Scattered Reflections: Haikus by Eli Olevsky


I. Melancholy & Memory

Someday, I would like
To run in a flower field.
Then, I’d be happy.

Every note, a tear.
Crying seas of melodies,
Pianos don’t float.

Sunsets mark the end.
A seasonal depression—
Then the cold sets in.

Cold, dead, leafless trees.
Spines of their beautiful selves,
Reborn in the spring.

Down by the river,
Reflections looking at you—
What have you become?


II. Darkness & Disillusionment

Afraid of the dark.
Afraid of what’s in the dark.
The dark is lonely.

Screams overwhelm me,
But silence unsettles me.
My ears deceive me.

The stars in the night
Are just satellites up high:
Techno-pollution.

Truth is fallacy.
Lies, just hiding behind cloaks—
Soon to be revealed.

A childhood ruined,
Fond memories corrupted.
Cocoa made by slaves.


III. Wander & Wonder

Staring at my screen,
Light pierces my retina.
I lay motionless.

If you jump up high,
Maybe you can touch the sky.
They’ll call you spaceman.

Do not fight the waves,
For they will carry you home—
Just go with the flow.

Alone in my mind,
I travel through time and space.
I find memories.

When you’re having fun,
Time sure likes to go by fast.
Isn’t that kind of cruel?


Threads of Being: Short Poems by Eli Olevsky

————————————————————————————————————–

Seasons

A Summer ending with a fallen leaf,

A tree standing bare, lonely in a daze.

Whispers of Autumn, the song of a thief,

Blankets of warmth and light, gone in a haze.

Beasts retreat amidst Winter descending,

A father’s call, “Где ты, моя солнушка?”

A sun hides, tired, in its gaze, relenting.

“I’m sorry, I have to sleep now, Papa.”

And yet, a lowly flower lies unharmed,

The aftermath of war, a survivor.

A tear of pollen, a bloom of hope sired

From the heavens, melodies of a lyre.

Visions of light, once made a pariah,

A sign of Spring, hymns of the Messiah.

—————————————————————————————————————

Deception

(Inspired by survivor accounts of the Nazi Death Marches)

I can’t stop running, 

You’re so tired 

My body is shaking, 

Take a break 

I can feel my heart beating, 

Go to sleep 

I look up, it’s snowing 

It’s so cold 

The silence is captivating, 

Say something 

I’m not breathing, 

What is that smell? 

I think I’m bleeding, 

You’re too weak 

The light is fleeting, 

It’s getting dark 

I can feel myself collapsing, 

This is the end 

I wake up, 

You weren’t dreaming. 

————————————————————————————————————–

Manifesting Divinity

Who is God without Adam? 

Who is Adam without God? 

The touch of life and its duality 

The connection between two worlds 

One cannot live without the other 

Connected like the atoms in our body 

The movement of electricity 

Gives meaning to our world 

Supposed greatness perceived 

By what is tangible and what is not 

Who is God without Adam? 

Who is Adam without God?


Sunburned

So, how’s your day?

Sun-sick skin

Scorching sand sizzling

Soaking, salt stinging

Aquatic arms aching

Ashy aromas abound

Albatross alarms air

And still, it’s a blissful day

————————————————————————————————————–

Scintillating Sky

The scintillating sky soars above, scattered so high. 

A creature overlooking, an all-seeing eye. 

It watches from afar, 

Like an empire and its Czar. 

It’s light will soon fade away, 

To be seen again the next day. 

The scintillating sky soars above, scattered so high. 


