and potentially right back to the institutions you're saying so proudly that you avoid.  To characterize some folks as not giving a $#@! and enjoying the blood of slaves, while you are most likely indirectly supporting slavery somewhere along the line, is a little bit overboard.

Now, great, education's getting accomplished.  That's grand.  Just stop STILL trying to take the mountain top by saying "you don't care!  You don't care!" over and over.  It doesn't become you.

----------


## ChaosControl

Ugh disgusting, here I thought this was going to be about rat droppings falling into the mixes.

I won't be buying that crap again, thanks for informing me.

Well I was going to stop anyway, I have planned on going Vegan and in time I want to get only organic fruits and veggies.

In addition to the horrible things these disgusting corporations do, all the processed junk is incredibly bad for you. People really need to go back to the basic naturals. We'd see so many diseases disappear, life spans would increase dramatically, and we'd do away with these barbaric practices.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> If we had a Ron Paul / non-interventionist foreign policy, would issues like child labor be any of our business?
> 
> 
> Good answer. But then I got to thinking more about it, doesn't "influencing trade" violate free market principles? Should the federal government tell American companies and consumers who they can do business with? And if the Congress start deciding who we can trade with, all sorts of insider deals are apt to be made. Especially if there is no income tax to fund government, but tariffs and excise taxes like those that originally funded the federal government.
> 
> This also ties in with national security. Didn't Lenin say capitalists will sell them the rope that will be used to hang them with? Trade restrictions makes sense, but can be abused by Establishment insiders to limit competitor's business. 
> 
> Dealing with the harsh realities of tyranny certainly opens a can of worms.


All excellent points.

Mercantilism can be very corruptible, but should be at least as answerable to...an _informed_ electorate...as the gov _could_ be right now...if the electorate were actually informed.  I will say that I'd rather be under a corrupt mercantile state than a corrupt warfare state.  But then that's like asking if you want to be murdered or raped...

I think we could progress toward the mercantilistic state, but the highest priority needs to be given to creating a _tradition_ of an informed electorate.

I mean, an informed electorate in and of itself lasts maybe one generation.  But if we can ingrain a _tradition_ into the fabric of society that specifically prides itself on being an informed electorate, that could last for a century or two.

The bottom line is that any form of American government, absent an informed electorate, will always fall to corruption.  The symptom is the corrupt government, the root is an uninformed electorate.  Strike the root by creating an informed electorate.  Create an informed electorate by weaving a tradition of an informed electorate into the fabric of society.

Now we are talking about using the tools of social engineering to undo the damage of the social engineers.  They have woven into society this tradition that says "it's the duty of every American to vote -- if you don't vote, you can't complain."  If we can manage to weave a NEW tradition, that says "it's the duty of every American to be informed about their candidates -- if you don't know about the candidates, you can't vote."

If we can ingrain this idea into society as a tradition, then this, and only this will truly help make things right long term.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Ugh disgusting, here I thought this was going to be about rat droppings falling into the mixes.
> 
> I won't be buying that crap again, thanks for informing me.
> 
> Well I was going to stop anyway, I have planned on going Vegan and in time I want to get only organic fruits and veggies.
> 
> In addition to the horrible things these disgusting corporations do, all the processed junk is incredibly bad for you. People really need to go back to the basic naturals. We'd see so many diseases disappear, life spans would increase dramatically, and we'd do away with these barbaric practices.


Anytime, and sorry for the graphic language -- I've been after this demon for a decade now, and I get frustrated with so little progress...

----------


## BenIsForRon

> If we had a Ron Paul / non-interventionist foreign policy, would issues like child labor be any of our business?
> 
> 
> Good answer. But then I got to thinking more about it, doesn't "influencing trade" violate free market principles? Should the federal government tell American companies and consumers who they can do business with? And if the Congress start deciding who we can trade with, all sorts of insider deals are apt to be made. Especially if there is no income tax to fund government, but tariffs and excise taxes like those that originally funded the federal government.
> 
> This also ties in with national security. Didn't Lenin say capitalists will sell them the rope that will be used to hang them with? Trade restrictions makes sense, but can be abused by Establishment insiders to limit competitor's business. 
> 
> Dealing with the harsh realities of tyranny certainly opens a can of worms.


If a market has slaves, it is not a free market.  So banning or reducing trade with a society that utilizes slaves would not be any more anti-free market than trading with them, IMO.

----------


## Mini-Me

> If a market has slaves, it is not a free market.  So banning or reducing trade with a society that utilizes slaves would not be any more anti-free market than trading with them, IMO.


Sure, but that's assuming everyone you're banning trade with is a guilty party.  If we allow government to make very general laws and treaties banning trade with specific countries, we end up depriving completely unrelated people of business by force (and depriving Americans of business with said people).  If we allow government to make specific and arbitrary laws and treaties - as it does today - we end up with similar problems (except deliberately crafted to serve special interests), e.g. NAFTA and the WTO.

Honestly, I think companies like Hershey and Nestle would be hurting in a heartbeat if consumers had full access to information.  I think the biggest problem here is that advertising regulations put a muzzle on competitors.  I mean, if detergent companies have to say, _"better than the OTHER leading brand (but we're not naming names!),"_ do you really think anyone is allowed to say, _"Our chocolate is slavery-free!"_?  I long for the day that competitors can say, _"Our chocolate is slavery free...UNLIKE HERSHEY AND NESTLE TO NAME A COUPLE OFFENDERS,"_ right on the air and right on the wrapper.

----------


## Met Income

> If a market has slaves, it is not a free market.  So banning or reducing trade with a society that utilizes slaves would not be any more anti-free market than trading with them, IMO.


The answer to slavery is not more slavery (government).

----------


## FindLiberty

Central planner/Military-Industrial Complex _dream solution_ - code name *SIP* - *S*lavery *I*nterdiction *P*lan:  

1) Agent Orange is applied to fields (and also sprayed right onto the children working in them) via US DEA aircraft in order to put a ham-fisted end to all this suffering.  

2a) Poison chocolate eventually makes it's way through to the consumer.  Outrage, lame excuses, angry finger pointing, denials, MSM organs produce slick hit pieces and endless propaganda ensues. 

2b) The CIA is ordered to negotiate corporate assassination contracts with Russian FSB agents who can (then legally?) complete the mission to wipe out the entire management of evil corporation(s).

3) Premium prices will eventually be paid for non-slave, non-poisoned chocolate.

_there, problem solved!_

Now I'm going to *SIP* down a nice hot cup of hot cocoa w/tiny petrified mini-marshmallows (I like the Nestle's/Carnation brand the most) and relax while the chocolate supply is still only tainted with blood.

----------


## BenIsForRon

> Sure, but that's assuming everyone you're banning trade with is a guilty party.  If we allow government to make very general laws and treaties banning trade with specific countries, we end up depriving completely unrelated people of business by force (and depriving Americans of business with said people).  If we allow government to make specific and arbitrary laws and treaties - as it does today - we end up with similar problems (except deliberately crafted to serve special interests), e.g. NAFTA and the WTO.


Only the dictators and their minions benefit when you trade with a country that relies on coerced labor.  American businesses may benefit, but I certainly don't want them to.

Think about the system you're setting yourself up with.  Slave labor is cheaper, so the products it produces will be more competitive in the marketplace (especially if the general populace is uninformed). People not utilizing slave labor will have a lot of trouble bringing costs low enough to compete.

 A good solution is to send your business (purchasing cocoa beans) to a country that respects basic human rights.  That way, your economy builds because it is still doing business, and the country you're doing business with is rewarded because they don't allow their citizens to become property.  The slave holding country, on the other hand, has to find another buyer, and will hopefully face some sort of revolution in the meantime.

So yeah, it's always better to trade with a country/company without slaves, if you're thinking beyond pure profit motives.

----------


## BuddyRey

Oh wow...I was about to grab some Dove Chocolate out of the pantry, but I think I've lost my sweet-tooth.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Oh wow...I was about to grab some Dove Chocolate out of the pantry, but I think I've lost my sweet-tooth.


Yeah, sadly Dove is really _really_ good, but alas it's owned by Mars, who gets their beans from bad places.   On the bright side, there are really plenty of safe (and really good) options.  You just have to know about them, and go through the effort of acquiring them.

----------


## Reason

here you go glen

YouTube - Hershey Sweetening Lives

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> here you go glen
> 
> YouTube - Hershey Sweetening Lives


Thanks CivilRadiant!




> Yeah -- Hershey's only cares about underprivileged kids in the USA -- if they are in Africa however, the policy is: steal em from their parents, sell them to a slaver for $80, and then make em pick cocoa beans until they die. :-(  Do't take my word for it, Google it yourself.  It's a matter of public record. :-(  Folks, please buy slavery-free (free trade, and organic) chocolate until Hershey's reforms their business practices.  You may save the life of a child!


Always on the lookout for an opportunity to do some good in this sick, sad world.  Much appreciate the heads up.


ETA: and further as a direct reply:




> @CivilRadiant I am certain that if Milton Hershey knew what the company was doing with their business on the Ivory Coast today, he'd be rolling in his grave.  I have to believe that Milton himself sincerely wanted to do right by the world, but that it was those who came after him who would put 4 cents on the dollar worth of savings over the lives of thousands of enslaved children every year.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Bumping for relevance

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...80#post5671680

----------


## Natural Citizen

I don't eat or drink Nestle _anything_. For none of the reasons listed, though. Well...it's just about chocolate so I guess that's why.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Free Markets FTW!! 

