Who is actually doing the suing here? If it’s the ADA themselves then this is a mockery and it makes the ADA look like a joke. I’m lactose intolerant. Being lactose intolerant it is not medically necessary to not drink milk. I can drink milk. I can eat cheese, yogurt, etc. If I think about it, I take a little pill that has lactase in it to help. If I don’t then I get diarrhea and then I move on with my life. Not to mention, nobody is forcing you to go to Starbucks. If you don’t want to drink milk and you don’t want to pay extra, then don’t go to Starbucks. I know that’s a hard concept for some to understand but you have free will. You can break free from the clutches of capitalism. I absolutely hate Starbucks and haven’t been to one since 2012 and even I think this lawsuit is frivolous.
That’s not how the ADA works. You could say the same for wheelchair ramps, but ultimately it’s on the store owner to reasonably provide accomodations to people who want to use their services. It’s not on the disabled person to pick and select who will accommodate them or not. It’s why businesses are required to reserve a portion of their parking lot to those with handicap placards. It shouldn’t be up to each disabled person to figure out which business they can go to.
What Starbucks is doing would be akin to Walmart charging an extra buck for you to use one of their mobility scooters or an extra $5 if you require the assistance from an employee because you can’t reach something.
I don’t know the ins and outs of the ADA, but I disagree with your analogy. What Starbucks is doing is akin to Walmart charging a different price for milk and oat milk, which I don’t think anyone would say is not allowed. It’s not like there’s a sheet of lactose you have to walk through to get into a Starbucks or anything, there’s just things on the menu that people with some food allergies can’t order.
Lactose intolerance is not a disability.
You cant sue Five Guys because you have a peanut allergy and they didn’t provide you a safe peanut free environment.
Lactose intolerance, along with all other food allergies and intolerances, is a medical condition which is protected under the ADA. You don’t have to accomodate it, but if you do, you cannot charge extra for it.
Five Guys has peanut allergy signs on the doors. They are safe.
McDonald’s hamburgers are cheaper than their cheeseburgers. They are safe.
A Starbucks latte is offered with dairy or a non-dairy creamers, and they charged more for the latter, violating the ADA rights of every lactose intolerant customer that purchased a non-dairy latte.
But a latte is a dairy based product, the non dairy cheaper alternative would be coffee. As the non dairy cheaper alternative of a cheeseburger is to remove the cheese.
Black coffee and a latte are not the same product just because they both are coffee-based drinks. A latte doesn’t use brewed coffee at all, it uses espresso shots, and thus is mostly milk, not coffee. If you ordered a latte and got a cup of black coffee, that doesn’t even come close to what you ordered, unlike your hamburger/cheeseburger analogy where only the cheese of the difference
Either way, Starbucks does provide a non-dairy alternative for their latte however already: oat milk, almond milk, and soy milk, but they charge for those alternatives and that is where the issue is.
If they did not provide alternatives at all, or if they did not charge extra, there would be no issue. They either would have to remove the alternative options, which would reduce choice for everyone, or provide an alternative at no additional cost, which only eats into their massive profit margins a tiny bit. At wholesale bulk amounts like they buy, the cost difference is negligible for the product, and the markup on that substitution is insane.
ADA doesn’t care about cheaper, watching the movie with no dialogue is cheaper than giving a closed captioning box to deaf people, but theaters still have to do it. The standard is undue burden. Starbucks is going to have a hard time claiming it’s going to bankrupt them if they can’t charge extra for oat milk.
Unless they claim to have an allergen-free kitchen.
Who is actually doing the suing here? If it’s the ADA themselves then this is a mockery and it makes the ADA look like a joke.
The Americans with Disabilities act is a civil rights law passed in 1990 that protects disabled Americans from discrimination. The ADA is not an organization that can sue on anyone’s behalf, it is a law that gives disabled people the right to sue when they are discriminated against, and it gives the justice department the power to punish businesses that fail to comply with the law
Asking for non-dairy creamer is a reasonable accomodation under the ADA if you are lactose intolerant. They don’t have to offer it, but if they do, they cannot legally charge you extra to accomodate a disability or medical condition. That is discrimination under the ADA.
