I'm not organic or fair trade either, mate

April 27, 2007 1:21 PM

Exposed: I'm not a plastic bag! Queues this week have gone around the block for a designer cotton bag designed by Anya Hindmarch available at Sainsbury's, the British grocer. The bag, which was designed to raise awareness of fair trade and ethical issues, was actually mass produced by sweatshop labor in China and is neither fair trade nor organic. Bags are selling for as much at $200 on Ebay. Anya Hindmarch herself has not apologized for the bag, saying: "We will be launching I’m Not A Plastic Bag in the US in June (in a limited edition navy blue) and in Japan in July (in a limited edition bottle green)."
posted by parmanparman (36 comments total)

I'm just a pathetic fad!
posted by kuujjuarapik at 1:31 PM on April 27, 2007

Oh, the hypocrisy of it all.
posted by flippant at 1:34 PM on April 27, 2007

The bags will be an easy way of identifying the not-too-bright among the well meaning. Plus, aren't they awfully ugly?
posted by tula at 1:36 PM on April 27, 2007

Shouldn't the metric be how the wages compare to other jobs in China and not how they compare to wages in England? Or am I being a tool of the kleptocracy?
posted by Justinian at 1:36 PM on April 27, 2007

What kuujjuarapik said, plus this was in the Guardian today too.
posted by Flashman at 1:38 PM on April 27, 2007

How odd. What would the workers in China be doing if not employed by Sainsbury's making bags? Presumably, either working for less money or not working at all.
posted by Aloysius Bear at 1:39 PM on April 27, 2007

At my Coop they are marketed as "Happy Sacks". Only they are just canvas totes, not designed by Anya Hindmarch.
posted by everichon at 1:41 PM on April 27, 2007

posted by Aloysius Bear at 10:39 PM

How odd. What would the workers in China be doing if not employed by Sainsbury's making bags? Presumably, either working for less money or not working at all.

Now that's irony, folks!
posted by Foci for Analysis at 1:43 PM on April 27, 2007

I see stupid, but I sure don't see irony.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:45 PM on April 27, 2007

everichon! You're in Ashland? I graduated from Southern Oregon University. I miss Ashland so much.
posted by parmanparman at 1:45 PM on April 27, 2007

So, how much more energy does producing one cotton bag take anyway?
posted by stereo at 1:47 PM on April 27, 2007

Anybody have any information on the pressure group? They were a bit of a challenge to Google. I wouldn't be surprised if they were either an UK textile industry marketing group or a branch of some UK labor union. Their concern might not be entirely with the welfare of Chinese workers....
posted by mr_roboto at 1:49 PM on April 27, 2007

I graduated from Southern Oregon University. I miss Ashland so much.

Hey, cool! Small interweb. Ashland is an sweet little town.
posted by everichon at 1:50 PM on April 27, 2007

Once again, what is the hypocrisy here? The bag is designed to raise awareness of environmental issues, which are separate from ethical trading issues, even if the two are often found together in the brains of freewheeling hippies. Next they'll be complaining that this bag doesn't stop AIDS in Africa.
posted by chrismear at 1:51 PM on April 27, 2007

Aren't they sort of bulky? A weeks groceries for use is typically 10-12 bags, I can't see dragging a dozen of those things to the supermarket each time.
posted by octothorpe at 1:52 PM on April 27, 2007

What a bombastic hag.
posted by pmbuko at 1:53 PM on April 27, 2007

I will say that non-plastic bags are somewhat harder to convert into witches knickers.
posted by everichon at 1:56 PM on April 27, 2007

posted by Pope Guilty at 10:45 PM

I see stupid, but I sure don't see irony.

That was my first reaction. But the it occured to me that no one can miss a point so obvious, especially when it's fat, ugly and dressed in a cotton clown costume. So I figured that it was - double (atleast!) - irony.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 1:58 PM on April 27, 2007

Yeah, I don't see the huge problem here. The bags were priced at just 5 pounds each. They're meant to suggest via the designer allure that using cloth bags is a good thing. Sure the campaign could do better in terms of trade ethics/organic materials etc. and the transport costs but it's not some huge font of hypocrisy spraying across the moral fibre of the country here. I'd suggest the transportation issue regarding the carbon footprint is a stray issue of sorts; this was transported with a lot of other goods most probably.

My basic point is that I'm more irritated at the Evening Standard here for pretending they have some huge coup on their hands than at Sainsbury's for not completely thinking this thing through.
posted by Firas at 1:58 PM on April 27, 2007

Also, this sort of journalism is so quintessentially British.
posted by Firas at 1:59 PM on April 27, 2007

Foci for Analysis writes "That was my first reaction. But the it occured to me that no one can miss a point so obvious, especially when it's fat, ugly and dressed in a cotton clown costume. So I figured that it was - double (atleast!) - irony."