Ever wonder why Hershey's finally decided to examine the possibility of "ending their reliance on child slavery, one day?" It wasn't the consumer market...not directly anyway.  It seems their _investors_ realized that the practice would damage their financial position at some point in the future (given that 'dead children' doesn't exactly make for a happy chocolate experience) and sued Hershey's to force disclosure of their knowledge of child slavery.  It was right after this (after ~15-20 years of full knowledge) that we finally started seeing some action by Hershey's to change their sourcing practices.  Mind you, this action is still only inches on a football field so far, but it's a lot better than 5 years ago when they were still working on sourcing _MORE_ slaver beans rather than less.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...-files-1-.html

Bottom line is there has been a lot of good news on this subject since I raised hell here in 2009.  The situation for chocolate consumers is not nearly as dire as it was in 2009.  Today, if you want to eat chocolate with a clear conscience, there are a wealth of options available, and even the Big 3 are starting to come around, although none of the Big 3 are there yet.  Mars is moving the quickest to adopt slavery free chocolate, followed by Nestlé, and Hershey's in the rear.  Latest official word from Hershey's is they hope to be slavery free by 2020.    Personally, I suspect that Hershey's hopes people will have forgotten about the subject by 2020, but it does not look like that will be happening, and so they will be forced to fulfill their promise.

That means that within another 6 years, you could even buy a *Hershey's* bar without contributing to slavery!!!! 

I've been on this blood-chocolate crusade since some time around 1998, and it is extremely gratifying to finally see real movement in the right direction.  MOST of the positive progress has happened in the last 3 years.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Lindt is a safe choice, despite some websites claiming otherwise.  Lindt says they stopped buying beans from the Ivory Coast in 2006 and source exclusively from Ghana, which nation actively fights cocoa slavery.  If you like Hershey's milk chocolate, give the Lindt Lindor Truffles in milk chocolate a go and see if they don't hit the spot. 

ETA -- Ghana still has a lot of 'child labor' complaints, but in Ghana's case it's from small family farms with the family's own children working on the farm. Which is different.  in my eyes at least.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Cacao nibs.  Much better, in my opinion.

(Will read entire thread shortly.)

----------


## enhanced_deficit

_Yes, I eat Hershey's and or Nestle's, but no, I don't know how they get their cocoa beans_.




> Ever wonder why Hershey's finally decided to examine the possibility of  "ending their reliance on child slavery, one day?" It wasn't the  consumer market...not directly anyway.  It seems their _investors_ realized that the practice would damage their financial position at some point in the future(*given that 'dead children' doesn't exactly make for a happy chocolate experience*)..


EM.

Good point.

On a semi-related, I suspect similar factors are leading to some unhappy "dronegangsta" supporters after initial fondness.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Lindt is a safe choice, despite some websites claiming otherwise.  Lindt says they stopped buying beans from the Ivory Coast in 2006 and source exclusively from Ghana, which nation actively fights cocoa slavery.  If you like Hershey's milk chocolate, give the* Lindt Lindor Truffles in milk chocolate a go and see if they don't hit the spot*. 
> 
> ETA -- Ghana still has a lot of 'child labor' complaints, but in Ghana's case it's from small family farms with the family's own children working on the farm. Which is different.  in my eyes at least.


Get the variety pack, it comes with milk, dark, and white chocolate truffles. I love those things but I only buy them for Christmas. I cannot trust myself with them, I WILL eat the whole bag in one day.

----------


## presence

There was no poll option for 
_
I don't eat Nestle's or Hershey's because they're both SCHWAG chocolate with vanalin, emulsifiers, artificial flavors, and HFC. _ 


I buy free trade, organic cocoa powder and make my own chocolate.

----------


## Suzu

> Well, I expected that the numbers amongst RPF people would be a lot better than the general population, and they really are.  With 31 votes, we are at about 3% (or one person) who knows about the situation and still buys Hershey's.  that's 1/6 of the total of those who know the situation as compared to 1/2 of those who know about the situation yet still buy it amongst the general population.


You really needed a fifth option on the poll, for people who eat chocolate and avoid Hershey and Nestle but have(had) no idea how the chocolate is produced.

As for myself... I am powerless over chocolate. I can't have it in the house. I only eat very dark chocolate when I eat it. I usually buy Lindt or Moser Roth (sold by Aldi's). I hope these are OK in terms of production method.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Poll was posted over 5 years ago.

----------


## jllundqu

> OK here goes.
> 
> There are basically two ways you can buy cocoa beans in Africa.  Either you can buy them directly from the farmer, or you can buy them from a market in a kind of "mix trough" where the beans from hundreds of plantations are dumped into the same bucket.
> 
> It is a lot easier to purchase from the market, because you don't have to track down the plantations.  "Single-Source" cocoa is more expensive because nobody (but the "mix tough" markets) will buy from certain plantations who sell at half the price of single sourcers.
> 
> "Mix tough" cocoa is about 15% cheaper in the Ivory Coast. than mix trough cocoa in other nations that regulate production methods, an 20% cheaper than single source cocoa.
> 
> The vast majority of mix trough cocoa in the Ivory Coast comes from a black market slave trade.
> ...


Source?  Not that I don't believe you, but that's a bold claim.

And yes I know it's an old thread

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> All Hershey's and Nestle's would have to do is to purchase their cocoa from South America, or a different nation in Africa, pay maybe 15%-20% more, and the slavery plantations would go extinct from the lack of a market.


 Unlikely.  More likely that some other buyer would simply take advantage of the opportunity.




> Yes, I have been on a crusade about "Blood Chocolate" for almost a decade now.  Although this may be the first time I have raised cain about it since giving myself over to the Ron Paul effort.


 And yet, have you ever been to the Ivory Coast?

It is very likely that the actual situation is very different than you imagine.  And even if there _is_ a problem,
It is very likely that your proposed solution would solve nothing.

----------


## Suzu

> Poll was posted over 5 years ago.


It appeared in "New Posts" today.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Unlikely.  More likely that some other buyer would simply take advantage of the opportunity.


Because another buyer would clearly turn the same volume as Hershey's, Nestlé, and Mars combined.




> And yet, have you ever been to the Ivory Coast?


No, but I've never been to Nazi Germany either, and I still know that stuffing people into gas chambers and ovens is bad.




> It is very likely that the actual situation is very different than you imagine.  And even if there _is_ a problem,


Yes, because I have been studying this problem for only 15 years, therefore I know less about it than you, who has been at it a whole 15 minutes.




> It is very likely that your proposed solution would solve nothing.


Yes, because cocoa slavers will continue to do their thing even if nobody is buying their products.  You see, it's not about money, it's about having fun!  Buying, selling, and killing child slaves is so much fun that they would continue to do so even at a serious economic loss.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Because another buyer would clearly turn the same volume as Hershey's, Nestlé, and Mars combined.


 Are you informed as to the level of fragmentation in the chocolate market?  Could you inform us?




> No, but I've never been to Nazi Germany either, and I still know that stuffing people into gas chambers and ovens is bad.


 Excellent!  Agreed.




> Yes, because I have been studying this problem for only 15 years, therefore I know less about it than you, who has been at it a whole 15 minutes.


 Less.

Did you also do in-depth research on the Kony problem?  And how long has Al Gore been concerned about global warming?

Caring about something for years does not guarantee you have reached the correct conclusions about it.

It can be dangerous to embark on grand crusades against people and regarding places of which one is fundamentally ignorant.




> Yes, because cocoa slavers will continue to do their thing even if nobody is buying their products.


 No, they actually would not.  

What I would cast doubt on is your certainty that:

1. There _are_ cocoa slavers
2. You know exactly who they are, where they are, and to whom they are selling
3. You know exactly how to put a stop to this: by pressuring some buyers to stop buying, the slavers will go bust, rather than what economic law would suggest to us: if some buyers to stop buying they will lower their prices even further and other buyers will be attracted to purchase at these lucrative prices instead.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Are you informed as to the level of fragmentation in the chocolate market?  Could you inform us?


It's already described in this thread.  The logistic problem stems from open mix troughs in the Ivory Coast's market.  A bunch of sellers, 50% of which are slavers, sell to a market that mixes all the beans into an open trough.  Then the suppliers come and buy from those open troughs and in turn sells the beans to Hershey's et al.  They would pay 15-20% more to source their beans 100 miles down the coast where there are no slaver beans, and since mainstream chocolate is only ~10% cocoa you are looking at a total increase in cost of around 2% to avoid slavery altogether.




> Excellent!  Agreed.
> 
>  Less.


so you have looked at the problem for _less_ than 15 minutes, and you just randomly assert that I am wrong about everything when I have been studying the problem for over 15 years.  Can you see why someone may think you are not being rational?




> Did you also do in-depth research on the Kony problem?


I researched it enough to know that by the time anybody started to get worked up in the US over it, it had already been over for 2 years.




> And how long has Al Gore been concerned about global warming?


Because I have a history of demonstrating a similar lack of intelligence and integrity as Al Gore, and because I will somehow make a billion dollars off of nding cocoa slavery the way Algore would make a billion dollars off of his carbon credit schemes.




> Caring about something for years does not guarantee you have reached the correct conclusions about it.


Neither does just imagining stuff in lieu of actual, you know, research, mean that you have even the first clue.




> It can be dangerous to embark on grand crusades against people and regarding places of which one is fundamentally ignorant.


Again, I will remind you that this has been an issue for me for over 15 years, and you admit you haven't even spent 15 minutes looking at it.  You are a funny one to talk about ignorance.




> No, they actually would not.  
> 
> What I would cast doubt on is your certainty that:
> 
> 1. There _are_ cocoa slavers
> 2. You know exactly who they are, where they are, and to whom they are selling
> 3. You know exactly how to put a stop to this: by pressuring some buyers to stop buying, the slavers will go bust, rather than what economic law would suggest to us: if some buyers to stop buying they will lower their prices even further and other buyers will be attracted to purchase at these lucrative prices instead.


You should probably go and do at least a _little_ research on the issue before claiming your own opinions as though they were facts.   It's not like all of this is some big secret.  Saying that you never bothered to do even a minute of research, and yet somehow you know more than people who have spent decades on this, is frankly pretty stupid.

----------


## JK/SEA

Ever since 3 Mile Island, i shun Hershey brown $#@!.

----------


## Inkblots

Could you guys knock it off with the thread necromancy already?  It seems like half the threads I see in here lately are from the aughties...

----------


## JK/SEA

> Could you guys knock it off with the thread necromancy already?  It seems like half the threads I see in here lately are from the aughties...


i blame OBOLA.

