Commodity Chain Investigation:
Chiquita Bananas
Jenéya Stanford
ANT204: Social Cultural Anthropology and Global Issues
Sophia Jaworski
April 1, 2023
Stanford 1
Introduction
Bananas are one of the most widely consumed fruits in the world (Guinness World
Records 2023). Working in a grocery store, I see the purchase of this fruit daily, and as a result
of their popularity, they are often available for purchase in just about every store that provides a
selection of food or produce items. When considering the fruit, there is a general consensus that
bananas are an essential food item, and they are thought to have both nutritional and health
benefits (Harvard School of Public Health 2021). Beyond the popularity of the fruit, bananas are
not native to Canadian agricultural conditions as they grow in tropical countries, and as such, my
interest in tracing the commodity stems from how they have been essentialized in Canadian food
culture, as well as their production and commodification by Chiquita.
Throughout this paper, I will discuss the brand Chiquita, and their banana production
process in Honduras, in environmental, historical, economic, and contemporary social contexts. I
aim to put forward that neocolonial intervention influenced Honduran banana production and
bolstered international consumption, highlighting the need to acknowledge the socioenvironmental and economic effects of everyday food commodities.
Banana Production
There are several steps in Chiquita’s banana production and shipment process, however,
the following is a summary of the steps outlined by the company, after the banana plant has
borne its fruit: Banana stems are bagged and color-coded during growth, and the fruit is
measured after 13 weeks; Sponges are inserted between the hands to prevent bruising and
discoloration during harvesting; After cultivated, stems are cleaned, cut into bunches, and
substandard fruit is removed; During packing, bananas are sorted by size and labeled with the
Chiquita sticker; Random checks are conducted on packed bananas before refrigerated and
transported to the shipping port, where Chiquita carries out their own shipping process; Once the
Stanford 2
bananas are received1, they are sent to ripening facilities, after which they are transported to
grocery stores and other buyers (Chiquita 2012).
To get a good sense of Chiquitas’ banana production process, I attempted to get in
contact with the company through their ‘contact us’ form on the Chiquita.com website. I did not
receive a reply so I searched for company contact numbers. I called Chiquita Brands
International, inc. marketing contact, as well as the Chiquita Brands headquarters. I did not get a
response from the marketing contact, however, the respondent from Chiquita Brands
headquarters redirected me to a 10-year-old YouTube video, published by Chiquita, entitled
“How Chiquita Bananas Are Grown” (2012). Though this source provided me with some insight
into the banana growth, processing and shipment process, the video did not specify where in
Central America the plantation filmed was located. Because of its promotional format, I am sure
the video omitted several aspects of Chiquita's process, especially with how they glossed over
plantation labor, and instead, emphasized in-facility work. As a result, I conducted general
research on banana growth and production, but found little specific to present day banana growth
in Honduras. I suspect that this information is more difficult to find because Chiquita dominates
a majority of banana production in Central America, and for marketing reasons does not disclose
details about growth, harvesting, and labor relations for specific Chiquita plantation sites.
From the information that I was able to find, I believe it was more accessible because it
reflects Chiquita's dominance as a corporation. There is a lot of information provided about
Chiquita’s success in shipping and transport, notably their Great White Fleet–the shipping arm of
Chiquita, their merger with the Salén’s fleet in 1990, and Chiquita’s history with American
railroad infrastructure for lucrative banana transport (Lennerfors and Birch 2019: 214-215).
1
Received from Central America into the country where the bananas will be distributed.
Stanford 3
Having this type of information shine through in research efforts is indicative of Chiquita’s effort
to subvert negative controversy surrounding their brand. This lack of transparency aids in
promoting consumer ignorance to possible inequalities or environmental damage perpetuated in
Chiquita’s production process.
Banana Growth And Chiquita’s Environmental Impact
The environmental impacts of Chiquita’s banana production in Honduras can be better
understood if prefaced by the necessities for banana growth. According to the article “Banana
Production” (1891), banana plants are grown on lands rich in alluvial deposits,2 they are planted
from 12-15 feet apart–requiring irrigation, and mature at the end of nine months (290). Often
thought to be trees, banana plants are instead perennial herbs that reproduce shoots, and die after
fruiting (“All About Bananas” 2023). Accordingly, during growth, new shoots must be
transplanted, and during cultivation, after banana bunches are cut, it is common practice that the
plant is felled; more frequently cut down to gather the fruit (“Banana Production” 1891: 290).
As a result, Chiquita requires a significant amount of land space to yield large quantities
of bananas. In Kalim Siddiqui’s (1998) article, he writes that by 1918, 75% of the land in
Honduras was owned by three US companies–one of which was Chiquita (A128, A129). Thus,
to begin intensive banana cultivation, respecting the necessities for banana growth, land clearing
by rainforest deforestation and monocultural intensive plantation farming were implemented
(TED-Ed, 2020). This led to repeated deforestation and reforestation, which significantly overexploits and erodes soil (Siddiqui 1998: A133). In the Honduran highlands, the soil became
highly acidic and nutrient deficient resulting in land desertification (A133). Finally, as a result of
Chiquita’s monocultural farming of Gros Michel bananas, the lack of biological diversity
2
Alluvial deposits are composed of “blue clay impregnated with marine salt, and rich in decomposed vegetable
matter” (“Banana Production” 1891: 290).