We carry

(Inspired by “Things We Carry on the Sea by Wang Ping” )

We carry memories of happiness 

We carry memories of sadness 

We carry the hugs of our mothers 

We carry the lessons of our fathers 

We carry the heat of hot summers 

We carry the cold of icy winters 

We carry the leaves that fall from trees 

We carry the ocean’s gentle breeze 

We carry our sins and our greeds 

We carry our virtues and good deeds 

We carry our hopes and dreams 

We carry our egos and high self esteems 

We carry the first breath out of our lungs 

We carry the death of our loved ones 

We carry memories of happiness 

We carry memories of sadness 

The Perpetuation of Child Labor in the Cocoa Industry: A Critical Examination of Neglect and Corporate Accountability

by Eli Olevsky, May 3, 2024

Consider the chocolate bars you grew up eating. Many of us have fond memories associated with our favorite brands. An exposé by The Washington Post written by Peter Whoriskey and Rachel Siegel revealed that much of the cocoa we buy from major chocolate companies such as Mars, Nestlé, and Hershey begins with child labor. Additionally, the article points out the lack of reduction in child labor, despite pledges from the companies themselves to end child slavery in cocoa plantations such as those in the Ivory Coast in West Africa (Whoriskey and Siegel). This essay will seek to shed light on the inhumane child slavery practices within the cocoa industry, its connections to the chocolate company giants, as well as their subsequent failures to reduce and end those affiliations. Since companies cannot be relied on to change tactics out of the goodness of their hearts, it will ultimately be upon the shoulders of the masses to effect change as they are the primary consumers of these tainted products and can bring about true change by targeting their bottom lines. Once a strategy is no longer profitable, exploitative corporations are forced to change or amend their approaches as proven by numerous successful boycotts and awareness campaigns I will mention in this essay. 

Unfortunately, the presence of child slavery in the cocoa industry is not a recent revelation. It is estimated that 25-50% of children within Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire worked in Cocoa as the results of 2007 and 2008/9 surveys. Despite this, only 5% of children in Côte d’Ivoire and 10% in Ghana worked for pay (Payson Final Report 2011). Comparatively, The Department of Labor reports that currently, “there are 1.56 million children in child labor with 43 percent engaged in hazardous work in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana”. Additionally, the site lists several dangers of working in these fields, such as chemical exposure, burning fields, sharp tools, and lifting heavy loads (Child Labor in Cocoa). The initial article by The Washington Post described the kind of work children were put to, stating, “There is land to be cleared, typically with machetes; sprayings of pesticide; and more machete work to gather and split open the cocoa pods. Finally, the work involves carrying sacks of cocoa that may weigh 100 pounds or more” (Whorisky and Siegal). A follow-up survey from Tulane University presenting the statistics as of 2013-14 mentioned that these children experienced many types of injuries. The injuries included wounds and cuts, broken bones, burns, snake bites, back pain, muscle pain, and several more (Payson Final Report 2015). Moreover, a 2020 report by NORC found the percentage of children working in cocoa exposed to agrochemicals increased from 15% to 50% in both regions (Sadhu et al.).

In a 2001 congressional record, an article was included in which a reporter details the conditions of working on the Ivory Coast as a child laborer, detailing, “Most of them are 12 to 16 years old. Some are as young as 9. The slaves live on corn paste and bananas. Some are whipped, beaten, and broken like horses to harvest the almond size beans”. The article goes on to a particular account from a consul general in an Ivorian Coast town, reading: 

They called Abdoulaye Macko, who was then the Malian consul general… he found the 19 boys and young men there. Aly, the youngest, was 13. The oldest was 21. “They were tired, slim, they were not smiling.” Macko said. “Except one child was not there. This one, his face showed what was happening. He was sick; he had (excrement) in his pants. He was lying on the ground, covered with cacao leaves because they were sure he was dying. He was almost dead. . . . He had been severely beaten.’ According to medical records, other boys had healed scars as well as open, infected wounds all over their bodies (107th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION).

The important question to ask after these realizations of child slavery within regions that supply 60% of the world’s cocoa is “What is being done to prevent this?” (Child Labor in Cocoa). In 2001, the Harkin-Engel protocol was established to remove the worst forms of child labor in the growing and processing of cocoa beans. This protocol was signed by several major chocolate companies such as Hershey Food Corporation, Nestlé Chocolate and Confections USA, M&M/Mars Inc., and several more (Harkin Engel Protocol). Despite the protocol, according to The Washington Post Article mentioned before, “The world’s chocolate companies have missed deadlines to uproot child labor from their cocoa supply chains in 2005, 2008 and 2010” (Whoriskey and Siegel).  The 2015 report by Tulane University presenting data between their 2008/09 and 2013/14 surveys noted that children working in cocoa production increased from 1,817,278 to 2,260,407 between the two survey dates (Payson Final Report 2015). The 2020 NORC report also cited, “In Côte d’Ivoire the prevalence rate of hazardous child labor in cocoa production… increased from 23 percent in 2008/09 to 37 percent in 2018/19, while in Ghana….increased from 43 percent in 2008/09 to 51 percent in 2018/19” (Sadhu et al.).

