7 ms·

Child labor in chocolate industry: 'It is worse than you may realize'

83 points by gardenfelder 3y ago

gardenfelder 3y ago
"For Halloween, the Last Week Tonight host delves into the long-lived child labor practices in the world’s chocolate supply"
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tivert 3y ago
This is a late-night talk show recap, not an actual news article. John Oliver might state some true facts, but his show is really about creating a weird mixture of outrage and humorous quips for entertainment. He wouldn't be doing is job if truth and accuracy weren't sacrificed for that goal.
- DueDilligence 3y ago
  [dead]
- happytoexplain 3y ago
  The delta between the goals of journalism and comedy deserve scrutiny, but they do not, by definition, necessitate that comedy lies. Of course, it sounds like you are making a more direct criticism of this specific show - I'm not sure what "weird mixture of outrage and humorous quips for entertainment" means in this context. It sounds like you're just describing a normal comedic news show in deceptively harsh terms. Truth and comedy can be a valuable mix, despite (because of?) truth being frequently dark. Should people not be outraged by child labor in chocolate production, or are you saying that his specific reporting is so far from the truth that the truth is actually not even outrage-worthy? It's unclear.
  - themagician 3y ago
    It cherry picks what to talk about based on what's funny and literally creates outrage where there otherwise would not be, for entertainment. People enjoy being outraged at this stuff. There are more slaves today than at any other time. Child labor is on the rise. It's not unique to chocolate at all. Chocolate, sulfur, bananas, cobalt, rubber, etc.. Modern capitalism requires a healthy base of slaves to mine, refine, and harvest base resources. It's not that it isn't true. It's just not news in any significant way. This is just how things are. We all know that this is how things are, but we pretend like it's not so we can enjoy the feeling of being outraged. I know I do. John Oliver is great.
    - timeon 3y ago
      > It's not unique to chocolate at all. Same is mentioned in the show. > This is just how things are We all know that this is how things are, but we pretend like it's not so we can enjoy the feeling of being outraged. Not sure what your point is. Is the 'outrage' bigger problem than the way that things actually are?
    - hoten 3y ago
      This is mentioned by John. Are there specific instances of misrepresentation in the episode you can point to? "We all know..." That's just not true. Besides being funny, this show presents a general audience with topics they won't be familiar with. I think one can expect some chocolate consumers to modify their buying habits after watching this infotainment.
    - happytoexplain 3y ago
      >We all know that this is how things are, but we pretend like it's not so we can enjoy the feeling of being outraged This seems both factually wrong (the first part) and kind of an unnecessarily hostile oversimplification of people's emotions/motivations. It's also another example of the very common fallacy that we should patently not be outraged by things that we already know, or are common, for which there are essentially infinite counter-examples in the realm of human behaviors that are common and known, yet still outrage-worthy and shocking every time (e.g. child abuse). Just because we can't solve every problem instantly doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to express our thoughts and feelings about them - that's part of a healthy society. Outrage only for outrage's sake surely is a thing, but it's also an easy thing to use as a label in dismissing things one doesn't like for other reasons.
- Clubber 3y ago
  I saw it too. Are these kids children of the people who own the farms? I didn't remember seeing anything to refute that. If so, barring their kids to work on the farm would be detrimental to the family farmer and would benefit bigger farms that can afford to hire more external labor.
  - hoten 3y ago
    There's a clip in the show of a young female teenager who wants to go to school but has instead been separated from her family and forced to work on her (I believe) uncles farm. You're probably asking about the general trend but this is an example of the show refuting that these kids are just the farmers children. The call with the nestle exec also mentions this objection.
  - watwut 3y ago
    The real question ia whether it is detrimental to the children themselves. Everyone and his brother goes "you should not have children when you can't afford them" when people who fell into poverty need assistance or when someone can not provide own room to each kid or have trouble to pay for something. Guess what, having kids so that you have cheap labor for otherwise ineffective business is even worst. It is different when they help an hour a day after school or during weekends etc. But, that us not what we are talking about here.