----------


## RonPaulMall

Hershey's and Nestle are crap chocolate that you should avoid whether you support African Slave Labor or not. Even their "dark" chocolate is ridiculously high in sugar and isn't healthy for you at all. I buy Lindt chocolate bars. 70% is the lightest I will go, but usually I get the 85% dark. Once you get acclimated to darker chocolate, the sugary crap stuff will taste disgusting to you.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> It's already described in this thread.


 I do not think it is.  Do you understand the term "market fragmentation"?  Do you know how to quantify it?




> The logistic problem stems from open mix troughs in the Ivory Coast's market.  A bunch of sellers, 50% of which are slavers, sell to a market that mixes all the beans into an open trough.  Then the suppliers come and buy from those open troughs and in turn sells the beans to Hershey's et al.  They would pay 15-20% more to source their beans 100 miles down the coast where there are no slaver beans, and since mainstream chocolate is only ~10% cocoa you are looking at a total increase in cost of around 2% to avoid slavery altogether.


 Your mental model of the chocolate world contains some self-contradictions.  You think that Hershey's, Nestlé, and Mars have some overwhelming percentage of the cocoa market, such that if just those three stopped buying from the Ivory Coast there would not be enough purchasers left in the entire rest of the market to support any slavers.  In fact, if your goal is to eliminate the supposed slavery and not merely reduce it, you must think this percentage is 100%.  At the same time, you think that if this overwhelmingly huge virtually 100% of the market suddenly changed over from their current supply source to a different supply source, the price of that different supply source would be unaffected.  In fact, it would skyrocket.  Depending upon how much and how fast the new suppliers can ramp up production, and upon how elastic the demand for cocoa is, the price increase could be 100%, 200%, or as high as you care to go.

I think one of your first basic research steps should be to find out what percentage of the cocoa in the world is sold by Hershey's, Nestlé, and Mars.  Also, what percentage of the cocoa in the world comes from the Ivory Coast.




> so you have looked at the problem for _less_ than 15 minutes, and you just randomly assert that I am wrong about everything when I have been studying the problem for over 15 years.  Can you see why someone may think you are not being rational?


 Not at all.  I am simply casting doubt on what I see as unwarranted certainty.




> Again, I will remind you that this has been an issue for me for over 15 years, and you admit you haven't even spent 15 minutes looking at it.  You are a funny one to talk about ignorance.


 I think that makes me the perfect one to talk about ignorance.  It gives me credibility!  As an ignorant outsider, I can bring to your attention how little both you and I really know about this matter.




> You should probably go and do at least a _little_ research on the issue before claiming your own opinions as though they were facts.


 I have not done that at all, Gunny.  I am merely casting doubt, not claiming facts.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Even their "dark" chocolate is ridiculously high in sugar and isn't healthy for you at all.


 Hershey's makes 100% unsweetened cocoa bars, and Nestle makes 100% cocoa powder, so I don't know what you're talking about.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I love how you are telling me what I _think_ now.  If this is how you 'discuss' things with Republicans, no wonder they hate us.  Turns out they might have a legitimate cause to do so.

----------


## Suzu

> Hershey's makes 100% unsweetened cocoa bars, and Nestle makes 100% cocoa powder, so I don't know what you're talking about.


Hershey makes 100% unsweetened cocoa powder, too. Unfortunately I have not found a better one. I have looked....

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I love how you are telling me what I _think_ now.


 I would never presume to do that.  If you feel like you are being attacked in that way, perhaps ask yourself why you feel so defensive.

There's a bigger picture.  There's patterns that one sees repeated in life.  These *Grand and Noble Crusades* for *Far and Distant Causes* in *Exotic Foreign Lands* simply do not work.  They tend to be ineffective or even counter-productive.  Helping people close to home, people whom you actually know, is far more likely to have good results.  Coming to the rescue of distant unknown people about which you know nothing, really, and whom you have never met, is exceedingly likely to backfire, have unintended consequences, and do nothing good whatsoever.  It's just a total waste of time.

I recommend you go tour the Hershey's factory instead.  They have singing cows.  You can make a custom candy bar.  It's great fun.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Your mental model of the chocolate world contains some self-contradictions.  You think that Hershey's, Nestlé, and Mars have some overwhelming percentage of the cocoa market, such that if just those three stopped buying from the Ivory Coast there would not be enough purchasers left in the entire rest of the market to support any slavers.





> I love how you are telling me what I _think_ now.  If this is how you 'discuss' things with Republicans, no wonder they hate us.  Turns out they might have a legitimate cause to do so.





> I would never presume to do that.  If you feel like you are being attacked in that way, perhaps ask yourself why you feel so defensive.

----------


## amy31416

> There was no poll option for 
> _
> I don't eat Nestle's or Hershey's because they're both SCHWAG chocolate with vanalin, emulsifiers, artificial flavors, and HFC. _ 
> 
> 
> I buy free trade, organic cocoa powder and make my own chocolate.


I will be trying this.

http://www.instructables.com/id/Home...-cocoa-powder/

Do you have a specific method/recipe? That's the first one I found on the 'net.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> 


 Yes, I understand that you feel like I am putting thoughts in your head there.  But I am only stating that you think Hershey's, Nestlé, and Mars have some overwhelming percentage of the cocoa market because you yourself told me that's what you think.  When you say "this is what I think," then I think it's very good and reasonable to reply "OK, here's how I understand what you think, restated in my own words, and now here's some of my own thoughts about it."  In this case, thoughts about why it's wrong.

Then, if my restatement makes it clear to you I have misunderstood what you think, then you can correct me.  If I have, please do!

You sarcastically/ironically wrote:

"Because another buyer would clearly turn the same volume as Hershey's, Nestlé, and Mars combined."

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> But I am only stating that you think ...


That's where you went wrong.  When I called you on it you denied doing it, and then proceed to immediately do it again.  It has been my experience that there is no point in debating with people who tell you what you think, because they are obdurate and irrational.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> That's where you went wrong.  When I called you on it you denied doing it, and then proceed to immediately do it again.  It has been my experience that there is no point in debating with people who tell you what you think, because they are obdurate and irrational.


I restated, in my own words, what you had told me.  This is a proven and effective communication strategy.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Here are some things that _you_ told me _I_ think:




> so you have looked at the problem for _less_ than 15 minutes


 And that is totally true!  You got that right!  You restated what I had said in your own words and you nailed it, right on the button.




> you think that I am wrong about everything when I have been studying the problem for over 15 years.


  Here, you missed the boat, and so I backed up and said OK, I see why you feel this way, but actually I do not think this, it's a little more complicated.  I corrected you, you see.  You said "you think this" and I said "no, I don't think that, I think this."  That's how it should work.  Easy peasy!




> [You think] I have a history of demonstrating a similar lack of intelligence and integrity as Al Gore, and because I will somehow make a billion dollars off of nding cocoa slavery the way Algore would make a billion dollars off of his carbon credit schemes.


 Here I didn't correct you, I just ignored it, because I believe you were just making a rhetorical point, trying to score debate points.  Is that correct?  Or do you sincerely believe that I think this?  Because, to clarify: I don't.





> [You think] that your own opinions [are] facts.


  I corrected this.  Actually I do not think my own opinions are facts.  So that's all cleared up now.




> that yet somehow you think you know more than people who have spent decades on this, is frankly pretty stupid.


 So too with this: I do not actually think that I know more than you about alleged Ivory Coast chocolate slavery rings.  I think that you know a great deal more than me about that.  I simply want you to consider how little you nevertheless know about it still, and the bigger picture that glorious plans to help people on the other side of the world and correct all problems in countries in which you have never set foot, that such plans, high-minded as they may be, tend to not produce any good results.

I hope that helps, Gunny!  I am not trying to offend nor upset you.  If you will take a break and come back and read my posts in a day or two, you will find that I was completely pleasant and polite.  

All the best!

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I restated, in my own words, what you had told me.  This is a proven and effective communication strategy.


Telling people what they think is never an effective communication strategy.  It is, in fact, offensive and vile. It presumes that you know what is going on in my head better than I know what is going on in my head.  This kind of argument cannot be made with a base presumption that I am an idiot and you are my genius superior.  As far as I am concerned, telling someone what they think is one of the most offensive tactics in a debate the world has ever known.  *Politicians* don't even usually stoop that low.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Here are some things that _you_ told me _I_ think:
> 
>  And that is totally true!  You got that right!  You restated what I had said in your own words and you nailed it, right on the button.
> 
>   Here, you missed the boat, and so I backed up and said OK, I see why you feel this way, but actually I do not think this, it's a little more complicated.  I corrected you, you see.  You said "you think this" and I said "no, I don't think that, I think this."  That's how it should work.  Easy peasy!


I wasn't telling you what you thought, you told me directly that you thought I and my 15 years of research were wrong while you and your zero minutes of research were right. 




> Here I didn't correct you, I just ignored it, because I believe you were just making a rhetorical point, trying to score debate points.  Is that correct?  Or do you sincerely believe that I think this?  Because, to clarify: I don't.


Then if you didn't think I was wrong you should have told me that you thought I was wrong.




> I corrected this.  Actually I do not think my own opinions are facts.  So that's all cleared up now.


And yet your opinions are treated as superior facts when given literally zero research.




> So too with this: I do not actually think that I know more than you about alleged Ivory Coast chocolate slavery rings.  I think that you know a great deal more than me about that.  I simply want you to consider how little you nevertheless know about it still, and the bigger picture that glorious plans to help people on the other side of the world and correct all problems in countries in which you have never set foot, that such plans, high-minded as they may be, tend to not produce any good results.
> 
> I hope that helps, Gunny!  I am not trying to offend nor upset you.  If you will take a break and come back and read my posts in a day or two, you will find that I was completely pleasant and polite.  
> 
> All the best!


You are the one having done literally zero research, by your own admission, telling me who has been researching this for 15 years that I am all wrong.

