The sad story of multinational fruit

Over 90% of the bananas that are sold on the international market are produced in
monocultures are located in Latin America, West Africa and the Philippines. Most
plantations in question is controlled by only 5 companies, two of which (the largest producer and
commercializzatici of bananas in the world) are based in the U.S., "Chiquita Brands International"
(formerly known as "United Fruit Company" and later as "United Brands"), and
"Dole Food Company" (formerly "Standard Fruit"). Chiquita and Dole control about half
of world trade in bananas. At these follows, in order of magnitude, the "Del Monte Fresh
Produce ", owned by the IAT group (based in Chile and capital of the United Arab Emirates), which
controls about 15% of the banana trade. The headquarters of the Del Monte is also in the USA.
The fourth company, the "Noboa," huge Ecuadorian company which controls more than one-third of
Ecuador's exports and 11% of the world banana market. In fifth place, with a 7%
approximately, we find the firm "Fyffes", based in Ireland. Fyffes has grown to the point of control
nearly 20% of the European market, despite having a ridiculous amount of banana plantations.
Because of their size, these companies are very powerful and influential both in their countries
of origin, in the places where they possess the plantations. For example, in 1992 the government
Panamanian was forced by Chiquita, who threatened to withdraw its contracts with local producers to
withdraw a bill that called for an increase in the minimum wage for workers. Similarly, it is
explanatory case that raised the same Chiquita against the European banana import rates,
presented in 1995 at the World Trade Organization by the Government
U.S.. The banana multinationals often handle all links in the chain
producer-consumer, either directly or indirectly. This means that, when the plantations
are not directly owned by them rented by the local landowners (as in
Nicaragua), we are masters of manufacturing, transport services and maturation, and
sometimes also of the distribution networks in consuming countries (especially the U.S.). everything
allows them to reap huge profits from this sector, most of which remains in the
Cases of countries of origin of the multinational. Only 12% of the final price of the bananas back to
states that host the plantations. Plantation laborers, to Bananeros, it is instead a
figure ranging between 1% and 2% of the profits. In recent years, these companies have attempted to
get rid of the direct ownership of the land, favoring guaranteed supply contracts with small and
medium-sized producers. This strategy allows companies to shift the blame (in the cases
legal challenge against them) on local producers of human impact and environmental impact caused by
piantagioni.L 'use of large quantities of chemicals (second only, in Latin America, the cotton industry) and working conditions
poor (attacks on trade unions, low wages, poor nutrition ..) are the standard
banana plantations in Latin America. This situation has generated, over the years,
different conflicts (sometimes violent) between the Latin American and Bananeros companies: strikes,
closures plantations, trades (more or less advantageous) contracts, civil and criminal trial
workers against multinationals, as well as multinational corporations against workers and their
leaders. Despite these large companies continue to have political influence, day after day
increases the pressure of consumers even in industrialized countries. Thanks largely to the
information campaigns carried out by many associations of international solidarity, the
Western consumers have begun to require corporations to take a
behavior more respectful of human rights, also getting big results. For example the
executives of Dole, Del Monte and Chiquita, concerned about the extensive damage caused to the image
by boycott campaigns, gathered it for the first time, in May 2000, with the
representatives of trade unions in Latin America and the Philippines, to discuss the possibility of exceeding the
crisis. The companies and the unions agreed to establish a standing committee that would
had to meet at least 2 times a year. Although this is a historic step, only the Chiquita
as a result of these agreements, signing in June 2001 of a commitment to human rights
workers with COLSIBA (Coordinadora Latinoamericana de los Trabajadores de Sindicatos
Bananeros) and the IUF (Unión Internacional de Trabajadores Agrícolas).
Chiquita

Chiquita Brands International, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Formerly known as the United Fruit Company, Chiquita controls about a quarter of the
World trade in bananas. The U.S. multinational owns plantations in Panama,
Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Colombia, and Australia. The company also manages the
production of plantations that rent (or buy directly bananas) in Martinique,
Honduras, Guatemala, Ecuador, Colombia, Costa Rica, Panama and Nicaragua. despite the
Chiquita, as we wrote earlier, flaunting the signing of agreements with trade unions
Bananeros, its history in the field of labor relations in all countries of Latin America has been
notoriously bad. Despite the agreement, Chiquita signed in 2001 with the trade unions
COLSIBA and IUF (of which we have just spoken), allowed trade unions in Colombia and
Honduras to aggregate workers who were previously excluded from negotiations work, the
multinational has not changed its decision with its policies. In fact, in September 2003,
Chiquita closed four plantations in Guatemala without consulting the unions. In Costa Rica
still very difficult to eradicate anti-union culture of the local management of the company, while
in Nicaragua, where from 2001 Chiquita is the only multinational company that operates the market
bananas, wages have dropped to the lowest level of the whole industry: about $ 1.20 (U.S. dollars) per day.
The company also has not yet responded to petitions pending that accuse it of exercise
pressures on domestic producers, so do not give in to the demands of increasing wages and
terminate the anti-union pressure.
A brief history of the relationship between Chiquita and the unions Bananeros
On 12 November 1998, the spokesman for the multinational gathered in Guatemala City, with a
delegation of labor unions in the countries where Chiquita owned plantations. He was the first
moment of confrontation after almost 100 years (such as United Fruit) presence in the area.
After a second meeting, which took place in April 1999, the unions presented a proposal for a
agreement about the human rights of workers and the environmental impact of the plantations. even though
the support of international civil society, who opened a campaign platform for the dissemination of
proposal to put pressure on the company, Chiquita refused to sign the contract.
In September 2000, the corporation issued unilaterally its own Code of Conduct
(about the social responsibility of the company), without consulting the unions. This code approved
both groups of workers to mold Solidarista, both independent trade unions

