There is a vegan option that costs less: black coffee.
I don't expect a gluten free option that is similar to whatever non gluten free meal we are comparing to, to cost the same. If only because you are going to have more spillage.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
"Succession" actor James Cromwell super-glued himself to a Starbucks counter as part of PETA's vegan milk protest
- Thread starter bishopp135
- Start date
There is a vegan option that costs less: black coffee.
I don't expect a gluten free option that is similar to whatever non gluten free meal we are comparing to, to cost the same. If only because you are going to have more spillage.
This is entirely moot because, as discussed yesterday, in the UK Starbucks (and other coffee chains) offer any coffee, including those with high milk content such as lattes, with milk alternatives at no extra charge. That's also with milk subsidies and that buying milk alternatives is significantly more expensive in the supermarket.
I hope Starbucks buckles on this issue. I'd drink a lot more oatmilk lattes if they weren't $1 extra. That upcharge is exploitative as hell when their drinks are already expensive.
Vegetarian products being overcharged, less available with less options is unfortunately the norm. Our market had an uproar when airlines wanted to provide meat alternatives, going as far as guilt tripping everyone for "not supporting local exports" etc.
Vegan milk-like products are more expensive, then obviously drinks based on such products will be more expensive.
Feels like they are protesting at the wrong place. Blame manufacturers for capitalizing on such market with ridiculous prices.
Having said that, Starbucks prices are definitely too expensive, generally speaking
Feels like they are protesting at the wrong place. Blame manufacturers for capitalizing on such market with ridiculous prices.
Having said that, Starbucks prices are definitely too expensive, generally speaking
Since the milk alternative is more expensive for Starbucks to source, what the protest really wants is for Starbucks to raise the price of milk, not lower other prices
Imagine telling people that if they want vegan cappuccinos and lattes at a store that specialises in cappuccinos and lattes, that they should drink... not cappuccinos and lattes.
How little thought went into your post before you made it?
They didnt not say this.
The price increase isn't commiserate with the kind of buying Starbucks does
There's always these post in threads.
The goal is to make a scene and get headlines.
I have no opinion on peta but I didn't think this protest was bad and they employees are still there working, and he left.
I'm not going into this discussion. I think milk subsidies should be abolished (also in Europe), I think we should also look at environmental impact of non dairy milks( some use unreasonable amounts of land and water), and I also think that protesting a dollar difference in the price of your luxury cup of coffee at the local unethical coffee chain is fucking stupid.
Can you even remove your hand from something if you use Loctite? I imagine it's an awful process.
It makes the news, it makes Starbucks look bad. The chains in the UK used to charge, some if not all don't anymore because it was campaigned against.
PETA sucks, but so agree that the up charges for milk alternatives are ridiculous. Glueing yourself to a Starbucks counter is definitely not the right way to go about it. Also Starbucks itself isn't the problem, the problem arises way earlier when it comes to the production offsite products and how they are subsidized.
Here in Germany the uncharges at Starbucks are
0,50€ for Oat
0,90€ for Coconut
0,90€ for Almond
Couldn't find Soy at the moment.
Here in Germany the uncharges at Starbucks are
0,50€ for Oat
0,90€ for Coconut
0,90€ for Almond
Couldn't find Soy at the moment.
Black Starbucks coffee tastes like ass. They expect their coffee to be in milk drinks. There are plenty of coffees that aren't burnt and have pleasant fruity/chocolate notes. Try some lighter roasts from your local coffee roaster.
Again, subsidies are an issue but we in the UK have them and they don't charge extra over here (And as per my earlier post comparing plant milk prices we look to pay slightly more or almost the same for say oat milk (The most popular and best for the planet)).
In the supermarket a carton of Oatly is £1.90 for a litre and £0.82 a litre for semi skimmed cow's milk. So it's actually a lot more expensive for the plant option. And yet Starbucks here charge the same, so what's Starbucks USA's excuse? Prevalent corporate apologists?
It's obviously not just materials cost. If I order an extra tomato slice on a sandwich at McDonalds, for the same price I can get a whole tomato at the grocery store. It's a lower volume order, alternative milks don't foam the same way as cows milk so maybe only certain baristas can make the order, maybe they use separate equipment or take extra time to clean for people who care about contamination with cows milk, more waste if they have to open a container that only a few people order per store per day, etc.
Yeah (My comparison was UK vs US plant milks so if we can do it with it costing more, surely they can). There are also cheaper options out there than Oatly (I don't buy it anymore, but it is seen as the de facto best brand mind) and with their buying power I suspect a better deal could be got.
Funny enough, a good friend of mine owns a coffee shop that I worked at for years, and this came up.
The fact is, non-dairy milk options, especially oatmilk (since it's so trendy right now), are significantly more expensive to carry than regular dairy milk. That may be a cost that Starbucks can stomach, but smaller/local coffee shops (where you're also likely to get a better cup of coffee)? Not so much.
So it ultimately came down to do we add a surcharge for non-dairy milk options, or do we raise the cost for all milk-based drinks? We eventually went with the surcharge and, outside of 1 or 2 people, nobody really cared.
The fact is, non-dairy milk options, especially oatmilk (since it's so trendy right now), are significantly more expensive to carry than regular dairy milk. That may be a cost that Starbucks can stomach, but smaller/local coffee shops (where you're also likely to get a better cup of coffee)? Not so much.