----------


## LibForestPaul

5) I do not eat hersheys or nestle because their chocolate sucks.

----------


## LibForestPaul

> OK here goes.
> 
> The vast majority of mix trough cocoa in the Ivory Coast comes from a black market slave trade.


Not that I do not believe your sincerity or the facts stated herein, but how does one prove the trust worthiness of information in this day and age? General question.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Not that I do not believe your sincerity or the facts stated herein, but how does one prove the trust worthiness of information in this day and age? General question.


How dare you?!?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> you told me directly that you thought I and my 15 years of research were wrong





> Then if you didn't think I was wrong you should have told me that you thought I was wrong.


Look, Gunny, I really and sincerely did not say that.  Please, please, go back and read my post where you think I was saying you were wrong about everything and I think and hope you will be able to see I did not write that.  But the bottom line is, for whatever reason that is the message you received, and so for all practical purposes, I suppose I did send you that message, unintentional though it was.

*Please accept my apology for my offensive statements and awkward and ineffective communication.*  I do not think you are necessarily wrong about anything, much less everything.

Here is the offending paragraph that seems to have set all this off.  I was just trying to make what I think is an interesting though perhaps difficult-to-follow economics point, not to set myself up as a mind-reader.  If you can think of a way that the paragraph could be reworded to eliminate the "telling you what you think" aspect while still making my point, I will be thrilled to edit the original post to incorporate your fix.




> Your mental model of the chocolate world contains some self-contradictions. You think that Hershey's, Nestlé, and Mars have some overwhelming percentage of the cocoa market, such that if just those three stopped buying from the Ivory Coast there would not be enough purchasers left in the entire rest of the market to support any slavers. In fact, if your goal is to eliminate the supposed slavery and not merely reduce it, you must think this percentage is 100%. At the same time, you think that if this overwhelmingly huge virtually 100% of the market suddenly changed over from their current supply source to a different supply source, the price of that different supply source would be unaffected. In fact, it would skyrocket. Depending upon how much and how fast the new suppliers can ramp up production, and upon how elastic the demand for cocoa is, the price increase could be 100%, 200%, or as high as you care to go.

----------


## AngryCanadian

Meh i dont even eat those products anymore.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Look, Gunny, I really and sincerely did not say that.  Please, please, go back and read my post where you think I was saying you were wrong about everything and I think and hope you will be able to see I did not write that.  But the bottom line is, for whatever reason that is the message you received, and so for all practical purposes, I suppose I did send you that message, unintentional though it was.
> 
> *Please accept my apology for my offensive statements and awkward and ineffective communication.*  I do not think you are necessarily wrong about anything, much less everything.
> 
> Here is the offending paragraph that seems to have set all this off.  I was just trying to make what I think is an interesting though perhaps difficult-to-follow economics point, not to set myself up as a mind-reader.  If you can think of a way that the paragraph could be reworded to eliminate the "telling you what you think" aspect while still making my point, I will be thrilled to edit the original post to incorporate your fix.


Look, if you are serious that you were being sincere, and you disagree with what I have discussed on this thread, then you don't do zero research and claim that the guy who is 15 years deep into this is just wrong because your opinion says so.  You would be laughed out of pretty much any intellectual debate on the planet with that approach.  

Instead, go out and get read up on the subject, and then come back with evidence to support your claims and then state your arguments.

Bear in mind that the situation today is way _way_ better than it was 5 years ago when the OP was posted -- which in and of itself invalidates your claim that there is nothing to be done on the demand side to solve the problem.  A lot has been done on the demand side to address this problem, and the child cocoa slavery problem has already seen some 50% reduction in the last 5 years.  So addressing the demand side to solve this problem is not merely theoretical, it is already happening and it is already working.  

I get that there are some 'libertarians' who just don't give a damn that their hershey bar comes only at the cost of dead children who are stolen from their families and unwillingly enslaved at gunpoint.  I have a hard time considering such people 'human,' much less 'libertarian.'  I also understand that this outlook is part and parcel to objectivism, and this is one of the reasons I utterly reject objectivism.

Child cocoa slavery in the Ivory Coast is real, even if the situation is a lot better than it was 5 years ago.  The very fact alone that the situation has markedly improved in the last five years puts to lie your position that my recommended course of activism will not help.  It's _already_ helped, and it's continuing to improve the situation as I write this.

It's possible that you just don't care, even if all of this is true.  Close to 10% of these forums don't care if they contribute to the deaths of these children.  It's stuff like that that makes me ashamed to be associated with such beings.

But the bottom line is, if you are legitimately sincere in your arguments, you don't go around having done (as you yourself admit) _zero_ research on the subject and claiming that the guy 15 years deep into it is all wet.  Instead, go do some research yourself and come back with something other than your opinions to support your claims.

----------


## anaconda

I'm glad this thread resurfaced. I missed it before and now I want to scrutinize it and many of the links posted.

Idea: Why don't the companies that don't use slavery put a big *"Slavery Free"* message on their chocolate bar labels?

Also, what's 2 or 3 good non-slavery go-to brands for super market chocolate bars?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I'm glad this thread resurfaced. I missed it before and now I want to scrutinize it and many of the links posted.
> 
> Idea: Why don't the companies that don't use slavery put a big *"Slavery Free"* message on their chocolate bar labels?
> 
> Also, what's 2 or 3 good non-slavery go-to brands for super market chocolate bars?


Well, "fair trade" = "slavery free" but they have to pay good money to be certified.  Same with Organic = slavery free (because no slaver beans are certified organic) but again they have to pay good money to be slavery free (oops, ETA: ) Certified Organic.

If you do not want to bear the burden of certification costs, and still want to avoid contributing to child slavery, the best way to do it is to buy "single source" cocoa.  Some chocolate is labeled as coming from 'a single plantation in Costa Rica' for example, and you can be confident that that was not produced by slavery.

Others, like Lindt, don't actually say ANYTHING but if you contact them personally they will tell you they stopped buying from the Ivory Coast in 2006 due to the slavery issue, and now buy exclusively from Ghana, which is also slavery free.  Now some of the more hysterical cocoa slavery sites will also tell you to avoid Lindt because of child labor, but in Ghana the "Child Labor" comes from families working their own farms with their own children, which honestly doesn't bother me at all, so I have no problem buying Lindt.

Likewise Ghirardelli is owned by Lindt, and they, too get their cocoa from Ghana rather than the Ivory Coast.  I buy Ghirardelli pure cocoa powder, and it is better than anything Hershey's ever dreamed of.

Lindt and Ghirardelli are both widely available in supermarkets, and they are both superb chocolatiers.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Also, _some_ kinds of Mars owned Dove have the "Rainforest Alliance" frog



This is also a good indicator of slavery free chocolate.  With RFA, however, they allow certification of brands that are only 30% or more "safe" however if the cocoa (or coffee) is less than 100% they are required to put a percentage figure immediately below the RFA logo.  So if you see the RFA logo without a percentage figure you know for a fact it's 100% slavery free, while if it has the RFA logo and "60%" immediately below it, then some or all of the balance of 40% may (but not necessarily) come from slavers.

The Dove bars which carry the RFA logo that I have seen are all 100%.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Lindt, Ghirardelli, and Dove are all widely available at most supermarkets, and even if only a portion of the Dove chocolate are actually RFA certified, that should be enough to keep you in chocolate at any normal grocery store.  By the time you grow weary of those brands, the situation will be an order of magnitude again better, and there will be an even wider selection of blood free chocolate at your average grocery store.

As of now, even WalMart has a decent selection of premium slavery free chocolates, you just have to know what you are looking for.  It's not at all like it was when I first posted this in 2009.  Back then it was difficult to buy chocolate that was not produced by slaves, today it is quite easy.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Also, here is a list of some of the lesser known brands, many of which may show up in your grocery store, including such brands as:

Ben and Jerry's
Chuao
Dagoba
Endangered Species
Green and Black's
Newman's Own, and
Scharffen Berger

The "Whole Foods Brand Generic 365" is also slavery free, but I doubt you are going to Whole Foods for your chocolate.  However, if you do, the store brand is pretty inexpensive, and it's slavery free.

http://vision.ucsd.edu/~kbranson/sto...eproducts.html

There are other sites, but you have to be somewhat careful to examine the motives.  For instance, the "Food Is Power" list has a much larger list of even lesser known brands, but the list is more about US politics than African slavery.  For instance, they removed a brand called "Edensoy" fro their safe-list because they opposed the Obamacare birth control mandates 

http://www.foodispower.org/chocolate-list/

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Many of the brands that are currently slavery free now, were NOT slavery free in 2009 when the OP was posted, so much of the earlier data in this thread may be out of date.

----------


## amy31416

> Also, here is a list of some of the lesser known brands, many of which may show up in your grocery store, including such brands as:
> 
> Ben and Jerry's
> Chuao
> Dagoba
> Endangered Species
> Green and Black's
> Newman's Own, and
> Scharffen Berger
> ...


Well that's good. I have about 10lbs of Scharffen Berger cocoa that I bought quite a while ago in the freezer, I was wondering.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Well that's good. I have about 10lbs of Scharffen Berger cocoa that I bought quite a while ago in the freezer, I was wondering.


Note to self:
When the shtf, Amy has a stockpile of cocoa, Gunny can make coffee, and Oyarde has all the pitchforks.

----------


## anaconda

What else besides cocoa is produced with slave labor?

----------


## amy31416

> Note to self:
> When the shtf, Amy has a stockpile of cocoa, Gunny can make coffee, and Oyarde has all the pitchforks.


I generally buy in bulk when it makes sense. Amazon is great. The best present I ever got was one of those giant freezers--keeps the bugs out, keeps nuts/coffee fresh, etc.

----------


## scottditzen

Thanks alot for helping to bring this issue to the forefront. 




> Also, here is a list of some of the lesser known brands, many of which may show up in your grocery store, including such brands as:
> 
> Ben and Jerry's
> Chuao
> Dagoba
> Endangered Species
> Green and Black's
> Newman's Own, and
> Scharffen Berger
> ...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> What else besides cocoa is produced with slave labor?


