Fair trade farce

(In response to Kim Pearson’s Thursday letter, “Everyday choices matter.”)

Belittling consumer choice without true justification? The entire fair trade movement is a farce. It’s a marketing ploy to make people buy a more expensive product when the same quality good can be purchased for cheaper.

You are asking consumers to pay more money for something that is of no better quality, all for the cause of making their lives better. Who wouldn’t buy it when you put it like that?

But that’s not the reality of the situation. The Adam Smith Institute, the leading economic think tank in the U.K. published a report where they found that “at best the Fair trade movement is nothing more than a marketing device that does little for the poor.”

In addition to this, the countries with the most certified fair trade farmers are not even in the poorest nations. I don’t think the poverty in Mexico, with more than 50 certified fair trade growers, even approaches the poverty level of African nations like Ethiopia with a mere 10 certified growers.

It was found that fair trade workers in Peru are still not being paid the government-mandated minimum wage, so that leaves one to question where the extra money we consumers pay for a fair trade good is actually going.

The vast majority of economists see the fair trade movement as a subsidy in disguise that will, in the long run, do nothing to help the most impoverished nations improve their situation and only hurt the global economy in the long run. I would advise anyone who even thinks of buying fair trade to read the articles from the Adam Smith Institute and other economists to understand what fair trade really is before throwing your money into a system that promises too much and gives back too little.

Aaron Anglin
Undergraduate

Animal alternative

(In response to Nicole Gilbert’s Wednesday column, “The alternative to animal testing and why we should care.”)

ASU’s involvement in the new animal research facility in downtown Phoenix is only the latest symptom of its broader unwillingness to embrace — or even discuss — the modern and effective alternatives to animal experimentation that are on the cutting edge of biomedical research and education.

For months, Students Taking Action for Animal Rights (STAAR) has been working with PETA2 to urge administrators and faculty to replace inhumane classroom biology experiments on rabbits, mice, rats and frogs with alternative learning methods like sophisticated computer simulations that are educationally effective, widely available and implemented, and more economical than cruel animal labs.

Every attempt has been made by STAAR and PETA to open a dialogue — both publicly and privately — with the University about this subject. Most recently, STAAR delivered more than 1,500 student petition signatures in support of our campaign to ASU’s Executive Vice President and Provost Dr. Elizabeth D. Capaldi, along with an invitation to publicly debate the ethical and scientific merits of the animal experimentation. Dr. Capaldi did not respond, reflecting to the campus community that faculty and administrators do not feel they need to be accountable to students and the public.

This, unfortunately, is the very attitude that allows professors to continue harming animals in outdated classroom experiments — and instructing and requiring undergraduate students to do the same — even in the face of student opposition and when there are so many effective ways to teach the same principles of biology and physiology that don’t involve tormenting animals and are being used at other universities.

On March 2 (12 p.m. in the Memorial Union’s Pima room, 230), STAAR will be hosting a presentation about the use of animals in education and the modern alternatives available. We invite people of all academic backgrounds and perspectives to attend.

Kirby Mauro
Students Taking Action for Animal Rights

Flawed logic

(In response to Jack Fitzpatrick’s Feb. 10 column, “Phoenix food tax is unnecessary.”)

I would like to point out a flaw in Mr. Fitzpatrick’s logic on concealed carry weapon (CCW) permits as alternative sources of income.

Assuming there is some element of truth in eased gun laws causing more problems for police, his snipe at concealed carry permits are a perverse way to help. CCW permits require a more extensive background check than simply purchasing a weapon from a licensed dealer or from another citizen. This is no guarantee of future law compliance, but it does indicate that a person historically has a minimal or no criminal history ... [and] give some indication of the person’s general behavior in the past with some probability of future compliance as well.

If there is no element of truth that eased gun laws cause more crime, then Mr. Fitzpatrick’s rationale is even more perverse according to his intent, as it would only serve to harass that portion of the public who willingly comply with the law and legal requirements and serve to improve the general safety of people around them.

I find Mr. Fitzpatrick’s overall culturocentric perspective, with biases toward people’s activities he doesn’t agree with, a little patronizing. I would suggest Mr. Fitzpatrick make some additional effort to meet people less like him and appreciate their perspectives as well.

Carl J. Armstrong Jr.
Undergraduate