You may think this seems trivial or frivolous, but this is a clear case of Starbucks, a multibillion dollar international corporation, violating one of the most basic protections the ADA offers. It would be an injustice to turn a blind eye to it if you care about protecting disabled Americans from discrimination.
I think you’re missing the big picture.
Just because one can choose not to go to Starbucks doesn’t relieve Starbucks of the requirement to provide equal access and provide equitable services to those with a disability or medical limitation.
Just because you are lactose intolerant and can handle things with with some milk products doesn’t mean that everyone with lactose intolerance can. There can be those that have much more severe reactions.
There are also those that truly cannot have diary at all. People have full blown milk allergies where if they ingest diary they could have anaphylaxis shock.
Making accomodations for equitable products/services for a medical disability cannot cost extra to the disabled person.
I don’t think it means that all non-dairy creamers necessarily need to be available for free. It only means that one does. Whatever non-dairy creamer is likely the cheapest.
While I understand and agree with a lot of what you say, the idea that you can just go somewhere else doesn’t fly. The same argument can be used to justify shops without handicapped accessible doorways, or restaurants where smoking is allowed. After all, you can just go somewhere else…
Can’t believe so many people here are arguing in Starbucks favour here.
Sad state of affairs that people go out to defend them for such a simple easy thing to change.
All the assholes have convinced the rest of us that everybody is as heartless as they are. Whereas, it’s genuinely possible to be considerate and still remain in business. If anybody argues otherwise, they’re simply a bad business-person and needs to go out of business ASAP.
Can’t believe so many people here are arguing in Starbucks favour here.
I think it is the principle that a business should be able to charge to recoup their costs. Milk alternatives are undoubtedly more expensive for Starbucks, based not only on the quantity of purchasing, but the additional refrigerated space required, and the additional man-hours necessary to stock and use alternatives.
Sad state of affairs that people go out to defend them for such a simple easy thing to change.
It’s simple and easy because you’re not the business owner who has to comply. Please understand that if Starbucks needs to comply under the ADA, then so does every other coffee shop, restaurant , and drink stand. This either ends in a loss for the Plaintiffs or an increase in all drinks to the most expensive milk alternative price.
I think it is the principle that a business should be able to charge to recoup their costs.
As if they’re so close to the line that adding an extra $0.02 to the cost of making that cup of coffee means they aren’t recouping the cost anymore?
but the additional refrigerated space required, and the additional man-hours necessary to stock and use alternatives.
As opposed to the refrigerated space and man hours they need to stock cow milk. I don’t see any extra cost here. The material itself, sure, but the space and manpower? No. Again, the actual increased cost is negligible. Spreading the cost over all sales would mean every cup of coffee costs another $0.01.
Dude… just stop. You don’t understand the thin margins a small coffee shop operates under, and that is who this would destroy.
It wont’ “destroy” them that is hyperbolic.
Probably because an option like soy milk costs over twice as much per volume when compared to cow milk at the consumer level, so therefore any rational person would expect a drink made with the more-expensive non-dairy ingredient to cost more.
To me it’s not defending Starbucks as much as it is defending common sense.
What if they removed all reference of the word “dairy” from their products and made the consumer choose the beverage ingredients item by item, and each ingredient has a different price relative to the cost?
Twice as much per unit volume sounds like a lot, until you think about how much volume is used in the coffee, and how much the coffee sells for. They aren’t barely scraping by on their profit margins.
I’m thinking more about the implications of this legal argument. Does it mean vegetarians should be guaranteed prices equivalent to meat dishes? Is it religious discrimination if a restaurant doesn’t offer fish during Lent?
I’d rather just have Starbucks lower their prices. The actual legal case opens a can of worms we really don’t want to deal with.
If this leads to more veg options at better prices, sounds like a win to me.
Honestly just make all food cheaper, it’s become way too expensive.
I agree with you, but the alternative (in their mind) would probably be to raise the price of everything to compensate.
Not like Starbucks customers care how much they’re paying though! Lol
Yeah it’s amazing. Starbucks could just accept a 500% profit on every coffee sold instead of 600%. Their markup is insane, even including retail overhead.