. When, at the beginning of 2001, the corporation found itself on the brink of bankruptcy (due to a
drastic lowering of demand for exotic fruits on the international markets, in addition to growth
import duties in Europe), was the same firm to solicit a COLSIBA IUF and the signature
an agreement on the rights of workers, which could at least raise the company from damage
image suffered as a result of the boycott campaigns spread across the globe. the result
negotiation, which took place in San José (Costa Rica) on 11 May 2001, it was the signing of a
agreement signed by Chiquita Brands International, IUF and COLSIBA. The agreement was ratified in
Geneva, June 14 of the same year, in the presence of the Director General of
International Labour Organization. The Treaty also applies to suppliers of Chiquita, and the
monitoring of the compliance of delivery is dependent on an organ made ​​up of trade unionists and members
of the multinational. On the web pages of the trade union IUF (www.iuf.org), you can retrieve the
full text of the agreement. In the early '90s, Chiquita began relations with the
organization Rainforest Alliance (US-based), to adjust the parameters of the "Proyecto
para el mejoramiento the Banana. "Chiquita says that the project plans to create plantations
modern, which are a model for the industry sector. In November 2000, the multinational
announced that all of its plantations in Latin America met the criteria of the project.
However, the evidence gathered by the workers indicate that although changes have been made
some improvements in the field of occupational safety and occupational safety progress is
were scarce. There are open questions still today in many countries (including Nicaragua) on
relationship between the corporation and the Rainforest Alliance, on the certification of
achieving the goals set by the project. Chiquita finally, since 2001, has drawn
of the "Bulletins Entrepreneurial Responsibility", setting new standards for the same
multinational in terms of transparency and rigor, two qualities not common to many businesses
multinationals. In this regard it should be noted that Chiquita announced in 2003 that all of its
plantations in Costa Rica had been certified as meeting the standards of the SA8000
organization SAI (Social Accountability International). Nevertheless, the report of the SAI
related to the monitoring of these plantations (for which were declared achieved standards
working minimum), it is quite questionable, especially with regard to the right to freedom
association and collective bargaining, which are still largely denied.
Since 1993, Chiquita has led fierce battles against the legal duties imposed by the European Union
European import of bananas. The multinational, very influential in politics
U.S. (as evidenced by the survey published by Time magazine on February 7, 2000
  persuaded the Clinton administration, with large donations to the Democratic Party, to
place it in its case against the European Union in front of the newly formed organization
The World Trade Organization. Chiquita had set his line market in the 80s and 90s
relying on a market free from restraints of any kind, making strategic investments in the
case. When the European Union imposed quotas and licenses to restrict access to its market,
began one of the largest and most complex commercial disputes in history. The issue ended
in 2001 with a series of agreements entered into by the EU, the U.S. and Ecuador, which have enabled the Chiquita
to recoup some of the lost market in 1993.
Chiquita in Colombia
In May 2004, a major scandal broke out in Colombia where Chiquita admitted that he had
financed paramilitary groups, defined below as "terrorists" by the U.S. government. the
multinational claimed to have paid some paramilitary organizations (without specifying what
they do what they were paid) to "protect the workers, if the payments were not
carried out. "Answer it sounded strange Colombian public opinion, but not to the judges
U.S., which is not reputarono necessary legal action against the corporation. such as
emerges from the investigation conducted by Dick Emanuelsson, published by Bogota May 5 2004
The news caused quite a stir in the country, asking once again to open the contacts between
foreign multinationals and Colombian armed groups, which during the 90s were stained
the murders of dozens of trade unionists and leaders of different groups of Bananeros.
Spot Chiquita banana socially responsible
In November 2004, started a massive advertising campaign to Chiquita, based on
attributes "ethics" of their bananas. Putting behind the controversies that have involved
in past years, the corporation advertises his victory Ethic Award 2004, launching the
slogan "The first helmet that protects the environment and workers." The award of social responsibility and
environment is awarded annually by the weekly GDOWEEK, head of the publishing group
Agepe, and Businnes KPMG Advisory. Chiquita has been nominated for Corporate Social Responsibility
in the "Staff and internal processes", with the motivation "For the strong commitment of great respect,
used worldwide to overcome the past, through several structural changes. "
Chiquita has often been criticized for human rights violations, pollution
environmental damage and health of workers. Yet in March 2004, thousands of Bananeros
Nicaraguans marched for days, denouncing the damage caused by the use of the pesticide
Nemagon (used by several multinational companies, including Chiquita) and asking for the support of the
Government in the proceedings that have filed for compensation. With regard to
the environment, health and quality of products, Chiquita has been certified to EUREPGAP
approximately 14,000 acres of land, equal before the sale of the plantations in Colombia, about two
thirds of those planted with bananas by the company. EUREPGAP certification relates to the use
accepted techniques of integrated pest management, the adoption of specific attention to the protection
environment, care of hygiene in the handling of food products, the respect of
DOLE

