Coop's strange 'no': sign the petition!

El Tamiso fully shares the spirit and the demands contained in the letter expressed by the Solidarity Economy Networks in response to a questionable stance taken by Coop on a decree on liberalization that will be discussed in the Chamber on Friday, March 23. Below is the text of the letter and the link to join.


The decree on liberalizations, currently awaiting examination in the Chamber,
It contains art. 62 in which it is established that invoices for food goods
perishable goods must be sealed within 30 days, those relating to food goods
not perishable within 60 days.
In the newspaper distributed these days to members in COOP stores (Consumers —
March 2012 - page 11) a comment appears stating that this
Measure “in the original setting is nothing more than a gift for grown-ups
multinationals and so it has nothing of the liberal spirit, it's just a cast and a
tightening of the market” and again “in the comparison that we have had in these
In days, even the agricultural world agreed on our considerations.”
For several years now, the world of the Solidarity Economy (in it in particular the
Solidarity Purchasing Groups and the Solidarity Economy Districts) asks about
processes for the implementation of food sovereignty in the territories aimed at a
shortening supply chains, to a defense of agricultural land and the integrity of
soils and groundwater, to a decent recognition for the work of farmers, to
quality certification processes co-participated by producers and consumers.

With that said, we would like to note that:
1. the people of COOP 'members' are made up of social sectors to which also the solidarity economy
addresses its proposals;
2. the history and values from which COOP, the Mutual Aid Societies of the late 19th century, came from,
They are the same people to whom the realities of the Solidarity Economy are referred to, proposing a
new mutualism;
3. Producers, especially if small or medium-sized, are currently in a condition of
great weakness and dependence on large retailers who, thanks to
its weight, it can impose the price, paying late and late;
4. The strangulation of producers activates the exploitation of workers, often immigrants;
5. If the market is made up of strong and weak, the absence of laws is not freedom, but license
to abuse;
6. There are European countries (for example France) that already apply the same obligations in
payments that the liberalization decree would introduce in Italy.
Given and considering the above, we ask ourselves:
Because COOP, which defines itself as correct and receives prestigious certificates in the field
of ethics (see the same bulletin, page 22) is critical of the measure,
standardizing its position with the rest of the large retailers that do not
is it behaving properly?
Why is COOP, which declares itself a defender of small producers, lashes out against a
measure that for once protects the weak against the strong?
If COOP behaves correctly, why are you afraid of a measure that it does not do
nothing more than forcing everyone to align themselves with what she says they already do?
We can know how quickly COOP pays its suppliers, in particular those
local?
We can know who “in the agricultural world has agreed on the... considerations” of
COOP?
It seems to us that a company that declares itself ethical, as COOP asserts, must be happy
when the law intervenes to guarantee the rights of the weak. It should therefore not remain in the
Choir of large retailers, but team up with small producers to support
measure already approved in the Senate.
March 13, 2012 -- First signatories:
Sergio Venezia, Francesco Gesualdi, Antonio Perna, Andrea di Stefano, Amalia Navoni, Sandra
Cangemi, Ersilia Monti, Roberto Cuda, Franco Zecchinato, Davide Biolghini, Matteo Sandon,
Bruno Sebastianelli, Giuseppe Vergani, Vincenzo Vasciaveo

To subscribe and sign this letter, just click here and fill out the form.