But then their C-Suite would be marginally less rich…and their line would go up at a smaller angle…
Why do you think a business should be compelled to sell something at any given price? I mean sure, you can burn them in the court of public opinion, but it’s another thing when you say that government regulation should dictate the cost of a coffee beverage. I think that’s where most people are landing in this, they agree it’s stupid for Starbucks to do such a petty thing, but when it comes to lawsuits involving ADA regulations it crosses a line for reasonable response.
It’s almost like the lawsuit for hot coffee where the person argued they didn’t know the coffee was hot
You mean the incident where McDonald made the coffee so hot it was beyond safe and the woman had 3rd degree burns fusing her pelvic region together?
That case is one of the most well known examples of how corporations turn serious safety incidents into “haha stupid customer not know obvious thing”, as if the victim was to blame for McDonalds wrong doing.
You chose that incident to argue your point? Wow, thank you, that makes my case here so much easier.
Yeah the moment they mentioned that like McDonald’s wasn’t at fault I stopped reading anything else they had to say.
You can get third degree burns from touching water which is 150 degree F for around 2 seconds. Most coffee world wide is served between 160 and 180 F.
In that case the water was supposedly served at 190 F while competitors coffees were served at 160 F. The lawyers in that suit claimed that if the coffee had been in the 160 range it would have taken up to 20 seconds to get third degree burns. We now know that even at 160 F she would have gotten the same burns within 5 seconds.
What exactly is your point?
I still don’t understand how the “hot coffee” debunking isn’t known world round by this point.
Because the ingredients cost maybe less than a cent more and they change nearly a dollar for it.
“But they can charge whatever they like!”
No. They cannot. They cannot charge for tap water. They cannot charge for using the bathroom. They can’t lock you in the Cafe and charge you to leave. They can’t advertise for one price and sell another. They can’t charge half price for milk that’s gone rotten etc. There are lots of things they can’t do. This is another.
Because the ingredients cost maybe less than a cent more and they change nearly a dollar for it.
Can you show your work on milk alternatives costing Starbucks less than a cent more?
No. They cannot. They cannot charge for tap water. They cannot charge for using the bathroom. They can’t lock you in the Cafe and charge you to leave. They can’t advertise for one price and sell another. They can’t charge half price for milk that’s gone rotten etc. There are lots of things they can’t do. This is another.
Quite the specious analogy, but I fail to see how kidnapping is equivalent to charging a different price for a different product.
We will never know the exact numbers. However, from reported figures we know that $SBUX, $DNKN, $PNRA, $MCD all have similar margins across gross, ops and P&L (50-70, 10-20, 10-20 respectively).
the goal of all fast food centers is to produce a unit cost as close to $1, preferably lower, as possible and we also know from reported figures that 1 cent is the expected associated labor cost of a starbucks unit.
Knowing that the price of milk on commodities market is 16.42hwt or 1 cent / oz, knowing that SBUX coffee beans are 7cent/oz we can extrapolate that suitable extra costs for alternative milks must be in the single figure cent range.
Further supported by how if you are to go to a post-supply-chain-shipping-and-procurement wholesale vendor then the price of oatly barista edition oatmilk is 10c/oz and we can very safely assume that SBUX gets it much MUCH cheaper so we at least know the ceiling is $0.1
So, while I was exaggerating for effect in my original reply, the actual numbers- even if they are paying the same price as I would walking into a wholesaler (EXTREMELY unlikely):
- price of 16oz cow milk latte: $4.25, unit cost $1, milk cost 1c
- price of 16oz oat milk latte $4.95, cost $1.1, milk 10c
So in the extreme worst case scenario for starbucks they are making an extra 6% profit per ounce on oatmilk over cow milk, so not at cost-to-price parity.
And that’s the worst case, they are probably making more.
So in one comment you’ve gone from less than a cent to possibly 10 cents. And the price increase isn’t a dollar, it’s 70 cents.
Your calculations don’t seem to include increased refrigerated space required, additional man hours, increased inefficiencies, and possible increased spoilage. The price increase does not strike me as unreasonable given the circumstances.
cf supra—
exhibit a:
“So while I was exaggerating for effect in my original post”
exhibit b:
“extreme worst case scenario”
exhibit c:
“almost a dollar”
waaaay ahead of the gotchas and objections my dude.
