Somehow the Residence Hall Association managed to voted 12-1 against bringing Starbucks to campus without accurately taking all coffee industry issues into consideration.
We are skeptical about why the RHA is assuming that Pura Vida is any more responsible than Starbucks. Whose word is this based on? Pura Vida makes many claims for itself that we think the RHA and other student representatives would do well to question:
1. Can it honestly 100 percent guarantee its certification as a "fair-trade company?"
2. If it can, which certification organization examines its product? Is it third-party certified, meaning not by the importer or the grower so as to ensure no graft in the process?
3. Is the certification organization considered legitimate by the greater coffee-growing industry?
4. What is Pura Vida's definition of "fair trade," since the definition can vary? How are the communities it is giving to realizing these profits?
5. What is the quality of the coffee it sells, considering that fair trade may or may not be of acceptable quality?
6. If the coffee is priced equal to or less than Starbucks, how is Pura Vida able to do that, since certification often pushes prices higher?
7. Does it seem fair to discriminate against 99 percent of these third-world growers and penalize them for not partaking in certification when they often cannot afford it?
8. Also, what exactly does certification have to do with "environmentally sound" policies? Isn't it more environmentally sound to grow 100 percent certified shade-grown coffee, and does Pura Vida do that?
Bad weather across the world during one growing season could put Pura Vida's supply in danger. Let's see how well the naysayers do without their cup of joe in the morning. Is our collective student voice being unfairly represented by a very loud, very left-wing, minority segment of the campus that has fixated itself on an industry that it is not completely educated about? It could be.
