UTZ CERTIFIED - Criticism

Criticism

UTZ Certified certification, like the Rainforest Alliance coffee certification program, has been criticized as it offers producers no minimum or guaranteed price for their crop. Some consider UTZ certified producer organizations to be vulnerable to the volatility of the coffee market. However, the approach UTZ Certified follows is also considered to make farmers less dependent on funding and enables them to take better care of themselves, their workers and families. The price difference and the fact companies do not pay any marketing costs for logo use, makes the UTZ Certified label considerably cheaper than Fairtrade for companies and farmers interested in tapping the ethical market.

Michael Conroy, an independent consultant on certification for sustainable development, criticized UTZ Certified in his 2007 book Branded!: "the environmental standards of UTZ Certified are far weaker than those of either Fairtrade or Rainforest Alliance". UTZ Certified's standards for example, explicitly announces that genetically modified coffee plants, though not at present available, would be allowable so long as farmers obey local regulations on their use. Any kind of chemical fertilizer may be used as long as an external, technically qualified advisor has determined the quantity of fertilizer to be used. No chemical pesticides or fungicides banned in the European Union, the U.S. or Japan may be used, but any that are acceptable in those three markets are acceptable on coffee farms if they are applied "according to the label".

UTZ Certified has also been criticized with regard to its standards for remuneration of hired labor - it only requires that national laws must be followed. In addition, several observers have criticized the program for its lack of crop pre-financing and producer support.