Additional space isn’t an overhead rolling operating cost, and per unit is probably infestisimal. Additional man hours is a weird objection, do starbucks even track for “reaching for a carton slightly further away”? I imagine the time savings for moving a carton 4" closer are measured in the thousandths of seconds
oat milk has a longer shelf life (6 months) than cow milk (5 days) and when opened too (10 days vs 2)
The price doesn’t have to strike you as reasonable or not because we are discussing whether we think starbucks are making a profit on oat milk or not. To me it’s obvious they are making more of a margin on oat over dairy, whether or not that is good/bad, reasonable/unreasonable, fair/unfair is an entirely different conversation
Additional space isn’t an overhead rolling operating cost, and per unit is probably infestisimal. Additional man hours is a weird objection, do starbucks even track for “reaching for a carton slightly further away”? I imagine the time savings for moving a carton 4" closer are measured in the thousandths of seconds
Either they added a new refrigerator or made room in an existing refrigerator. To make room something needs to be removed, less room for regular milk means more trips to a walk-in to restock. More SKUs means more time on ordering and inventory. If they added a refrigerator then there’s added electricity costs.
oat milk has a longer shelf life (6 months)
I meant once opened, which is more like a week. Which means they likely all need day dots put on them. More man hours (or minutes, or seconds)
The price doesn’t have to strike you as reasonable or not because we are discussing whether we think starbucks are making a profit on oat milk or not.
They’re a business, I assume they make a profit on everything. Oat milk lattes would seem to be a strange loss leader.
Open a grocery app. Search for oat milk, dairy milk, almond milk, soy milk. Alternative milks don’t really cost more than dairy anymore.
I don’t agree with the lawsuit, but I also don’t agree with Starbucks’ ridiculous upcharge for non dairy.
Open a grocery app. Search for oat milk, dairy milk, almond milk, soy milk. Alternative milks don’t really cost more than dairy anymore.
Does Starbucks shop at grocery stores? They likely buy non-consumer packaged milk, think 5 gallon plastic sacks, and cases of consumer packaged milk alternatives. Not to mention extra man-hours and extra refrigerated space.
Visit a Starbucks. They pull a gallon plastic milk jug from a drinks fridge under the bar when making drinks.
While there might be slight discrepancies between grocery prices and wholesale prices, the sheer size of Starbucks means they’d save on all varieties of milk (not just dairy) and I seriously doubt they pay 50 cents more per cup for alternative milks.
the sheer size of Starbucks means they’d save on all varieties of milk (not just dairy) and I seriously doubt they pay 50 cents more per cup for alternative milks.
You literally have no idea though, unless you work in supply chain for Starbucks. You’re guessing. Do they do their purchasing as a single corporation from one dairy farm, I doubt it. Plus you ignore the additional hours and need for refrigerated space. There’s more to consider than just cost per unit. Also if you use less there’s a greater chance of spoilage.
Fused labia. Any time you think about whether the coffee was indeed too hot, I want you to think of the words fused labia.
Also think about the fact that they’d been warned about the coffee being unsafe multiple times prior. Also think about the fact that she initially wanted them to only pay for the reconstructive surgery after their coffee fused her labia, and they said no.
This is known as a red herring fallacy, the fact that it fused her labia doesn’t change the nature of the situation, nor does it increase the gravity of the situation.
“She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants, which absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks and groin.”
Additionanally:
“According to a 2007 report, McDonald’s had not reduced the temperature of its coffee, serving it at 176–194 °F (80–90 °C), relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future injury and liability (though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee). However, in 2013 the New York Times reported that it had lowered its service temperature to 170–180 °F (77–82 °C). The Specialty Coffee Association of America supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases. Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175–185 °F (79–85 °C), and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is 160–185 °F (71–85 °C).”
So not only did it not change the temperature at which most major brands serve coffee, the temperature that was proposed as reasonable by the defense attorneys was also still hot enough to cause third degree burns. I get that she might want them to pay for damages, but she literally dumped it on herself, the reason she was so seriously hurt was because she was 79 years old. If you’re buying hot coffee that’s freshly brewed then it should be obvious it’s hot enough to seriously burn you. If it’s over 150 F then you will get major significant burns.