Two decades after the Harkin-Engel Protocol, these chocolate corporations have implemented initiatives to identify child labor within the supply chain and eliminate it. According to Mars’ Cocoa For Generations sustainability plan, they commit to “prevent and mitigate human rights issues…Ensure 100% of our cocoa is responsibly sourced globally and is traceable (from the farmer to the first point of purchase) by 2025” (Cocoa for Generations). Hershey’s Cocoa For Good plan indicates, “we are expanding the coverage of our Child Labor Monitoring and Remediation Systems (CLMRS)…as we aim for 100% coverage of our Cocoa For Good farms by 2025” (Tejada Chavez). Nestlé’s Cocoa Plan echoed a similar tone: “We sourced, in 2022, 68.3% of our cocoa volumes from the Nestlé Cocoa Plan with the aim of reaching 100% by 2025” (Nestle Cocoa Plan). 

To understand the degree to which these companies can be trusted to create any real impact and change, the Washington Post article previously mentioned compiled the relationships between the percent of cocoa that is currently certified by these corporate chocolate giants and the traceable amount. For Mars, “around 50 percent of its cocoa is certified by Fairtrade and Rainforest Alliance”, but only “24 percent is traceable to the farmer level”. Hershey’s claims to have had “80 percent certified at the end of 2018”, while “less than half” is traceable to its source. For Nestlé, however, it has been shown that in the Ivory Coast, 80% of their cocoa that is certified is also traceable to the source (Whoriskey and Siegel). 

Striving for 100% traceable cocoa, while a step in the right direction, does not guarantee any meaningful results as the sourcing of chocolate is done through faulty fair trade certification companies. What good is being able to trace cocoa beans to their source, if the supposedly “certified” source still has instances of child labor harvesting those beans? A 2019 report done by the Corporate Accountability Lab noted, “a BBC investigation found children, including trafficked children, working on Fairtrade certified plantations in Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire. The Kuapo Kokoo cooperative…an Ivorian coop supplying to Nestlé, were both certified Fairtrade” (Empty Promises). A more recent investigation done by the Corporate Accountability Lab in 2021 found that, 

in December 2020, investigators saw a little girl working on a certified farm near Aboisso, carrying cocoa pods on her head. The investigators learned that this farm sold their cocoa beans to the CNEK cooperative, which is certified by both Rainforest Alliance and Fairtrade International…That same December, the investigators spoke with a small boy who was carrying a large bag of cocoa pods to an assembly point on a farm near Abengourou. This farm, they learned, sold its cocoa to the FAHO cooperative that was certified by UTZ through August 2021 and is certified by Fairtrade International (Brudney).

Not only do these certifications fail to adequately reduce the amount of child labor in the cocoa industry, but certified farms in the Ivory Coast were found to be even more likely to have child laborers than other plantations (Whoriskey). The reliance on these certification companies by major global chocolate corporations despite these third-party inspectors only being “required to visit fewer than 10% of cocoa farms”, according to The Washington Post, demonstrates a lack of trustworthiness in these chocolate companies efforts’ to address the still pervasive child slavery in the cocoa industry (Whoriskey and Siegel). It is only symptomatic of the increase in child labor in the cocoa industry over the years.

Despite the prevalence of information highlighting the cruel environments for many children in West Africa, progress has been bafflingly slow to remedy it. Their inability to meet deadlines over the last two decades, coupled with their use of completely unreliable certifications is beyond problematic. Due to this, it seems hard to believe that chocolate companies such as Hershey, Mars, and Nestlé have every intention of demonstrating a major change in their supply chain habits to create 100% ethical chocolate production by 2025. Fueled by the increasing numbers of children put in danger to create the products they sell, they need to be held accountable for their inaction.

