Editing Fair trade (section)

=== Other ethical issues ===

==== Secrecy ====
Under EU law ([[Unfair Commercial Practices Directive|Directive 2005/29/EC]] on Unfair Commercial Practices) the criminal offense of unfair trading is committed if (a) "it contains false information and is therefore untruthful or in any way, including overall presentation, deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer, even if the information is factually correct", (b) "it omits material information that the average consumer needs… and thereby causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise", or (c) "fails to identify the commercial intent of the commercial practice… [which] causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise." [[Peter Griffiths (politician)|Peter Griffiths]] (2011)<ref name="EthicalObjections" /> points to false claims that fair trade producers get higher prices and to the almost universal failure to disclose the extra price charged for fair trade products, how much of this actually reaches the developing world, what this is spent on in the developing world, how much (if any) reaches farmers, and the harm that fair trade does to non-fair trade farmers. He also points to the failure to disclose when "the primary commercial intent" is to make money for retailers and distributors in rich countries.

==== Unethical selling techniques ====
Economist [[Philip Booth (economist)|Philip Booth]] says that the selling techniques used by some sellers and supporters of fair trade are bullying, misleading, and unethical,<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=book&ID=437 |title=IEA ::: Institute of economic affairs |access-date=2012-02-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090906121402/http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=book&ID=437 |archive-date=2009-09-06 |url-status=dead }}</ref> such as the use of boycott campaigns and other pressure to force sellers to stock a product they think ethically suspect. However, the opposite has been argued, that a more participatory and multi-stakeholder approach to auditing might improve the quality of the process.{{clarify|reason=confusing sentence, doesn't seem to follow from previous sentence|date=March 2022}}<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ntd.co.uk/idsbookshop/details.asp?id=807 |title=IDS Bookshop – Item details |publisher=Ntd.co.uk |access-date=2013-05-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130116021902/http://www.ntd.co.uk/idsbookshop/details.asp?id=807 |archive-date=2013-01-16 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

Some people{{who|date=March 2022}} argue that strategic use of labeling may help embarrass (or encourage) major suppliers into changing their practices. It may bring to light corporate vulnerabilities that activists can exploit. Or it may encourage ordinary people to get involved with broader projects of social change.<ref>{{cite journal | author = Julie Guthman | year = 2007 | journal = Antipode | title = The Polanyian Way? Voluntary Food Labels as Neoliberal Governance | volume = 39 | pages = 456–78 | doi = 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2007.00535.x | issue = 3 | bibcode = 2007Antip..39..456G }}</ref>