Stanford 4
supported the spread of the fungal “Panama disease,” and encouraged Chiquita’s early 1960s
switch to the Panama disease-resistant Cavendish banana (TED-Ed 2020).
Chiquita’s ecological impact not only caused severe environmental damage to the
Honduran landscape, but also altered its production and commodification of Gros Michel
bananas. Though they found a monetary solution in switching to the Cavendish, several socioeconomic difficulties followed for Honduran plantation workers as well as the Honduran
economy (TED-Ed 2020).
United Fruit Company (UFCO), Labor-life and Livelihoods
United Fruit Company, before rebranding to Chiquita, held tremendous neocolonial
power over Honduras with which they dictated the socio-economic, environmental and laborrelated trajectory of the sovereign nation (Trimmer 2004). In the early 1910s, the exiled
Honduran president granted land and railroad concessions to Sam Zemurray, the soon-to-be
president of UFCO, in exchange for the financial backing of a political coup in Honduras (Soluri
2005: 42). This exchange sparked a relationship providing UFCO with legal control over many
resources, and through further exchange for land rights, tax and duty exemptions, agreed to
develop infrastructure such as piers, telegraph lines, railroads and worker housing around
plantations to better finance the Honduran economy (Soluri 2005: 43). Because UFCO was
essentially exempt from government regulation, they organized their own ‘cost effective’ labor
relationships, luring freed Jamaicans and impoverished Hondurans to be housed and work on
banana plantations as a refuge, after the British empire abolished slavery in the 1830s (Trimmer
2004). UFCO paid plantation workers in script instead of recognized government-issued money,
creating a couponing system where the script could be redeemed for less than its disclosed worth,
and only in UFCO stores (Trimmer 2004). By the 19th century, when Panama disease
Stanford 5
problematized the production of Gros Michel bananas, the Company produced chemical
fungicides that would be hand sprayed by workers (LeGrand 2007: 300). Though plantation
labor remained equally underpaid and physically harmful during much of the 19th century,
nearing its end, with increasing membership to labor unions, structural inequalities for women
became increasingly evident and voiced. In Prieto-Carrón’s (2006) article, she speaks with
Chiquita’s women banana workers in focus groups, who express labor rights violations such as
“low remuneration, short contracts, long hours, health consequences of the use of agrochemicals
and obstacles to freedom of association,” as well as gender-specific violations such as
“discrimination, sexual harassment, violation of childcare and maternity rights and lack of safe
transportation home” (87-88).
Reflecting on the Cultural Value of Bananas
In Canadian grocery stores, bananas are clearly a prevalent and affordable food item that
plays a vital role in Canadian material and symbolic consumer culture. Despite their history of
neocolonialism and environmental consequences, people often do not consider the ethical and
ecological implications of purchasing bananas.
After investigating why bananas have become such a ubiquitous symbol of convenience,
I realized that due to their lesser-known link to socio-economic and environmental issues that
stem from the globalization of food production and distribution, labor exploitation, and intensive
monocultural farming, bananas serve as a symbol of the blurred relationship between the
consumer and broader social, economic, and environmental issues. Finally, it is integral to
recognize that these issues are created by the capitalist economic system, and intentionally work
to reduce consumer consciousness about the commodities they may not know they have the
choice to buy.
Stanford 6
Bibliography
“All About Bananas: Producers, Where They're Grown & Why They Matter.” Banana Link,
February 2, 2023. https://www.bananalink.org.uk/all-about-bananas/.
“Banana Production.” Science 17, no. 433 (1891): 289–90. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ns17.433.289.
The Dark History of Bananas - John Soluri. YouTube. TED-Ed, 2020.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esvycD1O3cM.
How Chiquita Bananas Are Grown. YouTube. Chiquita, 2012.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SQ_gpZCvag.
LeGrand, Catherine. The Americas 64, no. 2 (2007): 300–301.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30139113.
Lennerfors, Thomas Taro, and Peter Birch. “Fruit Companies and Marketing Boards.” Essay. In
Snow in the Tropics: A History of Independent Reefer Operators, 214–32. Leiden: Brill,
2019. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004393868_012.
Moberg, Mark. “Crown Colony as Banana Republic: The United Fruit Company in British
Honduras, 1900–1920.” Journal of Latin American Studies 28, no. 2 (1996): 357–81.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022216x00013043.
“Most Popular Fruit.” Guinness World Records. Guinness World Records, 2023.
https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/74279-most-popular-fruit.
Stanford 7
Prieto-Carrón, Marina. “Corporate Social Responsibility in Latin America: Chiquita, Women
Banana Workers and Structural Inequalities.” he Journal of Corporate Citizenship, no. 21
(2006): 85–94. https://doi.org/https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/jcorpciti.21.85.
Siddiqui, Kalim. “Agricultural Exports, Poverty and Ecological Crisis-Case Study of Central
American Countries.” Economic and Political Weekly 33, no. 39 (1998): A128–A136.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4407210.
Soluri, John. Banana Cultures: Agriculture, Consumption, and Environmental Change in
Honduras and the United States. 1st ed. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2005.
https://hdl-handle-net.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/2027/heb07959.0001.001.
“Supply Chain.” Chiquita. Chiquita, November 14, 2022. https://www.chiquita.com/supplychain/.
Trimmer, Clinton. “United Fruit Company: The Banana Empire .” Thesis, Student Theses,
Papers and Projects (History), (2004). https://digitalcommons.wou.edu/his/301.