As to the idea that they had been warned:
“Other documents obtained from McDonald’s showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald’s coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.”
McDonalds purportedly sells more than 50 million cups of coffee per year, over 10 years that was 500 million cups of coffee. 0.00014% is hardly a “warning.”
Actually it was an appeal to emotion. The fact that the coffee was hot enough to fuse her labia together after such a short time is actual evidence of McDonald’s negligence, so not a red herring. Also, pointing out a fallacy in your interlocutor’s argument doesn’t make you right. Also that part wasn’t an argument, so it wasn’t a fallacy in the first place.
700 reports is 700 warnings. I’m sure that McCock tastes good, but McDonald’s does not need you as it’s stoic defender. They’d kill you if they deemed it profitable.
As someone who can’t eat gluten, I’d love this.
I get bread equivalents made with tapioca and rice yet somehow that shit is charged at a premium
at firehouse subs a gluten free roll costs +$1.50, they don’t even prepare it separately from normal bread and use all the same tools for it (except for not cutting it) so it’s not actually properly gluten-free, it’s almost certainly contaminated with gluten.
jersey mikes also charges +$1.50 (medium) to +$3.00 (large) to get gluten-free bread, but at least they have to go through a whole ritual to prepare it where they use COMPLETELY different tools and gloves and stuff, and it is generally actually non-contaminated unless, you specify that it’s not for allergies.
source: i worked at both firehouse subs and jersey mikes before, i fucking hated when people ordered gluten-free at jersey mikes but i always did it as required obviously. i didn’t actually ever charge extra to people who were getting gluten free because i didn’t know that was an option on the cash register at first lol, but even after i learned i just forgot / didn’t care enough to do it. some people were really grateful and thanked me after seeing me go through an entire process to make sure the gluten-free sub had no gluten on it
It’s not charged at a premium, it costs more to produce and deliver.
The entire process needs to be completely seperated from wheat flour. And the production numbers are lower, so all fixed costs need to be distributed over a lower number of sales units.I have a friend in the food industry who explained the costs and issues to me. They’ve seen people go into anaphylactic shock because of mis-prepared foods. The amount of work that goes into foods for people who have allergies or celiac is exponentially higher. Not only is there just figuring out how to make, say, bread look and taste like bread along with having similar nutritional qualities, all of the ingredients used in that preparation have to individually be verified to not be contaminated with any of the ingredients that someone might have a problem with. For instance, some flours might be gluten-free, but have a soy additive for thickening that you wouldn’t think to look for because it’s flour…who would add soy to it? But selling a gluten-free cupcake that you haven’t verified is soy-free to someone with a reaction to soy could potentially kill them.
It’s a really big deal.
So that’s why allergen and gluten-free foods cost so much more. I’m not saying there isn’t a prepared because they can, but the additional safeguards in production of foods like this has a price.
but it is still a violation of the ADA to add that for the accomidation of the disability. Also, in a sain world built for people, we would not charge extra for providing the safe guards needed to not kill people.
Not to mention that you have to prepare and store it in an entirely different area. Otherwise you have to completely scrub the same area to try and prevent cross contamination and probably special air filtration systems to keep flour out of the air. I had a coworker tell me she got anaphylaxis once over an apple getting small amounts of flour on it. It is almost better to get pre-made from another company where it comes sealed and serve it that way.
I feel for people with severe food allergies. I thankfully only have a severe cat allergy, but I had a friend with a soy allergy. He refused to eat out as most employees either don’t know, will have to spend 10+ minutes trying to read every single label, or will misunderstand and say it doesn’t anyways. If we were cooking for him, we could at least check or show him all of the ingredients beforehand.
lol wut
I hate to say anything in defense of Starbucks (as a small Coffee House owner), but non-dairy costs more in general. It’s not like they are upcharging because they want to stick it to the lactose intolerant.
The idea that it costs more to put oats in a blender with an enzyme is more expensive to produce than breeding and feeding cows is pretty laughable. Non-dairy is only more expensive because of gigantic subsidies that simply don’t need to exist in the modern era.
