If you haven't been ordering that double whipped Frappuccino at your local Starbucks with soy milk, you've likely been gulping down Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH). It makes cows produce more milk, but it's thought to increase the risk of breast, prostate, and colon cancer in humans (if only they could come up with something to make cows squirt machiatto directly from their udders).
But now, after two years of pressure from the organization Food and Water Watch, Starbucks has announced that it's going to go rBGH free by December 31, 2007.
Moo-chas gracias, Starbucks! (photo: Tami Witschger)
Whew! Now you can guzzle that cinnamon dulce de leche latte with abandon (so long as you don't mind that growing coffee generally requires cutting down the rainforest, or that Starbucks busts unions).
Starbucks spokesman Brandon Borrman says the campaign had nothing to do with the decision.
"This decision was purely driven by our customers," Borrman said. "Increasing numbers of our customers were calling and asking us to do it, and the number of customers ordering organic milk was increasing, and we wanted to meet that demand."
Food and Water Watch spokesperson Jennifer Mueller noted that much of that activity (including 33,000 emails) was generated from call-in days conducted by her organization.
If you want to thank Starbucks CEO Jim Donald for not poisoning you with milk (or ask what "doppio" really means), you can reach the company at 1-800-235-2883.
Starbucks brews global green-building plan, renovates Seattle shop
Memo to Hillary’s science czar: organic ag isn’t a ‘myth’
Comments
View as Flat
WWAGD?! Posted 5:24 pm
27 Aug 2007
Starbucks Stress
Could Starbucks also get rid of nasty baristas and sneer at me when I order a large cappuccino (whole milk of course).
"Sir, may I help you?"
John Bailo
Sutext:
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:10 pm
27 Aug 2007
oh, yet another topic
Drinking coffee is supposed to be GOOD for us, in spite of all kinds of scientists trying to discover something evil in it.
Of course, dumping guck into coffee is another matter. You decide what the moral consequences of adding milk, sugar, the finest Afghan poppy might be. We for our part take ours sin nada. Or as Balzac is said to have said, "I like my coffee black and bitter, even as my soul is black and bitter."
(Apologies to the metaphysicophobes.)
But really, let us explore this: How again is coffee in any form an environmental issue? Sure, there is the issue of transportation, in any case, which ought always to be considered. And the fair-trade, shade-grown issues, which are by no means to be overlooked.
What I am asking is: Is coffee generally, however perfectly produced and neatly transported, an environmental no-no?
To say nothing of tea ...
Needless to say, this is a case for Tom Philpott.
As for the photo of the demonstrators: love the masks, but the horns should be done better; the costumes are OK, but the bellies and udders should be bigger.
The cloven hooves must have vexed the demonstrators all along. There is in fact a Larson cartoon in which a suburban household of cows are sitting resentfully in front of a boring TV, with the remote in sight, unable to switch to another channel.
Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!
Permalink
amc89 Posted 6:08 am
29 Aug 2007
Good decision
Still won't ever go to Starbucks. I prefer to make my own hot beverage at home and take it with me in my re-usable mug.
Permalink