Coffee, to a much lesser extent.  As in, not kidnapping and bullwhipping children to death, but still some pretty gruesome practices.

Same rules apply; anything "Fair Trade" or "Organic" or "Rain Forest Alliance" is good to go.  Look for Single-Sources and such.  I do, but because the problem is not as emergent, I don't push it as much.  People already think I'm a picky freak.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Look, if you are serious that you were being sincere, and you disagree with what I have discussed on this thread, then you don't do zero research and claim that the guy who is 15 years deep into this is just wrong because your opinion says so.  You would be laughed out of pretty much any intellectual debate on the planet with that approach.  
> 
> Instead, go out and get read up on the subject, and then come back with evidence to support your claims and then state your arguments.
> 
> Bear in mind that the situation today is way _way_ better than it was 5 years ago when the OP was posted -- which in and of itself invalidates your claim that there is nothing to be done on the demand side to solve the problem.  A lot has been done on the demand side to address this problem, and the child cocoa slavery problem has already seen some 50% reduction in the last 5 years.  So addressing the demand side to solve this problem is not merely theoretical, it is already happening and it is already working.  
> 
> I get that there are some 'libertarians' who just don't give a damn that their hershey bar comes only at the cost of dead children who are stolen from their families and unwillingly enslaved at gunpoint.  I have a hard time considering such people 'human,' much less 'libertarian.'  I also understand that this outlook is part and parcel to objectivism, and this is one of the reasons I utterly reject objectivism.
> 
> Child cocoa slavery in the Ivory Coast is real, even if the situation is a lot better than it was 5 years ago.  The very fact alone that the situation has markedly improved in the last five years puts to lie your position that my recommended course of activism will not help.  It's _already_ helped, and it's continuing to improve the situation as I write this.
> ...


Am I to understand that you do accept my apology, or that you do not?

Also, I would once again let you know that these statements:

"claim that the guy who is 15 years deep into this is just wrong because your opinion says so"

"claiming that the guy 15 years deep into it is all wet"

are incorrect and mischaracterize my view.

Gunny, there is no reason to get all worked up and in a bundle.  I do not believe you understand the things which I wrote.  You are reacting emotionally without understanding.  I apologized, I meant you no harm, I have nothing but good feelings toward you, and so I don't know what else I can do.

Shall I give you "hugs" ala HB?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

By the way, I bought some Nestle's chocolate chips yesterday just for you.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Note to self:
> When the shtf, Amy has a stockpile of cocoa, Gunny can make coffee, and Oyarde has all the pitchforks.


Uncle Oyarde also has all teh gold and silver.

----------


## amy31416

> Uncle Oyarde also has all teh gold and silver.


I live closer to Oyarde than you do, and I'll brew the beer/distill the liquor. No gold/silver for you. 

I make cheese too--beat that.

----------


## euphemia

The problem is not Nestles.  The problem is the way Africa treats Africans.  It might be that a more ethical use of its resources would result in more profit, yet they continue to stick with a cruel, antiquated way of doing things that keeps power in the hands of a few.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The problem is not Nestles.  The problem is the way Africa treats Africans.  It might be that a more ethical use of its resources would result in more profit, yet they continue to stick with a cruel, antiquated way of doing things that keeps power in the hands of a few.


If that were true, then it wouldn't be possible to avoid buying slaver beans simply by going 100 miles down the coast.  But it is.  There is a _wealth_ of chocolate that comes from Africa, but not from slaves.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Hershey's is a great American business, heroically providing value in the face of overwhelming opposition, regulation, taxes, and obstacles.  The hard work and willingness to take risks and put off rewards of the Hershey's businessmen brings a little bit of additional happiness to millions of people each day.  I say: my hat's off to Hershey's!  Good job, running a good business!  American business gets precious little praise; precious little credit; and so much of what we enjoy in our lives today -- almost all of our wealth -- we owe to the efforts of the unsung American businessman.

So for today, at least, on one little obscure corner of the internet on just one little forum, I am going to buck that trend and say: "Thank you, all you businessmen behind Hershey's Chocolate.  Thank you for all the work you have done and continue to do to improve my quality of life.  Keep up the good work.  I and most of the other libertarians of the world support you.  We've got your back."

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Ladies and gentlemen, behold the psychopathy of objectivism.  There is nothing libertarian about objectivism.  Instead, objectivism could just as easily be called "what's in it for me-ism," and if "what's in it for me" is enhanced by the presence of abject slavery, then they will support and defend that slavery by whatever means pleases them personally.  This is the base philosophy behind defending slavery in early America because it made cotton cheap.  Unlike capitalisms "enlightened self-interest" it is all the self interest, with none of the enlightenment.

In this thread, you can see it for yourself.  He started out by claiming I was factually wrong, and when I called him out to produce evidence of his claims, he then claimed that he never said I was factually wrong.  And then he proceeded from that argument to lobby for doing business with the slavers anyway because they are 'great businesses.' 

There is nothing "liberty" about that.

Followers of objectivism will happily advocate for the most horrific kinds of slavery and tyranny if they, themselves, benefit personally.  There is no liberty to be found there, and objectivism should not be considered in any way, shape, or form a 'libertarian' philosophy.  Simply because a famous objectivist once wrote a book that highlighted the dangers of socialism, does not make it a philosophy of liberty.  Ayn Rand herself advocated for a war of extermination against all Muslims, because it would have benefited her, personally.  She was indeed true to the core of "what's in it for me-ism" until the very end.

----------


## euphemia

But isn't it strange that we had all kinds of sanctions against South Africa when they practiced apartheid, but ignored what is going on in the rest of Africa?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

For anyone who, like the OP, did not understand some of my economic mumbo-jumbo, here is another go at an explanation.

As free marketeers, we sometimes hear those around us of different mindsets bring up the objection to the market: "What about racism/sexism?"  If there weren't laws mandating that no one be racist nor sexist, then business owners would be free to be racist or sexist.

We have a great standard economic response and explanation to that.  Yes, let's say there were a bad business owner who wouldn't hire blacks, or who wouldn't pay women as much as he pays men, because he's misogynist.  On a free market, all that means is that other businesses now have a profit opportunity.  Anyone willing to hire these people the other guy's discriminating against and pay them fairly will capitalize on a huge profit opportunity left open by the other's irrationality.  So, the free market abhors discrimination.  It makes it very costly.  There will never be a "wage gap" between two equally productive persons.  The profit motive will correct and undo any prejudiced businessmen that exist.

The same principle applies here.  The principles of economics are universal.  Here, we have an action -- not buying cocoa from the Ivory Coast -- that isn't optimally efficient, but that some businessmen might decide to do anyway.  The efficient course would be buying the best possible cocoa for the lowest possible price.  If some businessmen choose not to do that, then other businessmen will simply step in and buy it anyway.

In other words, even if people are free to do what we might see as a bad thing, because that bad thing is not optimally efficient, the market will undo the bad thing and go back to efficiency.  Likewise, even if people are free to do something a few excited crusaders might see as a good thing, because that "good" thing is not optimally efficient, the market will undo the good thing and go back to efficiency.

Whether you see the thing as good or bad makes no real difference.  Maybe you see racism as a great thing and bemoan the fact that blacks are getting any jobs at white businesses.  Doesn't matter.  Unfortunately for you and your preferences, the market will still see the extra underpaid black labor laying around and pick it up and use it.  Likewise, you may think that it's great to not buy cocoa from some country you know nothing about because you've become convinced that bad things are happening there, but the market is going to see all that extra under-priced cocoa laying around and pick it up and use it.

That's just how the market works.  Like it or not.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Yes ladies and gentlemen you read that right, because I oppose slavery, I do not comprehend the free market. 

The free-market neither requires nor produces chattel slavery. Any market involving chattel slavery, is not free. A free market, by definition, requires voluntary and consensual interactions. Including _LABOR_. Slavery is neither voluntary nor consensual. Slavery is wholly incompatible with a free market, and supporting and defending free markets _requires_ opposing slavery. 

It is not me who fails to understand free market economics, but Helmuth. The first requirement of a free market, is freedom.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

So, am I to take it that you did not accept my apology, Gunny, and are choosing instead to have an over-the-top conniption fit and hold a grudge?  Could you answer one way or the other?  I mean, I know us shame-inducing, slavery-advocating, inhuman, lowest of the low, horrific, selfish beings don't deserve to be spoken to as if we _are_  human (obviously we're _not_), but maybe just for the record?

Also, again just to correct some inaccuracies:

"Helmuth says I do not comprehend the free market"

Actually, I did not say that, nor do I think that.

"He started out by claiming I was factually wrong"

Actually, I never claimed that.  I never wrote any such thing.  Please provide the quote of where I started out by claiming you are factually wrong.  If you will take the time to actually look for such a quote, you will find that it does not exist, and then maybe you will realize it was all in your imagination and your hyper-defensiveness hyper-sensitivity was an unwarranted over-reaction.  No hard feelings.  We all do it sometimes.

I am simply highly skeptical that we have all the relevant information as to this alleged Ivory Coast slavery.  Based on oodles of past human rights scandals and crusades, which turn out almost invariably to be over-blown, I harbor serious doubts as to its scope and exact nature.  Even if we had all the necessary information, I would remain highly skeptical that we have the necessary _wisdom_ to swoop in and solve all their problems.  That is my position.  If it's too practical and too ambiguous for you, so be it.

I am very much against slavery.  But I am not going to get all hopped up about an overblown crusade against Hershey's and Nestle; a crusade very possibly imagined and whipped up by unscrupulous competitors seeking a niche for themselves.

