Risk of forced labour embedded in the US fruit and vegetable supply - Nature.com

buahkamp.blogspot.com

Abstract

Sustainable food consumption studies have largely focused on promoting human health within ecological limits. Less attention has been paid to social sustainability, in part because of limited data and models. Globally, agriculture has one of the highest incidences of forced labour, with exploitative conditions enabled by low margins, domestic labour scarcity, inadequate legal protections for workers and high labour requirements. Here we assess the forced labour risk embedded in the US retail supply of fruits and vegetables using distinct datasets and a new forced labour risk scoring method. We demonstrate that there is risk of forced labour in a broad set of fruit and vegetable commodities, with a small number of commodities accounting for a substantial fraction of total risk at the retail supply level. These findings signal potential trade-offs and synergies across dimensions of food system sustainability and the need for novel research approaches to develop evidence-based forced labour risk mitigation strategies.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

Rent or Buy

All prices are NET prices.

**Fig. 1: Risk of forced labour per serving of fruits consumed in the United States.**

**Fig. 2: Risk of forced labour per serving of vegetables consumed in the United States.**

**Fig. 3: Contributions to total forced labour risk in the US retail fruit and vegetable supplies.**

Data availability

All results data generated during the study and select input data are available in the Supplementary Information. The supply and origin data that support the findings of this study are available from the FAO (http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data) and the US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-per-capita-data-system/). The price data that support the findings of this study are available from the US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/fruit-and-vegetable-prices/). The forced labour and governance data that support the findings of this study are available from the US Department of Labor, Bureau of International Labor Affairs (https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab), US Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor and Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (https://www.state.gov/), Verité (https://www.verite.org/) and the Walk Free Foundation (https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/about/the-index/). All other data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

R code supporting this study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

1.
Global Estimates of Modern Slavery: Forced Labour and Forced Marriage (International Labor Organization & Walk Free Foundation, 2018).
2.
Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Platform (United Nations, 2020).
3.
The Meanings of Forced Labour (International Labor Organization, 2014); https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/forced-labour/news/WCMS_237569/lang--en/index.htm
4.
Allain, J., Crane, A., LeBaron, G. & Behbahani, L. Forced Labour’s Business Models and Supply Chains (JRF, 2013); https://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrated/files/forced-labour-business-full.pdf
5.
LeBaron, G., Howard, N., Thibos, C. & Kyritsis, P. Confronting Root Causes: Forced Labour in Global Supply Chains (openDEMOCRACY & SPERI, 2018); https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/126167/1/Confronting_Root_Causes_Forced_Labour_In_Global_Supply_Chains.pdf
6.
Strengthening Protections Against Trafficking in Persons in Federal and Corporate Supply Chains: Research on Risk in 43 Commodities Worldwide (Verité, 2017).
7.
A Summary of Challenges on Addressing Human Trafficking for Labour Exploitation in the Agricultural Sector in the OSCE Region (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, 2009); https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/b/4/37937.pdf
8.
New, S. J. Modern slavery and the supply chain: the limits of corporate social responsibility? Supply Chain Manage. 20, 697–707 (2015).

Article Google Scholar
9.
Gold, S., Trautrims, A. & Trodd, Z. Modern slavery challenges to supply chain management. Supply Chain Manage. 20, 485–494 (2015).

Article Google Scholar
10.
Kühnen, M. & Hahn, R. Indicators in social life cycle assessment: a review of frameworks, theories, and empirical experience. J. Ind. Ecol. 21, 1547–1565 (2017).

Article Google Scholar
11.
Grubert, E. Rigor in social life cycle assessment: improving the scientific grounding of SLCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 23, 481–491 (2018).

Article Google Scholar
12.
Benoît-Norris, C., Cavan, D. A. & Norris, G. Identifying social impacts in product supply chains: overview and application of the Social Hotspot Database. Sustainability 4, 1946–1965 (2012).

Article Google Scholar
13.
Zira, S., Röös, E., Ivarsson, E., Hoffmann, R. & Rydhmer, L. Social life cycle assessment of Swedish organic and conventional pork production. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 25, 1957–1975 (2020).

CAS Article Google Scholar
14.
Pelletier, N. Social sustainability assessment of Canadian egg production facilities: methods, analysis, and recommendations. Sustainability 10, 1601 (2018).

Article Google Scholar
15.
Du, C., Ugaya, C., Freire, F., Dias, L. C. & Clift, R. Enriching the results of screening social life cycle assessment using content analysis: a case study of sugarcane in Brazil. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 24, 781–793 (2019).