    - Clubber 3y ago
      >Guess what, having kids so that you have cheap labor for otherwise ineffective business is even worst. People have been doing that for several millennia.
      - watwut 3y ago
        People also beaten wife's for millennia. They also could get by with next to no education. Yes, animal welfare groups existed sooner then children protection groups, making it ok to heavily beat your kids or underwear them severely.
  - 3y ago
- watwut 3y ago
  Yes and no. I am increasingly coming to the opinion that no, if you use comedy to spred lies, then it is exactly what you are doing. The comedy part is then just cowardly shield to make it hard to argue against your claims while making it more likely your lies spread. And that goes for Carlin and all the other comedians too.
- gowld 3y ago
  Can you provide examples of untruths and inaccuracies? And, bad as those are, do they outweight the truths that would otherwise be ignored? Perfect is the enemy of good.
jws 3y ago
I recommend https://www.grenadachocolate.com https://www.grenadachocolate.com (though I haven't had one since hurricane Ivan) Some folks ideally named for making an organic chocolate company (Green, Brown, and Browne) decided that the cocoa farmers of Grenada would be better off if they also made chocolate there. The climate makes it a bit of challenge, and small batch is hard to begin with, but they make a great bar that I always feel is more like cocoa made into a food than a product containing cocoa. It's a small company with poor global distribution because, well, it's a big planet and there are only so many chocolate bars. But if you look at the web site, and find "view, retail outlets" and then click on "Country" to reverse search, US is now visible for some reason and San Francisco has a lot of outlets and they are near the top of the results. New York also seems to have a lot of outlets. I'm 500 miles from the nearest outlet. But, if you want more money to go to people closer to the dirt in the production chain, these are your guys.
lgreiv 3y ago
Since trying it on a dev conference in Amsterdam, I am severely hooked on Tony‘s Chocolonely, which usually rates quite high in labor protection reviews [1] and has started to introduce traceability for the supply chains of its various ingredients. It also tastes unbelievably good. [1] https://www.chocolatescorecard.com/ https://www.chocolatescorecard.com/
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Rodeoclash 3y ago
  I'm actually quite happy to pay a bit more for Tony's chocolate because then I'll wind up enjoying it more and eating less of it.
- ojbyrne 3y ago
  It was mentioned in the show, in a good light, much as you describe.
pcthrowaway 3y ago
This video of a plantation worker at an Ivory Coast cocoa farm, trying chocolate for his first time is eye-opening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70jsvEhU9Wo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70jsvEhU9Wo It's easy to forget how good we have it sometimes
kvakerok 3y ago
So, I don't want to rain on your parades, guys, but what if child labor is the only alternative to extreme poverty or starvation for people in those countries? As someone who immigrated from a country like that into 1st world I'm kind of torn about this. On one hand child labor is bad, on the other hand, starvation is worse. So now we block these kids from being able to make a living for themselves, or effectively force them to lie about their age.
- object-a 3y ago
  My question back would be: why _is_ child labor the only alternative to extreme poverty or starvation? Why can't adults be paid a sufficient wage to avoid starvation, or why can't our society provide for these children without requiring them to work? The fact that things are that way currently, is not an argument that things should be that way. It's worth discussing what in the current system necessitates that children work or starve, and whether that's fixable.
  - Teever 3y ago
    To add to your question, I would like to ask: Why is child labour the only alternative to extreme poverty and starvation in a world where we have excess calories?
  - themagician 3y ago
    Because we live in a society that requires a solid base of slavery to function. It always has. Base level resource extraction and processing (cocoa, cobalt, rubber, sulfur, et al.) is done with slaves in order to have an abundance of consumer items at the other end. It is not work people want to do. It is work people will only do under threat of death. It is a horrifying thought. Or it should be. I think you are right in that it is worth discussing, but you must come at it from an honest standpoint. You can not pretend like this is some kind of aberration—it is the backbone of our capitalist society. You can not fix a systemic issue with small changes. A quarter of humans on this planet live in abject poverty. We accept this kind of inequality because "everyone is equal" is something we aspire to one day believe—currently we do not.