Dole Food Company, Westlake Village, California, USA
Dole, in some countries, it operates under the name "Standard Fruit Company," is the manufacturing company and
commercializzatrice of fresh fruits largest in the world, and controls little more than a quarter of the
world banana market. California produces the multinational banana plantations
his property in Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Ecuador, Colombia, Cameroon and the Philippines.
In addition, the company buys bananas from domestic producers in Ecuador, Costa Rica, Guatemala,
Honduras and the Philippines. In the UK, Dole has a stake in the enterprise "JP Fruit", which
sells bananas in Jamaica and Costa Rica In Ecuador Dole takes the second place as
exporting firm (after Noboa). The wages of plantation workers in this country Dole
are very low and, after a period of repression which lasted almost twenty years, today unions are
now virtually disappeared. In August 2000, Dole announced that it would reduce the volume
of bananas bought by domestic producers of Costa Rica, 25%, and that it would not
new contracts in 2003. Thereafter, in October, Dole announced that he was going to lay off between
3500 and 4000 plantation workers. How did Del Monte in 1999, the company offered little
after the workers to return, with lower wages and with fewer constraints or other health benefits. do not
There is a plantation in Costa Rica in which you maintain union agreements and trade unionists
are not persecuted. Dole finished buying bananas in Nicaragua in 1999, threatening
so the future of this industry. Dole intent also a lawsuit against the company
Nicaraguan export Bananic, seeking to invalidate the rights of this enterprise to export
the European Union. Dole lost the case. Dole is finally one of the companies most involved
in the scandal of Nemagon, a pesticide DBCP based on extremely toxic to your health
human. Although the product was declared a health hazard and therefore prohibited
already in the U.S. since 1977, Dole continued to export and use Nemagon plantations
around the world.
Dole claims to be innocent

On the 4th of March 2005, the spokesman for the Dole in Nicaragua, Humberto Hurtado told the
newspaper "El Nuevo Diario" and "La Prensa" that Dole recognizes only the Nemagon
affects the reproductive system in men, but there is no scientific evidence worthy of
confidence that connect the Nemagon with all other diseases of the people who have applied the
product. The company, he said Hurtado was willing to seek an agreement out of court
in the past, but not anymore, and will end with the judicial process, unless the Bananeros
abandon the complaints and the Law 364. processes in Nicaragua celebrated according to the multinational
are in fact full of incidents of fraud, so the people who made the complaint does not
should expect compensation. The declaration takes place against the arrival of the "afectados por
and Nemagon "to Managua (on 2 March), after traveling 160 km on foot to
ask the government Bolanos compliance with the agreements of the Raizon

.
El Legado
"El Legado" (in Spanish, inheritance), is the title of a booklet, presented in 1993 during the processes
of "afectados por el Nemagon" costarricensi in Austin, Texas
In this paper, emerges many notes
interesting knowledge about the long-standing part of the multinational manufacturers
Nemagon, about the dangers of the chemical.
Shell was aware, at least in
since 1972 (the date of the letter) of the toxic effects caused by Nemagon.
El Legado, 1993, p. 8 shows how, starting from 1958, both Shell and Dow
Chemical were at least aware of the effects of Nemagon player on the apparatus.
The poison was discovered in 1833 by Oppenheim, and manufactured commercially since the second
mid-50s from U.S. multinational companies Dow Chemical Company,
Occidental Chemical Company and Shell Oil Company. The first studies about the effects of Nemagon
on living organisms were conducted on behalf of Dow Chemical and Shell, two teachers
University of California: Dr. Ted Torkelson and Dr. Charles Hine. Both studies
confirmed the extreme danger of the product. "Among the guinea pigs that died," writes Dr.
as confirmed by the part of the document translated into Spanish, saying "we know that Dow Chemical has
similar information and that they are very dissatisfied with the observed effects on the testes. "

Hine at Shell in April 1958, in a note kept hidden for decades, "the injury is more
have been able to observe primarily in the lungs, kidneys and testicles. The testes were, above all,
extremely atrophied "

The first analysis conducted by Dow Chemical, three months later,
concludes that DBCP is "rapidly absorbed through the skin, and is highly
toxic if inhaled "

The Nemagon entered into Nicaragua in 1970, and not more nor out.