The principles behind Fairtrade, in my opinion, are sound enough. Give poorer farmers the opportunity to live a better life and the means to improve their production standards and practices, and increase the value of their products in export markets.

Everyone’s a winner. The consumer gets more choice, the supplier gets to deliver an in-demand brand, the grower gets a better return, and the supermarket group attracts additional margin.

Except things never work quite like that. By far the biggest winner from Fairtrade is the link in the chain that the ideal surely had last on its list of potential beneficiaries.

Supermarkets have been handed a very lucrative opportunity and, understandably, grasped it with both hands. They can be seen as the good guys for funding the developing world, while they trouser the profits.

Sainsbury’s would no doubt claim to be the exception to the rule, in bananas, at least, but its all-in with the Fairtrade mark approach simply reduces the scope for others to follow suit, and encourages them to find other modes of differentiation. Eventually, this can only dilute the Fairtrade message.

Meanwhile, the so-called richer farmers are becoming poorer as their customers routinely fail to give them a sustainable return. Where is the level playing field if they too do not even have access to fair trade, let alone Fairtrade?