83 points by gardenfelder 3y ago

"For Halloween, the Last Week Tonight host delves into the long-lived child labor practices in the world’s chocolate supply"

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

tivert 3y ago

This is a late-night talk show recap, not an actual news article. John Oliver might state some true facts, but his show is really about creating a weird mixture of outrage and humorous quips for entertainment. He wouldn't be doing is job if truth and accuracy weren't sacrificed for that goal.

DueDilligence 3y ago
[dead]
happytoexplain 3y ago
The delta between the goals of journalism and comedy deserve scrutiny, but they do not, by definition, necessitate that comedy lies. Of course, it sounds like you are making a more direct criticism of this specific show - I'm not sure what "weird mixture of outrage and humorous quips for entertainment" means in this context. It sounds like you're just describing a normal comedic news show in deceptively harsh terms. Truth and comedy can be a valuable mix, despite (because of?) truth being frequently dark. Should people not be outraged by child labor in chocolate production, or are you saying that his specific reporting is so far from the truth that the truth is actually not even outrage-worthy? It's unclear.
- themagician 3y ago
  It cherry picks what to talk about based on what's funny and literally creates outrage where there otherwise would not be, for entertainment. People enjoy being outraged at this stuff. There are more slaves today than at any other time. Child labor is on the rise. It's not unique to chocolate at all. Chocolate, sulfur, bananas, cobalt, rubber, etc.. Modern capitalism requires a healthy base of slaves to mine, refine, and harvest base resources. It's not that it isn't true. It's just not news in any significant way. This is just how things are. We all know that this is how things are, but we pretend like it's not so we can enjoy the feeling of being outraged. I know I do. John Oliver is great.
  - timeon 3y ago
    > It's not unique to chocolate at all. Same is mentioned in the show. > This is just how things are We all know that this is how things are, but we pretend like it's not so we can enjoy the feeling of being outraged. Not sure what your point is. Is the 'outrage' bigger problem than the way that things actually are?
  - hoten 3y ago
    This is mentioned by John. Are there specific instances of misrepresentation in the episode you can point to? "We all know..." That's just not true. Besides being funny, this show presents a general audience with topics they won't be familiar with. I think one can expect some chocolate consumers to modify their buying habits after watching this infotainment.
  - happytoexplain 3y ago
    >We all know that this is how things are, but we pretend like it's not so we can enjoy the feeling of being outraged This seems both factually wrong (the first part) and kind of an unnecessarily hostile oversimplification of people's emotions/motivations. It's also another example of the very common fallacy that we should patently not be outraged by things that we already know, or are common, for which there are essentially infinite counter-examples in the realm of human behaviors that are common and known, yet still outrage-worthy and shocking every time (e.g. child abuse). Just because we can't solve every problem instantly doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to express our thoughts and feelings about them - that's part of a healthy society. Outrage only for outrage's sake surely is a thing, but it's also an easy thing to use as a label in dismissing things one doesn't like for other reasons.
Clubber 3y ago
I saw it too. Are these kids children of the people who own the farms? I didn't remember seeing anything to refute that. If so, barring their kids to work on the farm would be detrimental to the family farmer and would benefit bigger farms that can afford to hire more external labor.
- hoten 3y ago
  There's a clip in the show of a young female teenager who wants to go to school but has instead been separated from her family and forced to work on her (I believe) uncles farm. You're probably asking about the general trend but this is an example of the show refuting that these kids are just the farmers children. The call with the nestle exec also mentions this objection.
- watwut 3y ago
  The real question ia whether it is detrimental to the children themselves. Everyone and his brother goes "you should not have children when you can't afford them" when people who fell into poverty need assistance or when someone can not provide own room to each kid or have trouble to pay for something. Guess what, having kids so that you have cheap labor for otherwise ineffective business is even worst. It is different when they help an hour a day after school or during weekends etc. But, that us not what we are talking about here.
  - Clubber 3y ago
    >Guess what, having kids so that you have cheap labor for otherwise ineffective business is even worst. People have been doing that for several millennia.
    - watwut 3y ago
      People also beaten wife's for millennia. They also could get by with next to no education. Yes, animal welfare groups existed sooner then children protection groups, making it ok to heavily beat your kids or underwear them severely.
- 3y ago
watwut 3y ago
Yes and no. I am increasingly coming to the opinion that no, if you use comedy to spred lies, then it is exactly what you are doing. The comedy part is then just cowardly shield to make it hard to argue against your claims while making it more likely your lies spread. And that goes for Carlin and all the other comedians too.
gowld 3y ago
Can you provide examples of untruths and inaccuracies? And, bad as those are, do they outweight the truths that would otherwise be ignored? Perfect is the enemy of good.

