fair trade. This is the prevention of unfair price cuts. This may be abhorred by a court order or the establishment of minimum retail prices. Opponents of fair trade laws argue that the laws cost consumers millions of dollars a year in higher prices and that many excessive regulations can give too much power to a few dominant, potentially corrupt regimes and prevent innovative ideas from flourishing. However, excessive deregulation can lead to companies compromising basic human and social rights, as well as environmental damage, often without accountability. These sometimes lead to further poverty in a country. Inherent power conflicts between various bodies and sometimes lead to injustices for which most people end up paying the price. Fair trade usually focuses on middle-income states or countries rather than very poor ones and places costly demands on farmers that force them to spend more money on proper certification, especially in more disadvantaged countries. The sliding scale pricing structure and certification are less costly for large producer organisations, and as some countries are heavily dependent on the export of a limited number of primary products, the slightest change can have a significant impact on their economies. Within the fair trade system, dependent countries are underrepresented, while countries with diversified exports are overrepresented. For example, Ethiopia and Burundi are the most dependent on coffee and in 2009 they received only 3 certificates, while those of Mexico and Peru were issued 42 & 57