I agree completely with your explanation that "A free market, by definition, requires voluntary and consensual interactions."  That's totally true, of course.  The thing to realize is that economics does not just apply to _free_ markets.  *Economics is universal.*  The laws of economics were in full operation in classical Greece, 1800s America, and Soviet Russia.  They apply today to North Korea.  They work as well in deepest Africa.  Economics can tell us about how slavery economies will work.  It can inform us about trade among prisoners in concentration camps.  I believe my analysis is sound, as set forth most clearly in post #234 above.  If you believe it is logically flawed, then I _enthusiastically_ welcome you to show me my error(s).  I'm serious!  Punch holes in my arguments!  The reason I am here is largely to discuss and cross-pollinate interesting ideas with interesting people.  If you can show me a different way of looking at something, expand my mind, and challenge my views in a rational, high-level way, that would be an extremely valuable service to me.

Anyway, once again I offer you the olive branch of peace and friendship.  I wish you all the best, Gunny!

----------


## navy-vet

I personally am hopeful that _helmuth_hubener is right about the Ivory Coast chocolate and that Gunny is mistaken. So far as I can ascertain after having searched the internet, though, there is regretfully, no clear current evidence either way. I have also noticed that neither Hershey nor Nestle has any disclaimers on any of the many products that I have examined since becoming aware of this issue ,which, leads me to suspect that Gunny is still correct in his claims. If this matter of slavery had been resolved or the practice of purchasing slaver product was discontinued, or was even bogus, then surely these two leading _ chocolatiers would proudly post that on their product labels as well as their websites wouldn't they? Of course they would.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I personally am hopeful that _helmuth_hubener is right about the Ivory Coast chocolate and that Gunny is mistaken. So far as I can ascertain after having searched the internet, though, there is regretfully, no clear current evidence either way. I have also noticed that neither Hershey nor Nestle has any disclaimers on any of the many products that I have examined since becoming aware of this issue ,which, leads me to suspect that Gunny is still correct in his claims. If this matter of slavery had been resolved or the practice of purchasing slaver product was discontinued, or was even bogus, then surely these two leading _ chocolatiers would proudly post that on their product labels as well as their websites wouldn't they? Of course they would.


Not necessarily.  Companies usually don't do this kind of thing unless there's a real market demand for it.  It may not seem like much, but there is cost involved in adding information to a label.  The designer has to create it and then add it to the existing template.  This may even involve creating custom colors (spot colors)!  Then the printer has to adjust the press and various settings accordingly.  Perhaps create new plates, depending on the type of press used.  Does it need to have fancy embossing, foil, etc?  More cost.  You get the idea.

----------


## presence

> I will be trying this.
> 
> http://www.instructables.com/id/Home...-cocoa-powder/
> 
> Do you have a specific method/recipe? That's the first one I found on the 'net.




No specific recipe.   Ingredients vary.    I don't measure.  

Tried and true:

Small cast iron skillet, pad of butter, 1 part cocoa to 1 part sugar, thin splash of half and half (or milk), cap of vanilla extract.   Stir vigorously over high heat, moving pan to regulate heat... until the first hint of caramel burn.    Less than 10 minutes on a gas cooktop. Spoon to frozen pyrex.


Coconut oil, rice flour, and water make good no dairy substitute.  

sometimes expresso, nuts, preserves, mint, pretzles.... increase oil/butter content for "fudgier"   adjust sugar/cocao ratio for darker...   peanut butter, bananas, strawberries, raisins....  life is like a box of chocolates 






....

Personally I find one of the keys to happy marriage is leaving a pan full of chocolate unexpectedly on the stove whenever I get the "oh $#@! its that time of the month" sixth sense.   No faster route from most bitched at man in the world, to most loved, than speaking through a hormone defying batch of home made chocolate.

----------


## fr33

2nd option but very rarely. As I get older, I really don't like sweets the way I used to.

----------


## Suzanimal

This thread made me buy a candy bar today. I got the Chocolate Hazelnut bar at Aldis, it says it's made in Austria.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Not necessarily.  Companies usually don't do this kind of thing unless there's a real market demand for it.  It may not seem like much, but there is cost involved in adding information to a label.  The designer has to create it and then add it to the existing template.  This may even involve creating custom colors (spot colors)!  Then the printer has to adjust the press and various settings accordingly.  Perhaps create new plates, depending on the type of press used.  Does it need to have fancy embossing, foil, etc?  More cost.  You get the idea.


Dove paid not only to obtain a RFA certification, but also to add the logo to their wrapper, which includes an entirely new color.

----------


## euphemia

You can say and do what you want about the way Africa treats its own, but if you boycot Nestles or whatever, you might be harming a poor man in Brazil who works in the Nestles factory there, or the farmers who supply the milk.  Big economic impact if Nestles shuts down there.  

Here in the US, we are financially comfortable enough not to need to work in the chocolate industry and can make other choices with our dollars and our labor.  It might be wise to take the focus off of Africa, which certainly won't change the way it does business, and see who else is hurt or helped by that decision.  

I'm not criticizing anyone's choice.  I'm just saying that Africa has a history of mistreating its own folks for power and profit.  Maybe its the libertarian thing to do to let them do what they want and look at the impact on places that have improving human rights records.

----------


## navy-vet

> You can say and do what you want about the way Africa treats its own, but if you boycot Nestles or whatever, you might be harming a poor man in Brazil who works in the Nestles factory there, or the farmers who supply the milk.  Big economic impact if Nestles shuts down there.  
> 
> Here in the US, we are financially comfortable enough not to need to work in the chocolate industry and can make other choices with our dollars and our labor.  It might be wise to take the focus off of Africa, which certainly won't change the way it does business, and see who else is hurt or helped by that decision.
> 
> 
> I'm not criticizing anyone's choice.  I'm just saying that Africa has a history of mistreating its own folks for power and profit.  Maybe its the libertarian thing to do to let them do what they want and look at the impact on places that have improving human rights records.


Now, that's a wise consideration IMHO.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You can say and do what you want about the way Africa treats its own, but if you boycot Nestles or whatever, you might be harming a poor man in Brazil who works in the Nestles factory there, or the farmers who supply the milk.  Big economic impact if Nestles shuts down there.  
> 
> Here in the US, we are financially comfortable enough not to need to work in the chocolate industry and can make other choices with our dollars and our labor.  It might be wise to take the focus off of Africa, which certainly won't change the way it does business, and see who else is hurt or helped by that decision.  
> 
> I'm not criticizing anyone's choice.  I'm just saying that Africa has a history of mistreating its own folks for power and profit.  Maybe its the libertarian thing to do to let them do what they want and look at the impact on places that have improving human rights records.


It was actually in the last three years that the situation begun to improve enormously.  I belabored the point 5 years ago why it was so horrible, and did not want to do it again, but here is a timeline which demonstrates the improvement in conditions which have taken place since we began to put pressure in the Chocolate majors to change.  For those seeking to do legitimate research, here is a great point to start.

In June of 2002 a BBC reporter Humphrey Hawksley filed a report from Mali, having travelled to Mali and the Ivory Coast to collect first-hand accounts, and to see it for himself.




> Thursday, 13 June, 2002, 15:46 GMT 16:46 UK (events in 2002)
> *Meeting the 'chocolate slaves'*
> 
> *Kidnap attempt*
> 
> "I was playing football," said Karim Sadibe. "This man said I should come with him to the Ivory Coast. He would sign me up for the national team and I would get lots of money and that I shouldn't tell my parents."
> 
> Karim went, but luckily was intercepted by police. The man who was to have sold him into slavery - probably for about £50 - melted away.
> 
> ...


On January of 2012, CNN ran an expose series collected from an in-house documentry produced in 2011 "Chocolate's Child Slaves" that focused on first hand accounts and visiting the affected areas to determine if non consumer oriented reforms had been effective.

This series demonstrates that while there may have been marginal improvements since the 2002 expose, by and large nothing had changed.

Finally, in 2014 CNN produced a documentary in 2014 that re-visits child slavery in cocoa today, where they actually took the CEO of Nestlé Chocolate around to afflicted areas and then a 'panel' to discuss in depth the improvements that have taken place since January 2012.  

Problem with this last (linked) panel discussion, is they were _strongly downplaying_ the improvements in order to advocate for more government action   Because government action did SO MUCH from 2002 to 2011, while the efforts of the private free market did SO LITTLE from 2012 to 2014.  What the last panel discussion reveals is that even the nanny-staters have to agree that significant improvements have been made, and the timeline reveals these improvements have all really happened between 2011 and 2014.

What is so dramatically different between the periods 2002-2011 and 2011-2014?  Mostly by the _type_ of efforts that have been made.  Until 2011, efforts focused mostly on private negotiations between suppliers, buyers, corporations, and governments.  From 2011 and on is when efforts focused on publicly shaming the industry and affecting public demand.

This last strategy, publicly shaming the interests which contribute to cocoa slavery, has been a thousand-fold more effective than the private, government and lobby route.  Slavery free brands have proliferated bountifully, and everybody (and particularly Nestlé) are beginning to take some extraordinary steps to correct the issue.

In nine years of supply-side reform attempts, almost nothing was done.  In three years of demand-side reform attempts, the difference is truly night and day.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I am a lot happier than the CNN people I linked above, because I do not have a problem with children working their own parent's plantations.  Zero problem at all.  They are working to create value that is handed down through the generations.  If the son who will inherit the cocoa plantation starts learning the trade as early as six, it will make him a better owner at 30.  What better way to ensure fair treatment of the workers, than for the owner to come up from the ranks of workers?  In fact, I believe that children working their own family plantations is a kind of free-market perfection.

So I am fine with Ghana cocoa and such, where these people are not.  The point being, is you have to take all this reporting with several grains of salt, and still look at what actual facts are related.  If MSNBS reports a bombing in such a city, I have no reason to believe it didn't happen.  That doesn't mean I'm going to buy their spin on the event.

Nestlé is actually making more remarkable improvements than either of the other majors.  If, after you watch the documentary where they took the Nestlé CEO around to the Ivory Coast and you like what they have been doing enough to reward their efforts, then please let them know in some way that you are buying their product to reward their efforts to end the practice of chattel slavery.  This will encourage them to continue further in the direction of positive reform.

----------


## euphemia

We have friends doing medical work in Ivory Coast, and sometimes it's a little dangerous for them.  I get that they do things a little differently there.  