So it ultimately came down to do we add a surcharge for non-dairy milk options, or do we raise the cost for all milk-based drinks? We eventually went with the surcharge and, outside of 1 or 2 people, nobody really cared.
A lot of the smaller coffee shops around here don't charge and are doing really well. In the UK we've even seen some move to using oat as default and charging a surcharge on dairy.
Yep our local village cafe isn't part of a chain and offers the option for milk/oat/soy for the same price. Prices for a coffee are thereabouts the same as the chains.
I mean, that may be true in the UK. But here on the East Coast of the US, I use to manage one of those shops. The numbers were part of my job.
There's just no other way to slice it: non-dairy is more expensive, and not just by a few cents. And that in itself isn't really a problem -- most cafes have items that they're willing to "take a hit" on for the sake of quality. But, it is something that you have to calculate. You have to know the price of the goods you're sourcing, versus what you're selling them for. Most businesses have to make the choice where they're willing to take a hit, and where they're not.
Who knows, obviously I'm speaking anecdotally and from my limited experience.
I presume most here do take the hit as Oatly from another member is around double the price (There are supermarket own brands which are the same quality wise; not sure if these are uses as Oatly and Alpro are kind of the market leaders as being seen as the quality ones). I live inner city and know at least 2 down the road from me which offer it for free as well as some in the smaller villages, city center etc. You're gaining customers (And it looks good for the business), if you sell a lot of it then you're gaining a lot. If you're only gaining a handful that's extra customers and profit and you buy accordingly?
A lot of even non Vegans/Plant based people are shifting towards plant based milks too (We have a discount store around here which gets loads in (Usually with a shorter shelf life) and dammit they are buying it all)
Oh I am sure most are mocking them.
Still, I had no idea Starbucks did this, probably never would have known. Now I do. If this is something he really believes in, I can't hate the method too much, as long as he was not a dick to the workers. Maybe he was though and I don't know.
I don't like PETA and will always despise them until the end.
But indeed there really shouldn't be an up charge for vegan options. Feels so unnecessary, not to mention it's already more cost effective to get more healthier options at the grocery store as it is.
And had no idea it's the farmer from Babe. Was surprised he was still alive, when I found out he was in JW: Fallen Kingdom.
But indeed there really shouldn't be an up charge for vegan options. Feels so unnecessary, not to mention it's already more cost effective to get more healthier options at the grocery store as it is.
And had no idea it's the farmer from Babe. Was surprised he was still alive, when I found out he was in JW: Fallen Kingdom.
Last edited:
Do you really think people are advocating for meat/dairy subsidies to end and not be used for literally anything else?
I think people are advocating for the removal of dairy subsidies regardless of whether or not subsidies are applied to alternatives. As evidenced by the focus on "we should stop subsidizing dairy" instead of "we should start subsidizing soy/tofu/etc".
People tend to fixate on getting rid of things they opposed over supporting things they are in favor of.
I want the government to end animal based subsidies and use that money for fruits, vegetables, legumes, grains, nuts, seeds, and mushrooms instead.
If anyone quotes me and disagree's and simply wants dairy subsidies to end i will be all over them right by your side.
PETA's stunts are often a complete waste of time, but Starbucks is a hyper-expensive global brand charging a lot of money for milkshakes for grown ups. They can afford to take the hit on non-dairy milk as a mild concession, and they already do, in loads of other countries.
If it was a small local coffee shop barely breaking even, and they decided to send some celebrity to harass the staff, I'd tell PETA to jog on and take it up with the government food agencies and subsidies (and big brands), but this is a small thing Starbucks can afford to do and already does do all over the place.
If it was a small local coffee shop barely breaking even, and they decided to send some celebrity to harass the staff, I'd tell PETA to jog on and take it up with the government food agencies and subsidies (and big brands), but this is a small thing Starbucks can afford to do and already does do all over the place.
The issue is that a lot of people have learned to cook using a certain set of ingredients. If ending animal-based subsidies increases food prices and places a burden on people to re-learn to cook, it's a regressive burden since poor people cook at home more.
Starbucks US Reps Reveal Non-Dairy Surcharge Is On Its Way Out
Starbucks stores around the world are dropping the upcharge on dairy-free milk. Now, according to the chain's own reps, the US could be next
plantbasednews.org
Well look at that
And the 'It's more expensive' arguments in this thread are now bollocks, clearly it can be done.
I suspect whilst it may cost a smidge more (With their buying power too) they will get additional customers they wouldn't have without plant based milks and it's a good look for a brand. Not done analysis on it but it's probably a clear win for them.
They'll get a ton more business from me, because it'll basically guarantee I go there as opposed to the competitors since it'll be cheaper without the expectation of a tip.
Even without getting into a subsidies discussion or saying Starbucks should eat the cost, they charge far too much for dairy substitutes compared to the actual cost of them.
I don't believe my splash of Oat milk costs a dollar more than what a splash of cow milk would. They should be selling these options at cost and not generating higher margins at the very least.
I don't believe my splash of Oat milk costs a dollar more than what a splash of cow milk would. They should be selling these options at cost and not generating higher margins at the very least.
If he was protesting their use of dairy products, absolutely nothing would happen. Literally nothing. Starbucks isn't going to stop selling milk
He chose a battle that could actually result in some change. And it looks like SB is making changes.. Not saying it's because of him but rather the collective of people who have made noise about it.