Several campaigns have been previously successful at changing corrupt industries for the better. An example of this includes the campaign against Nike in the 90s to end the use of child labor and sweatshops in its overseas factories which resulted in reforms and improvements in working conditions within the supply chain (Klein). Another notable example is the Accord on Fire and Building Safety established in Bangladesh, which was established after the Rana Plaza collapse in 2013. The tragedy resulted in the death of 1000 garment factory workers as a result of poor working conditions. Due to increased pressure as a result of public outcry and divestment, the regulation led to major brands, trade unions, and NGOs coming together to implement safety inspections, training programs, and remediation efforts in garment factories (The Bangladesh Accord). We as consumers must speak out against this, for these companies rely on our money to make their chocolates. With our voices and without our funding, they will have no choice but to listen. 

Brudney, Allie. “CAL Finds Evidence of Child Labor on Rainforest Alliance Certified Farms.” Corporate Accountability Lab, 25 Oct. 2021, corpaccountabilitylab.org/calblog/2021/10/25/cal-finds-evidence-of-child-labor-on-rainforest-alliance-certified-farms. Accessed 5 Mar. 2024.

Bureau of International Labor Affairs. “Child Labor in the Production of Cocoa.” DOL, 2024, www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/our-work/child-forced-labor-trafficking/child-labor-cocoa. Accessed 5 Mar. 2024.

“Cocoa for Generations | Mars, Incorporated.” MARS, 2024, www.mars.com/sustainability-plan/cocoa-for-generations. Accessed 5 Mar. 2024.

Corporate Accountability Lab. “Empty Promises: The Failure of Voluntary Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives to Improve Farmer Incomes in the Ivorian Cocoa Sector.” Square Space, July 2019, static1.squarespace.com/static/5810dda3e3df28ce37b58357/t/5d321076f1125e0001ac51ab/1563562117949/Empty_Promises_2019.pdf. Accessed 5 Mar. 2024.

“Harkin Engel Protocol.” ICI Cocoa Initiative, Sept. 2001, www.cocoainitiative.org/knowledge-hub/resources/harkin-engel-protocol. Accessed 5 Mar. 2024.

Klein, Naomi. No Logo. BUR, 2018. 

“Nestle Cocoa Plan.” Nestlé Cocoa Plan, 2024, www.nestlecocoaplan.com/. Accessed 5 Mar. 2024.

Payson Center for International Development and Technology Transfer. “Final Report – Oversight of Cocoa Industry in Ghana and Ivory Coast.” Issuu, 11 Apr. 2011, issuu.com/stevebutton/docs/tulane_final_report.  Accessed 5 Mar. 2024.

Payson Center for International Development and Technology Transfer. “Final Report: Survey Research on Child Labor in West African Cocoa Growing Areas.” DOL, 30 July 2015, www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/final-report-survey-research-child-labor-west-african-cocoa-growing-areas. Accessed 5 Mar. 2024.

“PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 107th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION.” Congress.Gov, 28 June 2001, www.congress.gov/crec/2001/06/28/CREC-2001-06-28.pdf Accessed 5 Mar. 2024.

Sadhu, Santadarshan, et al. “NORC Final Report: Assessing Progress in Reducing Child Labor in Cocoa Production in Cocoa Growing Areas of Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana.” NORC, Oct. 2020, https://www.norc.org/content/dam/norc-org/documents/standard-projects-pdf/NORC%202020%20Cocoa%20Report_English.pdf Accessed 5 Mar. 2024.

Tejada Chavez, Angela. “Visible Progress: Hershey’s Cocoa for Good Strategy.” The Hershey Company, 2024, www.thehersheycompany.com/en_us/home/newsroom/blog/going-beyond-fair-trade-with-hersheys-sustainable-cocoa-strategy.html Accessed 5 Mar. 2024.

“The Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety.” The Bangladesh Accord, bangladeshaccord.org/. Accessed 29 Apr. 2024.