Prices for items at scale can be difficult to understand.
So you are agreeing with the person you are replying to that non diary is more expensive?
Yes: At the grocery store.
No: At multinational commercial quantities.
If you say so
Re your edit, no one is simping for Starbucks, just common sense. You don’t have to have milk with your coffee. For fuck sake, you don’t even have to have a coffee.
Want something unusual in your coffee? Pay for it.
Not happy, about how much they are charging for it. Make your fucking coffee at home before leaving the house and put whatever you want in there.
We are not talking insulin prices here, let’s get real.
Unusual? You should check your biases. Plant milks have been around for a long time (at least the 1400s), are anything but unusual, particularly when the majority of the world has intolerance to baby cow growth formula.
Sure, and that why when you walk into a shop and ask for milk, everyone asks you “what kind of milk would you like”?
baby cow growth formula.
LOL, way to be taken seriously
Well, it is serious. Cow’s milk is a formula that’s adapted for the purpose of taking a small calf, and transforming them into a huge cow as rapidly as possible. Is it any surprize that we have obesity, diabetes, and heart disease epidemics?
You think milk is the cause why you have obesity, diabetes and hearth disease?
Look vegetarians and vegans have a couple of good points that can be used to get more people interested. Keep going calling milk whatever you called it, referring to ‘murdered animals’ and making up shit to explain obesity and no wonder you can’t even convince your mum to take you seriously.
I love this, “If vegans weren’t [x], we would…” … what? Take us seriously, what do you mean by that? Are you implying that if only I would say the approved things, you would actually go vegan?! Is vegan discourse a Shin Megami Tensei dialogue tree game, where making the arbitrarily chosen, pre-approved word choices is the key to success?
And I suppose all those people who were saying, “all lives matter”, were right when they said they ‘no longer’ support movements like BLM because a few riots happened?
Be real, you just want vegans to shut up and keep our heads down, so you don’t have to have your animal abuse challenged.
Anyway it’s not about what I think. The facts are that many things contribute to the rise of obesity and other western lifestyle diseases, including a sedentary lifestyle, poor diet (involving many factors), and possibly even things related to pollution. There is more than enough data to show, however, that the primary factor is animal consumption - including dairy. The Adventist health studies show this clearly, as well as many others.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2671114/
https://www.pcrm.org/good-nutrition/nutrition-information/health-concerns-about-dairy
It’s cheaper for Starbucks to buy Cow milk than oat milk because the dairy industry is very heavily subsidized. Starbucks doesn’t make the milk.
Could Starbucks eat the pennies of cost difference to make sure everything’s fair with no loss in revenue by moving prices around? Yes.
Were the cost increases they put on non-dairy milk just enough to cover those costs? No.
Did they add those costs to hurt people who can’t have dairy? No.
But, does their profiting by charging more cost people who can’t drink dairy more than people who can? Yes.
Regardless of their intent here we have a situation wheresome people must pay more for the same drink.
Let’s not forget starbucks isn’t in any way the good guy here. They’re spending millions on Union busting so they don’t have to pay their workers so they can afford to eat 25c or whatever. If they shouldn’ have to, then should the individual? If you think the individual should, why?
None of this is relevant the only point is if it costs the coffee house more. In other news vans that have wheelchair lifts installed are more expensive than those without.
If you pause to make your product safe just because it costs you more to ensure your customers don’t die, bear in mind that I would have formed a less than ideal opinion of you in my mind before I even met you.
Selling dairy containing drinks doesn’t put your customers at risk. If they didn’t offer non-dairy creamers and I was horrifically allergic to dairy I wouldn’t say oh well I guess I have to shit myself to death today.
I completely disagree because of the huge volumes that starbucks uses. They can just buy chobani and get the oat water at cost.
You have now justified imposing upon coffee shops based on a completely fictional world you have invented where maintaining non-dairy options doesn’t actually cost more even though it on average does.
Look at the processes to create dairy and non-dairy ingredients.
Dairy can be done on the small scale, but it is typically done on an industrial scale where animals are reared and exploited in an extremely labor, water, energy, and space inefficient process. The outputs are raw milk which must be processed into different milk products and pasteurized then refrigerated and transported.