What I'm saying is that there are not necessarily good solutions to the problem.  If we can persuade Africa to stop using slaves, maybe poor kids in Brazil turn to crime and drugs until the economy adjusts and dad and mom can go to work.  

Africa is not anywhere close to a free market.  They are socialist to the core and probably communist in some places.  Brazil is somewhat socialist, but less so. 

Who do you help?

In the long run, Brazil has proven to be a better ally, has just as many natural resources as Africa, and a lot more opportunity for free trade.  They have many poor people who maintain their family structure.  Our child spent some time in Brazil, and I think the better opportunity is to support their economy through fair trade.  They do not use slaves, and American companies are providing a way out of poverty for many.  Family-owned dairy farms are very common there.  Nestles buys most of the milk produced there.  Brazil is also noted for sugar cane production.  I'm just saying they have an economy that we don't need to support, just encourage.

Again, not judging people's choices.  People can do what they want to do.  I just get a little tired of Africa consuming so many American resources and maintaining hostility toward the US and exploiting their own people.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Now, bear in mind that this was first 'exposed' to the public by the BBC in 2002.  This has been a pet issue of _mine_ since 1998 or 1999.  My understanding of the situation came from 'underground,' accounts on USENET and BBS postings from Africa.  Anonymous chatter and witness accounts.  The first 2 or 3 years I was just working to get some media source to go investigate it at all.  I remember posting to one news org or the other a detailed comparison to blood diamonds and asking why they weren't paying attention.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> We have friends doing medical work in Ivory Coast, and sometimes it's a little dangerous for them.  I get that they do things a little differently there.  
> 
> What I'm saying is that there are not necessarily good solutions to the problem.  If we can persuade Africa to stop using slaves, maybe poor kids in Brazil turn to crime and drugs until the economy adjusts and dad and mom can go to work.  
> 
> Africa is not anywhere close to a free market.  They are socialist to the core and probably communist in some places.  Brazil is somewhat socialist, but less so. 
> 
> Who do you help?
> 
> In the long run, Brazil has proven to be a better ally, has just as many natural resources as Africa, and a lot more opportunity for free trade.  They have many poor people who maintain their family structure.  Our child spent some time in Brazil, and I think the better opportunity is to support their economy through fair trade.  They do not use slaves, and American companies are providing a way out of poverty for many.  Family-owned dairy farms are very common there.  Nestles buys most of the milk produced there.  Brazil is also noted for sugar cane production.  I'm just saying they have an economy that we don't need to support, just encourage.
> ...


I don't understand your hesitance to use the tools of the free market to end African slavery, when it would seem that plantations such as those in Brazil, are profiting the most from these efforts?

You don't really think people will stop buying from Brazil just because slavery was ended in Africa?  I don't understand that line of thought.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Assume slavery were ended in the Ivory Coast by efforts to make the majors stop buying slaver beans.  

This will have happened because the Ivory Coast slavers saw a dead end in their markets by that practice, and stopped to avoid bankruptcy.  Perhaps some supply will return as a 'reward' for fixing their business, but by and large existing stable supply lines will remain static.  In the "new normal" African cocoa will cost a little more, because the workers are actually being paid.  This will mean that the larger demand from Brazil will _remain,_ and possibly _expand.

_Pretty much _all_ of this effort has been to give more business to _Brazil_, and tell the Ivory Coast that "this is why Brazil is buying beans that you could have sold."

Even if we fixed the problem today, the new demand that Brazil has gotten will remain.  If you want to help the Brazilian laborer, then buy more Brazilian cocoa!  Hell yes, that's pretty much what I've been saying all along.

Which is why I do not understand your argument.

----------


## euphemia

I'm not hesitant to use tools of a free market in a place that uses a free market.  Africa does not.  They exploit for power and profit.  They really get more than their share of attention, while not doing very much to adapt to new ways of doing things.

I said I wasn't judging anyone's choice--especially not over something like chocolate.  I'm just saying that it is worth thinking about the broader impact of a decision.  I don't know where Nestles purchases the cocoa beans they use in their Brazillian plants.  I know they employ a lot of people and many children have better opportunities for education and a better life because of it.  Brazil is a rapidly developing nation.  Even in the most primitive areas they are accepting of ideas to improve sanitation and prevent disease.  They demand very little from the US.  

I'm just wondering why changing Africa is more of a priority than simply encouraging Brazil.  Why are we not also focusing on changing China.  They mistreat people and ravage the environment and refuse any suggestion that their way is not the best.  You sure couldn't prove anything by what goes on here.  Practically everything the US has was built in China.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

OK, I think I see what you are saying.  Maybe if we boycott Hershey's, then maybe someone in a Brazilian Hershey factory suffers.

First there are no Brazilian Hershey factories.  There are just people who grow harvest and sell beans.  Some guy from Hershey's or Cargill walks in and and says "I want to buy your beans" That guy buys a bunch of beans, and ships them off to processing somewhere in the first world.

Whether it's Nestlé, Hershey's, or Mars, shifting more business to Brazil can only mean that Brazil sells more beans, and makes more money.

Buying specialty chocolate you can even specify Brazilian beans if you like.  

Nobody is eating _less_ chocolate behind any of this.  It's not like people who fail to buy Hershey's are failing to buy chocolate at all; indeed, usually they buy _more_ cocoa, because these specialty brands have a much higher concentration of cocoa.  The boycott on slaver cocoa has actually led to _increased_ cocoa demand worldwide, and Brazil in particular is reaping the rewards.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I'm just wondering why changing Africa is more of a priority than simply encouraging Brazil.  Why are we not also focusing on changing China.  They mistreat people and ravage the environment and refuse any suggestion that their way is not the best.  You sure couldn't prove anything by what goes on here.  Practically everything the US has was built in China.


"Brazil cocoa is awesome!" is way less real-world effective than "Ivory Coast cocoa is bad."

The first has done basically nothing to end child slavery, the second has already been remarkably successful.

I do not think it is wrong to say "slaver beans are bad."  

I do not want slaver beans, because to me, they are bad.  

I would hope that anybody who believes in a free market, would also conclude that slaver beans are bad.

The more I expose the problem, and ask others to encourage a shift away from buying slaver beans, the less child slavery will exist.

Conditions in China are several orders of magnitude better than the conditions in the Ivory Coast.  Maybe once I have ended the first 2/3 of the world's child slavery, then I will start working on the next 1/10th.  And the difference is not only volume but depth, so also maybe once I end the chattel slavery then I will consider working on improving indentured servitude.

It appears you are asking me why I am so focused on 66% of child chattel slavery, when I could be focused on 10% of juvenile indentured servitude.  Let's help the 66% in actual chattel slavery and then maybe worry about the 10% indentured servants.  Doesn't that make sense?

----------


## euphemia

To be very clear:  I am not in favor of slavery.  I am especially not in favor of abusing children through slavery.  

I have never said Hershey.  I know for a fact there are Nestles factories in Brazil because I have eaten its product.  Our child went down there to do benevolence work because their homeless child issue is very serious.  Nestles put a plant in an area where people need jobs.

Again, not judging anyone's choice.  Just saying there is a tension to the economy, and one part affects the other.  It doesn't happen in a vacuum.  

Here's another example.  When I was in a volunteer organization, we talked about environmental ethics.  Having friends in Ivory Coast, I know that one of the leading cottage industries there is charcoal.  The clear cut the forests to produce charcoal to sell so they can support their families.  Some of my volunteer friends were rather smug about their choice to use only charcoal when they camped.  I said, "Well, I guess that depends on whether you think globally about your environmental impact.  A choice to use downed wood (abundant after a storm) for a camp meal might kill a few bugs.  The tree is already dead.  But the choice to use charcoal creates a demand in a market where the culling of wood is not selective."  

What I am saying is that it is wise to think globally about choices, if one wants to be global.  There are horrible things about the way Ivory Coast does business.  We have close friends there.  A few of them have practically fled for their lives because of the way Africans do things.  One was beaten and barely managed to escape, zig zagging down the street to avoid gunfire.  Unfortunately, Africa does not exist in a vacuum.  Our friends are there for medical benevolence.  Our church supports a dental clinic in the hospital right at the heart of the Ebola problem.  We understand the issues.

I think slave labor happens here.  Think about who picks the fruits and vegetables that make it to market.  It's not always that nice family snug little house.  It might be the children of families that move around from place to place depending on when the picking seasons are.  We don't call it slavery, but I think it is.  Unless you go and pick it yourself, there is no way to know.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> To be very clear:  I am not in favor of slavery.  I am especially not in favor of abusing children through slavery.  
> 
> I have never said Hershey.  I know for a fact there are Nestles factories in Brazil because I have eaten its product.  Our child went down there to do benevolence work because their homeless child issue is very serious.  Nestles put a plant in an area where people need jobs.
> 
> Again, not judging anyone's choice.  Just saying there is a tension to the economy, and one part affects the other.  It doesn't happen in a vacuum.  
> 
> Here's another example.  When I was in a volunteer organization, we talked about environmental ethics.  Having friends in Ivory Coast, I know that one of the leading cottage industries there is charcoal.  The clear cut the forests to produce charcoal to sell so they can support their families.  Some of my volunteer friends were rather smug about their choice to use only charcoal when they camped.  I said, "Well, I guess that depends on whether you think globally about your environmental impact.  A choice to use downed wood (abundant after a storm) for a camp meal might kill a few bugs.  The tree is already dead.  But the choice to use charcoal creates a demand in a market where the culling of wood is not selective."  
> 
> What I am saying is that it is wise to think globally about choices, if one wants to be global.  There are horrible things about the way Ivory Coast does business.  We have close friends there.  A few of them have practically fled for their lives because of the way Africans do things.  One was beaten and barely managed to escape, zig zagging down the street to avoid gunfire.  Unfortunately, Africa does not exist in a vacuum.  Our friends are there for medical benevolence.  Our church supports a dental clinic in the hospital right at the heart of the Ebola problem.  We understand the issues.
> ...


