• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    29
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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.

    Edit: the number of you simping for a gigantic corporation is surprising. Oat water is cheap to make. Milk is not. You buy milk at the grocery store nearly at cost. You buy oat milk in branded containers in the yuppy-vegan-white-women priced section at gouging prices. Starbucks does not have costs like the grocery store lists their prices.

    • @michaelmrose
      link
      English
      439 months ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -119 months ago

        I completely disagree because of the huge volumes that starbucks uses. They can just buy chobani and get the oat water at cost.

        • @michaelmrose
          link
          English
          139 months ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -3
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            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.

            • @michaelmrose
              link
              English
              39 months ago

              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

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                -19 months ago

                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

            • @Malfeasant
              link
              29 months ago

              Concrete is literally rocks, it should be free right?

      • @eskimofry
        link
        -259 months ago

        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.

        • @michaelmrose
          link
          English
          229 months ago

          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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      139 months ago

      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.

      • the post of tom joad
        link
        fedilink
        49 months ago

        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?

    • @anon_8675309
      link
      49 months ago

      Prices for items at scale can be difficult to understand.

    • @SkippingRelax
      link
      49 months ago

      So you are agreeing with the person you are replying to that non diary is more expensive?

    • Iceblade
      link
      19 months ago

      I suspect that the real “extra cost” comes from having the slight amount of extra space it takes to stock the non-milk, ship it, handle it and the extra time it takes the employee at the counter to make a different drink.

      Not saying they can’t just “eat the costs”, but companies never do that. Everything is accounted for and has the 10%+taxes profit margin slapped on top.

      If the usage of non-milk would increase, I bet prices would come down in coffee shops as well.

    • @JustARaccoon
      link
      09 months ago

      Not really Starbucks’ jurisdiction tho

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        19 months ago

        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?

    • @SkippingRelax
      link
      -19 months ago

      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.

        • @SkippingRelax
          link
          09 months ago

          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

          • @MilitantVegan
            link
            09 months ago

            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?

            • @SkippingRelax
              link
              -19 months ago

              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.

              • @MilitantVegan
                link
                19 months ago

                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

                • @SkippingRelax
                  link
                  19 months ago

                  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?!

                  No not go vegan, but yes take you seriously and engage in an intelligent conversation, you know not like I’m talking with an edgy 12 years old

                  • @MilitantVegan
                    link
                    19 months ago

                    Okay, let’s talk language. Colloquially, in our age, the word ‘milk’ is most commonly associated with the somewhat thick, off-white substance that is produced by cows, or any other substance with similar culinary properties. When we hear or read the word, the natural thing that comes to mind is of this substance, and meaningfully, that it is an object meant for human consumption.

                    So if I, as a vegan, were to use the language that you want me to, it would mean reinforcing the idea that the stuff mother cows produce is a product meant for human consumption. You’re trying to push me into complying with the linguistic framework that legitimizes your perception of reality, and your misconduct. I do not accept that as legitimate, and since ‘milk’ to me implies something for human consumption, only plant milks are milk by my definition.

                    I refer to the stuff cows produce in the most accurate way that I can - a specialized formula that is meant for the nutritional needs of calves, and most definitely not for human consumption. Baby cow formula.

                    In the same way, the rotting carcasses of slaughtered animals, and their mutilated body parts are not “meat”, because meat also implies something meant for human consumption. Grains and legumes are my main source of “meat,” because again, I do not except the distorted perceptions of carnism.

                    Now let’s take this topic more broadly. Are the words vegans use merely ‘edgy’, or is it an attempt to encapsulate the totality of how monumentally bad of a predicament you carnists are putting us in? “Chick culling” sounds almost innocuous. Why don’t you try looking up that term on YouTube, and see what that entails.

                    Are you aware that in the US alone, over 11 billion animals have been killed for food already this year? The basic definition of a holocaust (not to be confused with the Holocaust) is a slaughter done on a mass scale. People frequently lose their minds when a vegan refers to the mass slaughter of animals as a holocaust, despite the fact that it is truly the largest, perpetual, mass slaughter in human history.

                    That’s not even getting into the environmental destruction, and pandemic potential of this holocaust that you’re taking part in. Maybe you should check out the vegan communities and take more time to get educated on all the topics. You might come to realize that there is no language edgy enough to capture the full breadth of how awful carnism is.

                    https://animalclock.org/

                    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9cEEDbM_GvU&pp=ygUNQWxleCBIZXJzaGFmdA%3D%3D