Compare that to oat milk.
Arable land is sewn and watered. It is tended and then reaped. Oats are processed in a crusher and kiln. They are then crushed again, boiled with enzymes, pasteurized, cooled and transported.Which one really costs more? Everyone is focusing on price at the store but they aren’t asking which product actually costs more. Dairy costs vastly more than oat milk and it is plain to see. The reason oat milk is priced higher is due to low volumes and grocers knowing they can rip off vegan white women which is their overwhelming demographic. The reason dairy milk is priced lower is due to enormous government subsidies and nearly a century of mechanization and optimization.
Why does this matter for starbucks? Because they can easily vertically integrate to remove the price barrier and instead focus on cost. Oat milk costs are extremely cheap when at larger scales like those of a corporation the size of starbucks. Stop focusing on how expensive it is at the grocery store level - it is not an apples to apples comparison to what huge corporations deal with.
I don’t disagree that it could be cheaper if its price were determined by price of inputs. I disagree that it matters. No judge in this case is able to fix for some definition of fix the market they are simply deciding in the actual world where we live if its reasonable to force coffee shops to spend more and charge the same for milk alternatives. I assert it isn’t. Coffee out and about is a luxury good and if it costs to much you ought to simply make it at home
Oh I don’t give a damn about the whole starbucks v ADA bit. I’m just chuffed by the price of oatmilk being out of sync with reality
Concrete is literally rocks, it should be free right?
Not really Starbucks’ jurisdiction tho
Eh… at their economies of scale I think the oat water would be far, far cheaper. They’ve vertically integrated quite a few ingredients - what’s oat or almond milk to add to the list?
Maybe not to the lactose intolerant, but the vegan people is generally more willing to spend more to avoid real milk and starbucks is certainly happy to squeeze every penny they can out of them.
Are we talking a non-dairy whipped topping here?
On the other hand, if young Timmy goes into anaphylactic shock everybody would change their tunes faster than you can say “Anaphylaxis”
Does it cost fifty cents more per cup? Doubtful.
Dairy is subsidized by the government. They absolutely do want to stick it to anyone who doesn’t support the system.
I accuse them of over-roasting their coffee beans.
They are absolutely an embarrassment to anyone with an intact nose and tongue. And I say that as someone whose fine with bottom-shelf can coffee most days of the week.
I lean into my disdain for their roasting standard on the internet for fake points. My actual impression is more along the lines of: Isn’t this supposed to be premium somehow?
Like if they served it out of acaraffe at a gas station for about a third of the price, I’d be less annoyed.
Stop giving these greedy corporations money. There’s other alternatives for your coffee fix.
this only makes sense if they’re making like 3x in profits over normal dairy.
Could someone with lactose intolerance not merely omit the milk?
That would be an actual reasonable accommodation in this case.
I mean that limits you to just straight black. no latte, cappuccino, nothing
not against black coffee, but that’s not why people go to starbies
I mean, this could apply very easily to a steakhouse too and vegetarians. Vegetarians would be limited to just salads and sides, but those aren’t why people go to a steakhouse.
But every lactose intolerant person I know drinks milk and eats ice cream almost in spite of themselves, they don’t even consider lactaid.
I mean I exclusively use lactaid brand ice cream and milk, it’s pretty good. And I do take lactaid sometimes when I eat some dairy, but it’s not like a perfect fix, it helps so that I don’t want to die, but like dairy still hurts, so I avoid it. When I can.
O…kay?
Before everyone gets down on non-dairy milk drinkers, remember that the government subsidizes the hell out of dairy milk production to make it cheaper in the first place.
Right? I would love to see a future where the right wing gets their way and makes calling almond milk “milk” illegal, but is also forced to stop subsidizing cow excretions. Do I buy the Authentic Cow Milk for $10 a gallon, or the Almond-Based Dairy Alternative for $6…?
I think I’d rather get down with the sickness. (Because I’m lactose intolerant)
More to the relevant point, those alt milks are still cheaper to produce and Starbucks has the scale to do so. You know what it takes to make oatmilk? Oats, sugar, water, small amount of oil. Almond milk? Replace oat with almond, except you can use more of the material.