Article Google Scholar
16.
Benoît-Norris, C., Bennema, M. & Norris, G. A. The Social Hotspots Database Version 4 (NewEarth B, 2019).
17.
Mears, B. 6 charged in human trafficking scheme involving Thai workers. CNN (3 September 2010).
18.
Shah, R. Rainforest Alliance certifying unethical pineapple farms, activists claim. The Guardian (29 May 2020).
19.
Larsson, N. Human rights in Thailand: Andy Hall’s legal battle to defend migrant workers. The Guardian (22 January 2016).
20.
Linthicum, K. Inside the bloody cartel war for Mexico’s multibillion-dollar avocado industry. Los Angeles Times (21 November 2019).
21.
Dehghan, S. K. Are Mexican avocados the world’s new conflict commodity? The Guardian (30 December 2019).
22.
Godoy, E. Migrant farm workers, the main victims of slave labour in Mexico. Inter Press Service (9 April 2019).
23.
Marosi, R. Product of Mexico: hardship on Mexico’s farms, a bounty for U.S. tables. Los Angeles Times (7 December 2014).
24.
2018 List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor (Bureau of International Labor Affairs, US Department of Labor, 2018); https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ILAB/ListofGoods.pdf
25.
2020 Food & Beverage Benchmark Findings Report (Know the Chain, 2020); https://knowthechain.org/wp-content/uploads/2020-KTC-FB-Benchmark-Report.pdf
26.
Fair Food Program (Fair Food Program, 2020); https://www.fairfoodprogram.org/
27.
Lindgren, K. Justice in the Fields: A Report on the Role of Farmworker Justice Certification and an Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Seven Labels (Fair World Project, 2016); https://fairworldproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Justice-In-The-Fields-Report.pdf
28.
LeBaron, G., Lister, J. & Dauvergne, P. Governing global supply chain sustainability through the ethical audit regime. Globalizations 14, 958–975 (2017).

Article Google Scholar
29.
Heller, M. C. & Keoleian, G. A. Greenhouse gas emission estimates of U.S. dietary choices and food loss. J. Ind. Ecol. 19, 391–401 (2015).

CAS Article Google Scholar
30.
Conrad, Z. et al. Relationship between food waste, diet quality, and environmental sustainability. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195405 (2018).
31.
Birney, C. I., Franklin, K. F., Davidson, F. T. & Webber, M. E. An assessment of individual foodprints attributed to diets and food waste in the United States. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 105008 (2017).

ADS Article Google Scholar
32.
Conrad, Z. Daily cost of consumer food wasted, inedible, and consumed in the United States, 2001–2016. Nutr. J. 19, 35 (2020).
33.
Spiker, M. L., Hiza, H. A. B., Siddiqi, S. M. & Neff, R. A. Wasted food, wasted nutrients: nutrient loss from wasted food in the United States and comparison to gaps in dietary intake. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 117, 1031–1040 (2017).

Article Google Scholar
34.
OECD-FAO Guidance for Responsible Agricultural Supply Chains (OECD & FAO, 2016).
35.
Food and Agriculture Benchmark (World Benchmarking Alliance, 2020); https://www.worldbenchmarkingalliance.org/food-and-agriculture-benchmark/
36.
FAOSTAT: Value of Agricultural Production (FAO, 2021); http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QV
37.
Friscolanti, M. Canada’s uncomfortable reliance on migrant workers. Macleans.ca (28 April 2016).
38.
Crane, A., LeBaron, G., Allain, J. & Behbahani, L. Governance gaps in eradicating forced labor: from global to domestic supply chains. Regul. Gov. 13, 86–106 (2019).

Article Google Scholar
39.
Berliner, D., Greenleaf, A. R., Lake, M., Levi, M. & Noveck, J. Governing global supply chains: what we know (and don’t) about improving labor rights and working conditions. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 11, 193–209 (2015).