I used Hershey as an example because Nestlé is doing a way better job than Hershey, and I can totally see rewarding Nestlé for the improvements that are being made.  I wasn't arguing with your point to do business with Nestlé but with the underlying economic assumption that Brazilian cocoa will suffer from improvements in Ivory Coast cocoa.

----------


## euphemia

I don't know where Nestle gets their cocoa for Brazillian operations.  I know they have operations in Brazil.  Those employees and the dairy farmers in Brazil are dong well because of Nestle investment.

The only point I'm making is that there is a tension to the economy.  One part affects the other.  The ethic of doing business with a company might affect people who have nothing to do with the wrongs in another part of the industry.  

Thomas Sowell says there are no solutions, only tradeoffs.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I think slave labor happens here. Think about who picks the fruits and vegetables that make it to market. It's not always that nice family snug little house. It might be the children of families that move around from place to place depending on when the picking seasons are. We don't call it slavery, but I think it is. Unless you go an pick it yourself, there is no way to know.


Bad things happen everywhere.  Maybe I am trying to 'end all evil' and I just am starting with the most evilest thing I can find.  Or maybe I'm attacking the biggest monster right now because I just want to do my part to make the world a better place.  Yes, indeed, the world is _full_ of monsters, and right now I am fighting this one.  I have fought and will continue to fight other monsters, as the opportunity lay at hand. 

I do not think an argument that "you cannot possibly be perfectly free from _all_ evil, so why fight any of it?" is a good argument.  I won't judge you for fighting evil however you want, but if someone wanted to just give in to the evil and not bother to fight it at all -- or even help it, then that _would_ bother me, and change my perception.  That may go back to my theology; a will to life vs a will to death.  Someone may mistakenly support a monster like Mao, but if they themselves believe in their heart whatever they are doing legitimately supports 'a fight against evil' then I don't judge their heart.  God places people in key places especially in the worst of times.

Thing is, everyone fighting their own 'monsters' is not the problem.  The problem is the people who say "there are too many monsters, why bother to fight them at all?"  Because they have given up, and given them over to evil.  It is a "will unto death" vs a "will to life."

I would rather a million people each fighting their own tyranny and I be the only voice for cocoa slaves, than to be ten thousand voices for cocoa slavery, and that issue alone being attacked.  Does that make sense?  If your liberty issue is another thing then take it loud, and we'll high-five as we pass along the way.  It doesn't have to be cocoa beans. 

It's not someone's _priorities_ that bothers me.  "which monster am I fighting at the moment" is not the point.  It's whether one opposes evil or encourages it.

Sure, let me be the one and only voice for cocoa slaves in a world FULL of voices for everything else.  That would be way better than to be a million voices in a world echoing with silence.  I'm not fighting the other voices, I'm fighting the silence.

----------


## euphemia

I admire the way you have researched the issue.  I came away better informed because of it.   We won't derail your thread with my issues.  I'm sure they will come up somewhere else here.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> So, am I to take it that you did not accept my apology, Gunny, and are choosing instead to have an over-the-top conniption fit and hold a grudge?  Could you answer one way or the other?  I mean, I know us shame-inducing, slavery-advocating, inhuman, lowest of the low, horrific, selfish beings don't deserve to be spoken to as if we _are_  human (obviously we're _not_), but maybe just for the record?
> 
> Also, again just to correct some inaccuracies:
> 
> "Helmuth says I do not comprehend the free market"
> 
> Actually, I did not say that, nor do I think that.
> 
> "He started out by claiming I was factually wrong"
> ...


If you are sincere, then of course I forgive you, but every time you ask, you also post things to make me doubt your sincerity.  

There are sources galore, if you want to know where I've gotten my current understanding of the situation, then just _ask._  It is OK to be skeptical, but dismissal isn't skepticism, it is silencing.

As to the artificial crusade, when I first started hoeing this row, there was no such thing as "fair trade" or even a real market for alternative chocolate _at all_. I believe you are making a "which came first" error.  _The problem came first_ and _then_ all these alternative sources and certifications grew up in the market to fulfill that demand.  It was not, as your argument implies, that alternative producers and certifiers were sitting around and trying to figure out a way to gin up business.  This stuff just didn't exist when the problem came to light.  The issue became generally available to the public in 2002.  None of the certifiers even existed until something like 2009 or 2010.  It wasn't wag the dog, the dog didn't even exist when the problem was discovered.

I also have no problem with rational disagreement, but that entails disagreeing from a rational place.  I have never disputed that the laws of economics are universal.  I have never disputed that they apply to slaver economies.  I have never disputed that they apply to every conceivable economy in the universe.

I have advocated for _an application_ of the laws of economics in order to advance the cause liberty on Earth.  In this specific case, the Ivory Coast.

I would far rather be friends than enemies, but if you are skeptical of what I am saying, then approach me as an investigator trying to ascertain the truth, and not as a cynic as though I were simply invalid.  One is a truth-seeker, whom I respect enormously no matter where they stand.  The other is a silencer, which kind I can not respect.

If I mistook your methods, I do apologize for that, and as I said I would rather be friends than enemies.  Understand that my position on the reality of cocoa slavery did not come from a vacuum, and it did not come from the media.  I was fighting this war long before any media even knew it was a thing.  I'm pretty sure I first heard _whispers_ of it from Hawaiian cocoa farmers in 1995 when I was stationed there.  It took me three years of my own investigations to become convinced.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Me in 1995 half out of uniform in a barracks room on Kaneohe Bay on a Mac Performa Classic looking "chocolate slaves" up on dialup (modem screech) AOHell through an Internet portal to AltaVista and Yahoo! in my brand-spankin' new Netscape browser lol and finding....nothing. Installing a freeware NNTP client in 1996 and dragging the West African and French news groups for stories, and striking up conversations.  Finding stuff and later, I think by 1997 or 1998 trolling for people in West Africa on IRC who knew something about the situation and finding even more.  I didn't hear about this through CNN or even the BBC.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> If you are sincere, then of course I forgive you,


 Well, thank you.  That's right decent of you.




> but every time you ask, you also post things to make me doubt your sincerity.


 I don't know what those would be, but thank you for casting those doubts aside.  It's so much better and easier to just take people at face value.




> There are sources galore, if you want to know where I've gotten my current understanding of the situation, then just _ask._  It is OK to be skeptical, but dismissal isn't skepticism, it is silencing.


 Label my attitude however you wish.  I choose to characterize my thoughts and feelings as skeptical.  Perhaps I (like you) am the one best able to assess and then label the goings on in my own mind.

Your post #245 was somewhat persuasive as to why to believe in the atrocious slavery in the Ivory Coast.  Unfortunately, I do remain skeptical, but certainly I can see your point.  You would have far more credibility to me, personally, if you had in fact lived in the Ivory Coast and witnessed these things first-hand and studied them in depth first-hand.  Surely you can understand that.  I think that's a reasonable position to take.

My own bias is to be highly skeptical of claims about how horrible and atrocious situations in foreign countries are, because usually the reality is much different and more nuanced and complex.  I am also skeptical of Grand and Holy Crusades to stamp out sin or fix distant problems of which the crusaders have no first-hand knowledge.  That said, you are going about it in the right and libertarian way: freedom of association.  You don't like what they are doing, based on what you think you know.  Great!  So you don't associate with the folks you don't like.  Great again!  It's a big win!

I just like always trying to look at things from a different perspective; with a twist, if you will.  Seeing chocolate boycotts in light of the female wage gap qualifies as a twist, I think.  Hopefully it was stimulating to someone, got someone's mind racing.

----------


## Suzanimal

How Government Meddles in Your Easter Chocolate




> ...
> 
> Western Governments Push Down African Wages Through Tariffs 
> 
> Unfortunately for the west African workers, this "capital, technology, and opportunity" that Powell mentions is being artificially restricted by government intervention in the cacao trade. 
> 
> Specifically, governments in the West — i.e., in the United States and Europe — tend to encourage only the importation of unprocessed cacao while punishing any higher-productivity cacao processing. That is, Western government will allow for tariff-free importation of cacao — the cacao beans — while slapping taxes on cocoa powder and cocoa butter. According to the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization:
> 
> Cocoa producing countries limit themselves to mainly exporting beans -rather than manufactured cocoa, or chocolate products- mostly because of tariff escalation. The EU has a bound rate of 0 percent for cocoa beans, but a 7.7 percent, and 15 percent ad valorem duty on cocoa powder and chocolate crumb containing cocoa butter respectively;
> ...


https://mises.org/blog/how-governmen...ster-chocolate

----------


## LibForestPaul

> I have eaten both, but don't really eat them much.
> I had a hershey's dark chocolate bar several months ago. i enjoyed it.


Hershey's is junk. Read about their replacement for cocoa butter in their dark chocolate.

I really couldn't care less how they get their cocoa.
Third world has and will continue to be exploited for some time.

The socialist in the EU can then claim how well their socialist sh1t countries are doing with free college, and free health care, all the while destroying the economies and lives  of third world chattle. Imperialism stuffed up the @ss of a snuggly dead bunny called socialism.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Good thread.

----------


## opal

somehow.. 8 years ago, I missed this thread.

I needed another polling answer
no.. I don't eat chocolate from those two companies because it's crap.

I do eat organic cocoa nibs.. most recently from nuts dot com - they really perk up grassfed yogurt

----------


## Suzanimal

> somehow.. 8 years ago, I missed this thread.
> 
> I needed another polling answer
> no.. I don't eat chocolate from those two companies because it's crap.
> 
> *I do eat organic cocoa nibs.. most recently from nuts dot com - they really perk up grassfed yogurt*


Dang, that's a good idea! I've been putting almonds in my yogurt but nibs will be a nice change of pace.

----------


## shakey1

I've heard a little bit about the slaver bean issue... I tend to shy away from the mega-corp products anyway, gravitating to Fairtrade  certified goods.

had also heard of some controversy regarding Nestle's bottled water practices...
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/a...ness-in-canada
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36161580

----------