jws 3y ago

I recommend https://www.grenadachocolate.com https://www.grenadachocolate.com (though I haven't had one since hurricane Ivan) Some folks ideally named for making an organic chocolate company (Green, Brown, and Browne) decided that the cocoa farmers of Grenada would be better off if they also made chocolate there. The climate makes it a bit of challenge, and small batch is hard to begin with, but they make a great bar that I always feel is more like cocoa made into a food than a product containing cocoa. It's a small company with poor global distribution because, well, it's a big planet and there are only so many chocolate bars. But if you look at the web site, and find "view, retail outlets" and then click on "Country" to reverse search, US is now visible for some reason and San Francisco has a lot of outlets and they are near the top of the results. New York also seems to have a lot of outlets. I'm 500 miles from the nearest outlet. But, if you want more money to go to people closer to the dirt in the production chain, these are your guys.

lgreiv 3y ago

Since trying it on a dev conference in Amsterdam, I am severely hooked on Tony‘s Chocolonely, which usually rates quite high in labor protection reviews [1] and has started to introduce traceability for the supply chains of its various ingredients. It also tastes unbelievably good. [1] https://www.chocolatescorecard.com/ https://www.chocolatescorecard.com/

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Rodeoclash 3y ago
I'm actually quite happy to pay a bit more for Tony's chocolate because then I'll wind up enjoying it more and eating less of it.
ojbyrne 3y ago
It was mentioned in the show, in a good light, much as you describe.

pcthrowaway 3y ago

This video of a plantation worker at an Ivory Coast cocoa farm, trying chocolate for his first time is eye-opening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70jsvEhU9Wo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70jsvEhU9Wo It's easy to forget how good we have it sometimes

kvakerok 3y ago

So, I don't want to rain on your parades, guys, but what if child labor is the only alternative to extreme poverty or starvation for people in those countries? As someone who immigrated from a country like that into 1st world I'm kind of torn about this. On one hand child labor is bad, on the other hand, starvation is worse. So now we block these kids from being able to make a living for themselves, or effectively force them to lie about their age.

object-a 3y ago
My question back would be: why _is_ child labor the only alternative to extreme poverty or starvation? Why can't adults be paid a sufficient wage to avoid starvation, or why can't our society provide for these children without requiring them to work? The fact that things are that way currently, is not an argument that things should be that way. It's worth discussing what in the current system necessitates that children work or starve, and whether that's fixable.
- Teever 3y ago
  To add to your question, I would like to ask: Why is child labour the only alternative to extreme poverty and starvation in a world where we have excess calories?
- themagician 3y ago
  Because we live in a society that requires a solid base of slavery to function. It always has. Base level resource extraction and processing (cocoa, cobalt, rubber, sulfur, et al.) is done with slaves in order to have an abundance of consumer items at the other end. It is not work people want to do. It is work people will only do under threat of death. It is a horrifying thought. Or it should be. I think you are right in that it is worth discussing, but you must come at it from an honest standpoint. You can not pretend like this is some kind of aberration—it is the backbone of our capitalist society. You can not fix a systemic issue with small changes. A quarter of humans on this planet live in abject poverty. We accept this kind of inequality because "everyone is equal" is something we aspire to one day believe—currently we do not.