Whoriskey, Peter, and Rachel Siegel. “Hershey, Nestle and Mars Broke Their Pledges to End Child Labor …” The Washington Post, 5 June 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/business/hershey-nestle-mars-chocolate-child-labor-west-africa/. Accessed 5 Mar. 2024.

Whoriskey, Peter. “Utz Finds Alarming Problems at Four Cocoa-Certifying Firms – The …” The Washington Post, 23 Oct. 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/23/chocolate-companies-say-their-cocoa-is-certified-some-farms-use-child-labor-thousands-are-protected-forests/. Accessed 5 Mar. 2024.

Ethical Perspectives on the Rights of Disabled People and Animals: A Comparative Analysis of Eva Kittay and Peter Singer

by Eli Olevsky, May 3, 2023

The rights of animals and those of disabled people have long been an area of ethical discussion. While some argue that humans have an ethical duty to respect and safeguard the interests of the disabled and animals, others contend that human interests must always come first and resort to the degradation of others. Eva Kittay and Peter Singer have contributed significantly to this debate as philosophers. Kittay emphasizes the need to prioritize people with disabilities, while Singer advocates for a level playing field between the rights of humans and the rights of animals. Both positions have their own set of merits, but also each contains some controversial elements I will discuss in this essay. Ultimately, Kittay’s argument is more reasonable and morally comprehensible than Singer’s ethically questionable argument because it warrants a more accepting environment in which all living things are equally loved and appreciated. 

 Kittay argues that part of the job of a mother of a disabled child is to ensure that they are cared for. She asserts, “For her, socialization for acceptance means that you have both to help the child make her way in the world given her disabilities and to help shape a world that will accept her.” (Kittay 398). Kittay believes that mothers have this responsibility because disabled children deserve this kind of care and to be seen by the world as valued. This is apparent in her distress of opposing views, stating, “What are the specific challenges facing someone in my position? There are essentially two. The first is to overcome the anger and revulsion that one feels when encountering the view that one’s disabled child–or child with a particular disability–is less worthy of dignity, of life, of concern or justice than others.”  (Kittay 398-399). Her perspective challenges the ableist assumption that those with disabilities are less valuable or worthy of consideration than their non-disabled counterparts. The importance of this particular position of Kittay’s is necessary to understand the virtuous aspect of her argument. 

A potential critique of Kittay is her biased focus on the value of a disabled person as more valuable than a nonhuman. She portrays this perspective when sharing how she feels about her child being compared to animals, saying, “For a mother of a severely cognitively impaired child, the impact of such an argument is devastating. How can I begin to tell you what it feels like to read texts in which one’s child is compared…how corrosive those comparisons are, how they mock those relationships that affirm who we are and why we care?”(Kittay 397). However, Kittay clarifies she does indeed love animals, although still believing they cannot be compared to children, stating, “I am no stranger to a beloved animal. I have had dogs I have loved, dogs I have mourned for. But as dog lovers who become parents, can tell you, much as we adore our hounds…there is also no comparison when that child has intellectual disabilities.” (Kittay 397). This humanizes Kittay’s perspective of animals, and although she does not see them as deserving of the same love as a disabled child, I believe it is understandable why she feels this way as no mother would ever want their child compared to an animal, which has been used as a derogatory insult for millennia. Kittay’s stance may not be morally perfect in an ideal world that places equal importance on every living thing. Still, it is far closer to perfection when compared to Singer’s general position. 

