2019 CAFLP Annual Conference Panel Recap: “Ethical Value Chains”

"certified" by CreditDebitPro is licensed under CC BY 2.0

Can we trust Canadian food laws and regulations to protect ethical value chains? Do certifications really represent ethical value chains? Can independent certifications fill the gap left by the lack of a Canadian legal framework? These are some of the important questions that were raised in the Food and Justice: Ethical Value Chains panel on Day Two of the CAFLP conference.  

Consumers are starting to look for certain values in the production chains of the products they consume. Increasingly consumers across the country are looking to buy food that is grown sustainably and fairly.  

Yet, Canadian food law does not protect consumers from inadvertently buying products that fall below their standards, including food that may have been produced with child labor and slavery. According to Stephen Pike, a Partner at Gowlings, the food we may assume has been diligently checked often falls below standards that are in line with Canadian human rights values. We might buy a chocolate bar that has passed all the Canadian food regulations, but was made using child labor in Cote D’Ivoire. At least two large food companies in Canada have sold fish that was caught by indentured fishermen in Thailand and Indonesia.  

There are some examples for potential legal schemes that could provide a framework for Canada. Both Australia and the United Kingdom have anti-slavery legislation, called the Modern Slavery Act. The legislation aims to make supply chains more transparent, partially by having reporting standards for companies along their supply chains.  

In the face of government inaction, consumers in Canada have often relied on third party certifications as a way to identify the food they want to buy and eat. In recent years, the market has been flooded with certifications claiming to have strict standards that consumers can trust. These certifications range from “natural” to “cruelty-free” to “rainforest certified”. Nirvia Ravena de Sousa, a professor at the Federal University of Para/Brazil, warns that certifications can often fall short of their stated commitments. She argues that many certifications working in and around the Amazon pay lip-service to sustainable forestry or palm oil production but don’t stick by these commitments on the ground. 

Both Stephen and Nirvia spoke to the need for a more comprehensive scheme to ensure consumers have all the information they need to choose products that come from ethical value chains. A combination of more intensive legal frameworks, especially for high risk products such as chocolate or palm oil, and more pressure on certifications to be transparent in their criteria could empower consumers to choose the products that are in line with their values. 

The panel ended with a look at ethical value chains closer to home. Ryan White outlined the case currently unfolding between Foodora and their couriers who are trying to unionize. Ryan shared insights about the value chains that have emerged as tech companies continue to take the stance that they do not employ workers but just provide a platform for the workers to use. This will be a crucial area to watch as more cases come before the courts on this issue and more workers become involved with tech companies such as Foodora.