So is it stupid for Chinese people to have jobs, or just for them to have jobs outside of the agricultural sector?
posted by mr_roboto at 2:00 PM on April 27, 2007

posted by mr_roboto at 11:00 PM on April 27 [+] [!]

So is it stupid for Chinese people to have jobs, or just for them to have jobs outside of the agricultural sector?

Hah, I'm surprised you stopped there. You're sure that I didn't vote for killing the kittens, too? I think you can do better than this. Please, don't prove me wrong.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 2:07 PM on April 27, 2007

You're still not making any sense, man. But you're clearly angry. Which is cool; I'm down with the unfocused rage thing.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:15 PM on April 27, 2007

I for one thing that Chinese people should definitely not have any jobs at all. But I mean it in the Bob Black sense of not having a job, not in a suffering sense.
posted by inoculatedcities at 2:22 PM on April 27, 2007

The question of whether having the Chinese employed or not is a false dichotomy.

Many companies are trying to be ethical about Chinese labor (Nokia comes to mind) by sending representatives to the plant to ensure humane conditions (which itself is a subjective concept, but there are some things pretty much everyone can agree upon). The idea is that the labor put in by the workers is so asymmetric to the profits had from the labor that it is deemed exploitive. Many of the factories force abortions (that is go back to your rice paddy or get an abortion), make their workers stay in small concrete dorms and have lunch/dinner practices that reminds one of Oliver Twist. Indeed this is hardly a new problem when countries industrialize. England, the United States and pretty much every major country faced exploitation by the capital classes. The difference is that now we know that (1) industrialization leads to a better quality of life, health and creating a middle class, (2) industrialization has the potential of creating deplorable conditions in the interim and taking advantage of a group of people to the point of exploitation. Of course with knowing those two points we should want to industrialize the Western world, but that doesn't mean we have to repeat the sins of the past.

I think if anyone looked at the income distribution they would see a power law that is rather dramatic. Just because we can exploit a people does not mean we should.

Of course the Chinese government is just as much a problem, etc. but that's an entire issue all together from Western companies doing what the Western world has done since Columbus.
posted by geoff. at 2:26 PM on April 27, 2007

As the ecobandwagon gathers speed, profiteers jump on--film at 11. In other news, the carbon credits "industry" is full of con artists and scams. Almost as if there were, y'know, suckers there to be fleeced.
posted by jfuller at 2:30 PM on April 27, 2007

geoff. writes "Many companies are trying to be ethical about Chinese labor (Nokia comes to mind) by sending representatives to the plant to ensure humane conditions (which itself is a subjective concept, but there are some things pretty much everyone can agree upon). "

According to the article, the bag manufacturer did this. The pressure group is complaining not about specific conditions in a factory, but about the average wages paid to Chinese factory workers, translated into British currency and unadjusted for purchasing power.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:32 PM on April 27, 2007

The reverse side of the bag is even more controversial.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 2:47 PM on April 27, 2007 [1 favorite]

conspicuous compassion.
posted by breakfast_yeti at 2:55 PM on April 27, 2007

I was on Spadina (Toronto) today, and I'm pretty sure I saw knockoffs of these on sale for less than $5.

octothorpe, as you don't need to double-bag, and cloth bags tend to be a bit bigger than your average supermarket placcy bag, I find I get away with 1/3 to 1/2 the number of reusable bags as compared to plastic.
posted by scruss at 2:58 PM on April 27, 2007

I find they tend to accumulate in the same way that coat hangers do, such that we now have a bunch of them. So we have them in the car, and at home, and I also use one for my "briefcase"-- holds a big laptop, an organizer, and then lots of assorted crap. And all for < $5.00.
posted by everichon at 4:29 PM on April 27, 2007

An enterprising friend of mine is capitalizing on the inevitable backlash against these things:

Get yours now!
posted by dvdgee at 7:45 PM on April 27, 2007

These bags are ugly and it's like those stupid yellow (or whatever colour) plastic wristbands.

er, what breakfast_yeti said.

That said, lots of stores around the city in which I reside have been selling canvas tote bags of various colours/patterns/sizes as reusable grocery bags for years - at least since I left for college in '96 and iirc quite a few more years before.

Personally, I decline plastic bags if I can fit my purchase into my wrinkled black leather manbag/messenger bag, if I have it with me (which is most of the time if I'm shopping after/before going to work).

upon seeing weapons_grade_pandemonium's like - gah. These bags flookin' smurfing SUCK. gah.
posted by porpoise at 7:48 PM on April 27, 2007

like link
posted by porpoise at 7:49 PM on April 27, 2007

They are some ugly, ugly bags. At least our green bags aren't trying to be trendy. And I can carry a week's worth of groceries in only four of the bastards. Win!
posted by Jilder at 8:29 PM on April 27, 2007

I must confess to a bit of photoshopping there, porpoise.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 12:59 AM on April 28, 2007