Peter Singer offers a different take on the ethical nature of personhood than Eva Kittay. Singer bases his notion of morality towards sentient beings on what is known as “The principle of equality,” which is “not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans: it is a prescription of how we should treat human beings.” (Singer 33). He uses this principle and extends its validity past just human beings, reasoning, “It is an implication of this principle of equality that our concern for others and our readiness to consider their interests ought not to depend on what they are like or what abilities they may possess…But the basic element–the taking into account of the interests of the being, whatever those interests may be–must, according to the principle of equality, be extended to all beings, black or white, masculine or feminine, human or nonhuman.” (Singer 34). Singer is challenging traditional views on nonhuman animals that believe humans possessing rationality or consciousness gives them special moral status. According to him, his view ignores sentience as a primary characteristic of moral consideration and argues that simply being able to feel is the only necessity for equality. Singer’s perspective on sentience as a limiting factor for the basis of morality has far-reaching ramifications for how we treat nonhuman animals. Moreover, Singer believes pleasure and pain experiences are morally significant when they affect an animal’s capacity for experiencing pleasure or pain and not just human beings. He asserts, “The capacity for suffering and enjoyment is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in any meaningful way” (Singer 37). He clarifies this statement to include nonhumans, stating, “A stone does not have interests because it cannot suffer. Nothing that we can do to it could possibly make any difference to its welfare. The capacity for suffering and enjoyment is, however, not only necessary, but also sufficient for us to say that a being has interests–at an absolute minimum, an interest in not suffering. A mouse, for example, does have an interest in not being kicked along the road, because it will suffer if it is.” (Singer 37). Similarly to Kittay, the sentiments in Singer’s position display some respectable attributes of his overall view, such as his support for equality and his belief that all living things that feel pain (or have an interest in not feeling pain) are equally morally deserving of care and consideration. However, the troubling sides of his argument, particularly his justification of murder, reveal the paradoxical nature of his view toward disabled people. 

Singer’s position on disability remains concerning for many individuals, including myself. Despite arguing for equality between humans and nonhumans, he seems to believe that sentient beings can have unequal worth, stating, “I conclude, then, that a rejection of speciesism does not imply that all lives are of equal worth” (Singer 54). Singer then justifies the killing of disabled people, first when choosing between disabled people and “normal” human beings and then when choosing between disabled people and nonhumans. “Since pain is pain, whatever other capacities, beyond the capacity to feel pain, the being may have–these capacities are relevant to the question of taking life. It is not arbitrary to hold that the life of a self-aware being, capable of abstract thought, of planning for the future, of complex acts of communication, and so on, is more valuable than the life of a being without these capacities…if we had to choose to save the life of a normal human being or an intellectually disabled human being, we would probably choose to save the life of a normal human being…the same is true when we consider other species…if we have to choose between the life of a human being and the life of another animal we should choose to save the life of the human, but there may be special cases in which the reverse holds true because the human being in question does not have the capacities of a normal human being” (Singer 54-55). From this, we can understand and gather Singer’s belief that when comparing a disabled person to an animal, it is moral to kill the disabled person because they are apparently of less value than the nonhuman. 

Although I can understand and empathize with Kittay’s perspective stemming from the want for her child to be loved and for the world to love her child, it is much harder for me to understand Singer’s purpose for justifying the killing of disabled people. I cannot even understand the purpose of including an argument that revolves around deciding to kill a disabled person, and much less so in an essay that was primarily about the advocacy for the equality of all sentient beings. Singer spent the majority of Chapter 1 arguing how racism, sexism, and speciesism have no place in society because they involve claiming superiority for a certain group of humans solely due to some difference in a characteristic, “Racists violate the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of members of their own race when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of another race. Sexists violate the principle of equality by favoring the interests of their own sex. Similarly, speciesists allow the interests of their own species to override the greater interests of members of other species.” (Singer 38-39). Despite this, he ended his essay with an argument justifying killing disabled people. I believe this is in poor taste, and it completely dismisses what his essay worked so hard to argue, the point that equality is solely based on the interests of the being and extends to all beings, human and nonhuman. Morally, this should include disabled people as well. Because Singer’s argument so clearly does not, this is why Kittay’s argument is by far the more intelligible and morally acceptable perspective. Conclusively, I believe that Singer fails to assume his role as “moral philosopher,” and as a result, a more appropriate title for him would be “hypocrite.”

Singer, Peter, 1946-. 19771975. Animal Liberation. New York, Avon Books. 

Kittay, Eva Feder. “THE PERSONAL IS PHILOSOPHICAL IS POLITICAL: A PHILOSOPHER AND MOTHER OF A COGNITIVELY DISABLED PERSON SENDS NOTES FROM THE BATTLEFIELD.” Metaphilosophy 40, no. 3–4 (July 1, 2009): 606–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.2009.01600.x.