Article Google Scholar
40.
Hodkinson, S. N., Lewis, H., Waite, L. & Dwyer, P. Fighting or fuelling forced labour? The Modern Slavery Act 2015, irregular migrants and the vulnerabilising role of the UK’s hostile environment. Crit. Soc. Policy https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018320904311 (2020).
41.
Milk with Dignity First Biennial Report: 2018-2019 (Migrant Justice & Milk with Dignity Standards Council, 2020); https://milkwithdignity.org/sites/default/files/2020MDReport.pdf
42.
Costa, P. T. M. Fighting Forced Labour: The Example of Brazil (International Labour Office, 2009).
43.
Clarembaux, P. & Toral, A. Potato slaves. Univision (6 August 2020).
44.
The hands that feed us. Nat. Food 1, 93 (2020).
45.
Food Balances (Old Methodology and Population) (FAO, 2020).
46.
Kim, B. F. et al. Country-specific dietary shifts to mitigate climate and water crises. Glob. Environ. Change 62, 101926 (2019).
47.
Food Balance Sheets: A Handbook (FAO, 2001).
48.
Detailed Trade Matrix (FAO, 2020).
49.
Food Availability (Per Capita) Data System (Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, 2019); https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-per-capita-data-system
50.
Benoît Norris, C., Bennema, M. & Norris, G. The Social Hotspots Database: Supporting Documentation, Update 2019 (NewEarth B, 2018).
51.
Fruit and Vegetable Prices (Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, 2018); https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/fruit-and-vegetable-prices/
52.
Annual Industry Accounts (Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Department of Commerce, 2012); https://www.bea.gov/industry/industry-underlying-estimates
53.
2018 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices (US Department of State, 2018); https://www.state.gov/reports/2018-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/
54.
Trafficking in Persons Report (Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, US Department of State, 2019); https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2019-Trafficking-in-Persons-Report.pdf
55.
The Global Slavery Index 2016 (Walk Free Foundation, 2016); https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/resources/downloads/
56.
Calvin, L. & Martin, P. Labor-Intensive U.S. Fruit and Vegetable Industry Competes in a Global Market (ERS, 2010); https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2010/december/labor-intensive-us-fruit-and-vegetable-industry-competes-in-a-global-market/
57.
Fruits and Nuts (Verité, 2018).
58.
Martin, P. & Taylor, J. E. Ripe with Change: Evolving Farm Labor Markets in the United States, Mexico, and Central America (Migration Policy Institute, 2013); https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/ripe-change-evolving-farm-labor-markets-united-states-mexico-and-central-america
59.
Rees, M. in Choice in Economic Contexts (Research in Economic Anthropology Vol. 25) (ed. Wood, D. C.) 27–50 (Emerald Group, 2006).
60.
ILO Indicators of Forced Labour (ILO, 2012); https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/forced-labour/publications/WCMS_203832/lang--en/index.htm

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge E. Rodríguez-Huerta, who assisted with the preparation of the final figures. J.L.D.S. was supported by the Nottingham Research Fellowship, University of Nottingham. T.R. was supported by the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Division of Agriculture, Food, and Environment, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA

Nicole Tichenor Blackstone & Tali Robbins
NewEarth B, York, ME, USA

Catherine Benoit Norris
Rights Lab, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

Bethany Jackson & Jessica L. Decker Sparks
School of Geography, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

Bethany Jackson

Authors

Nicole Tichenor Blackstone

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Catherine Benoit Norris

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Tali Robbins

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Bethany Jackson

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Jessica L. Decker Sparks

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

N.T.B. and J.L.D.S. conceptualized the study. N.T.B., C.B.N. and J.L.D.S. designed the methodology. N.T.B. developed the code. T.R., B.J., J.L.D.S., C.B.N. and N.T.B. collected and analysed the data. N.T.B. and J.L.D.S. wrote the original draft, and all authors contributed to editing and revising the manuscript. N.T.B. and J.L.D.S. supervised and administered the project. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicole Tichenor Blackstone.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

N.T.B., J.L.D.S., T.R. and B.J. declare no competing interests. C.B.N. declares that she began a position as a Research Scientist in Social Responsibility with Amazon when this research was near completion. Her contribution to this research has been as an independent expert consultant in social life cycle assessment and separate from her role at Amazon. C.B.N. is also the Chief Operating Officer of NewEarth B and Executive Director of the Social Hotspots Database project. Data from the Social Hotspots Database were provided free of charge for academic use in this research.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Food thanks Stefan Gold, Erin O’Connor and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Fig. 1 and Methods.

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Data 1

Supplementary Tables 1–8.

Source data

Source Data Fig. 1

Source data for per-serving risk of fruit.

Source Data Fig. 2

Source data for per-serving risk of vegetables.

Source Data Fig. 3

Source data for proportions in contribution analysis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Blackstone, N.T., Norris, C.B., Robbins, T. et al. Risk of forced labour embedded in the US fruit and vegetable supply. Nat Food (2021). https://ift.tt/3835Qdw

Download citation

Received: 21 December 2020
Accepted: 08 July 2021
Published: 23 August 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00339-0

Adblock test (Why?)

"fruit" - Google News
August 23, 2021 at 10:02PM
https://ift.tt/3gsncFj

Risk of forced labour embedded in the US fruit and vegetable supply - Nature.com
"fruit" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2pWUrc9
https://ift.tt/3aVawBg

Bagikan Berita Ini

Search