In oatmilk the sugar and oil are optional ingredients for taste and texture. Almost all oatmilk brands contain salt for taste.
I’ve only found one brand that uses three ingredients, oat water salt. They charge a premium for it, but it’s the best tasting one I’ve found.
Yep. I would LOVE to be able to consume dairy without shitting my guts out, but as that’s not an option I get to either pay extra or go without.
They subsidize soy, oats, and almonds too.
Is that accurate?
I used to buy a lot of soy milk since I’m lactose intolerant and it was cheaper than milk a decade ago. But now it’s nearly the same price or double for the same brand. And now I’m wondering if it’s a Soy conspiracy.
It’s a capitalist conspiracy.
Most farming is subsidized, the debate then is which one is subsidized more. A bit of a specious argument at the end of the day.
Pretty easy answer, though, considering 2/3rds of crops are fed to cows and therefor the cost of creating dairy milk is much higher.
Soy is heavily subsidized. It’s the main crop in most Midwestern states, even more than corn.
Isnt most soy used as animal feed tho? Or is it only from certain regions?
80℅ of the world’s soy market is animal feed.
Yep, so a double subsidy for livestock. All farming is subsidized, which does have some value to keep farms producing an excess for times of need, but the amount of subsidies for some industries is insane. Republicans will talk about the free market and then advocate for socialized farming to buy votes, because they don’t actually care about logic or consistency. The same is true for coal and other forms of dirty energy that should be stomped out either by the market by now or by reasonable regulations, but instead we’ve kept them going with taxpayer money.
Why not? I would charge more.
I despise Starbucks, but I’m not sure this lawsuit makes any sense. Those non-cow milks costs them more. Of course, the law often doesn’t make sense, anyway.
As another commenter said, they could just overcharge for cow milk and make the prices all the same. Then nobody is happy, but it meets the legal requirement (as I understand it).
Those non-cow milks costs them more.
so? it’s starbucks. they’ll be fine.
Good margins is why they’re fine.
Those non-cow milks costs them more.
so? it’s starbucks. they’ll be fine.
Great logic, but that means every coffee shop everywhere would have to cover the additional costs of being “compliant”.
The relevant regulation is Title III of the ADA, which is the part that applies to private businesses.
36.307 Accessible or special goods:
(a) This part does not require a public accommodation to alter its inventory to include accessible or special goods that are designed for, or facilitate use by, individuals with disabilities.
(b) A public accommodation shall order accessible or special goods at the request of an individual with disabilities, if, in the normal course of its operation, it makes special orders on request for unstocked goods, and if the accessible or special goods can be obtained from a supplier with whom the public accommodation customarily does business.
© Examples of accessible or special goods include items such as Brailled versions of books, books on audio cassettes, closed-captioned video tapes, special sizes or lines of clothing, and special foods to meet particular dietary needs.
From my understanding Starbucks is not required to offer non-dairy milk. As they do not do special inventory orders for customers, they could remove the non-dairy milk options from the menu without violating the ADA.
But because Starbucks currently offers non-dairy milk, those options are subject to the ADA, specifically:
36.301© Charges.
A public accommodation may not impose a surcharge on a particular individual with a disability or any group of individuals with disabilities to cover the costs of measures, such as the provision of auxiliary aids, barrier removal, alternatives to barrier removal, and reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, that are required to provide that individual or group with the nondiscriminatory treatment required by the Act or this part.
In my amateur reasercher’s opinion, this case seems sound. Charging extra for milk alternatives is probably a violation of the ADA.
It seems not a slam dunk here, to me, specifically because of the first section. Starbucks is not required to offer non-dairy milk as an accommodation, according to your first quote.
Since Starbucks is not required to offer non-dairy milk, that last paragraph doesn’t apply at all, because they aren’t charging more for a required accommodation.
Removed by mod
I’m guessing because it fits the definition as laid out by the Americans with Disabilities Act?
Kind of like that section that every law has in order to avoid stupid questions like this?
This whole title reads like a joke.
Because people believe it is and they believe they should be catered to.
