Starbucks Takes a Wrong Turn on the Socially Responsible Road
Saturday, December 16th, 2006Starbucks has taken a wrong turn on the road to social responsibility. I have always admired how Starbucks stood fast in their refusal to kowtow to activists and advocacy groups who make a career out of demanding one thing or another in their strategy to rid the world of modern conveniences. Recently, the Ralph Nader spin off group Food and Water Watch took on the years-long Organic Consumers Association campaign against Starbucks, asking among other things that they offer organic milk at no higher cost; that they sell only products that do not contain any gmos, and that they discontinue the purchasing of milk produced with the help of rBST. Starbucks has never capitulated and always maintained that they would listen to their customers. Until now.
Food and Water Watch has carried on far more feverishly than OCA ever did, and apparently that heat got to Starbucks, who recently responded to a FWW “action” that they were working to increase their supply of “rBST-free” milk. Starbucks has made the mistake of hearing advocacy noise as consumer requests. (Six staffers and their children dressed as cows should not count as consumer demand). And that is bad news for America’s dairy farmers, not to mention the environment and consumers who will now have to pay more for a product that is NO DIFFERENT!
Dairy processors are so afraid of the growth in the organic sector that they have completely made up a sector of their own, referred to in the media as organic lite. The only distinction is that this milk is labeled as having been produced from cows not treated with rBST. This is designed so all those mothers believe they are buying hormone free milk, or milk that does not contain antibiotics or any of the other litany of made up complaints against a product used safely and effectively by thousands of dairy farmers over the last decade. Even the Today Show recently compared organic and conventional milk and could find absolutely no difference between them.
Monsanto, the company that makes rBST, (and yes, they are one of the many occasional funders of the Hudson Institute, parent of CGFI–move on already) should consider their own action against FWW for slander, for maligning a product that science–not emotion–has proved to be safe. Although of course they would be painted as the big bad corporation picking on the poor little advocacy group, despite their Goliath like budget, and Public Citizen’s patron saint Ralph Nader.
Where are the groups like Cornucopia defending small dairy farmers and their right to use approved products on their farms? Where are the environmentalists, pointing out how much these decisions increase the amount of land, water, and other natural resources needed to produce our food? Where are the consumers, righteously indignant that they have been duped into paying more for bogus claims or implied benefits that do not exist? If any of you want to talk, you know how to reach me.
Sphere: Related ContentPosted in Milk is Milk | No Comments »









