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.
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.
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.
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.
Isnt most soy used as animal feed tho? Or is it only from certain regions?
It's a capitalist conspiracy.
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.
I think I'd rather get down with the sickness. (Because I'm lactose intolerant)
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...?
The plaintiffs say in the lawsuit that lactose intolerance is a disability listed under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the surcharges violate that act.
Is it though? I mean don't get me wrong, it sucks that people who are lactose intolerant have to pay more, but is it really a disability?
I'm lactose intolerant but even I think this is absurd. What about every other food allergy in existence? Should substitutions cost the same even if the ingredients don't? Furthermore, we're talking about a splurge item from a coffee shop. You can still make coffee at home or buy coffee without milk in it.
Well the ADA only requires 'reasonable' accommodations. So I guess the logic of this case would be that if the substitution only costs a little bit more than the original ingredient then they should offer it at the same price. But this would still allow for business to charge extra when making the substitution would be 'unreasonably' expensive.
Therein lies the rub as what one person considers reasonable another might not. Charging 1:1 for the increased cost of almond or soy milk seems reasonable but charging an additional markup over what they set for dairy milk might not be.
If their case has merit, I hope they win, but I honestly wish these lawyer fees and court time could be better used to tackle more lucrative issues like suing Ticketmaster/Live Nation for their whole anti-consumer business model and price gouging or suing Comcast for their monopoly in my area. There are probably 1000 different places to buy coffee in my city but only one way to buy event tickets and one company offering broadband/high speed internet.
What’s absurd is that Almond, Soy, and Oat doesn’t cost more than dairy milk when you look at prices at a grocery. But Starbucks charges extra for it anyway.
I think a lot of people have no idea that many dairy alternatives are essentially the same price now. And that's at a retail consumer level where the markups are biggest in the chain, bulk wholesale like what Starbucks pays would have an even smaller gap.
People are assuming there's a massive difference in price, that just doesn't really exist anymore... And that also ignores the absolutely MASSIVE markup Starbucks has for their coffee in the first place. It definitely doesn't cost Starbucks $.50 to use Oat milk instead of regular milk, but that's what they might charge the consumer for the substitution in a $6 coffee that cost them maybe $0.50 to make.
What's absurd is thinking that this argument makes logical sense. Do you think Starbucks buys milk at the grocery store? What do you think the ratio of milk to each milk alternative is? 100:1? 1000:1? The scale at which the purchase each would greatly affect the price.
When I worked at a restaurant that used a lot of milk it came in a 3 or 5 gallon plastic sack that went into a dispensing machine. Milk alternatives are likely purchased by the case in consumer packaging. The cost is entirely different.
Even if it isn’t, I’d prefer a world where people aren’t shitting their pants or leaving toxic fart clouds in their wake because they need to save .50 on a coffee.
Gluten free up charge is a thing everywhere and Starbucks is so overpriced that I go to a gas station for the occasional cup of to go coffee I get and there’s no real dairy anywhere there.
If it does, then the cost difference to the business should probably be subsidized / written off in taxes.
The issue with the ADA is that it does not specify what counts as a disability, rather it gives an explanation of what is considered a disability. This leads to endless confusion and to court cases exactly like this, which are leveraging the text of the ADA as it stands to make their point.
The lawyer quoted in the article is correct, considering they already accommodate people with diabetes without surcharge, it can be argued the same courtesy needs to be extended to the lactose intolerant, who do not have a "choice" in whether they can consume dairy.
Because they cannot just consume dairy like other customers, the lawyer is arguing that no longer charging for the difference is a "reasonable accomodation" to the fact that their clients bodies cannot process dairy. That definitely rises to the same level of reasoning for those who suffer diabetes, in my opinion.
Anyway, that's the frustrating thing about a lot of the ADA. It basically requires people who don't know if their unique position qualifies them to spend a lot of money on lawyers up-front just to find out if the courts will actually accept that as true. It's really well fucked because most disabled people don't have money to be pissing away on such a legal project. Most of them are busy just trying to survive. In other words, most of the time you have to hope a lawyer will take up your case pro-bono.
Source: My cancer isn't cancery or debilitating enough to count as a disability, even though "cancer" is in the list on the ADA website.
This leads to endless confusion and to court cases exactly like this, which are leveraging the text of the ADA as it stands to make their point.
That's how common-law systems are designed to work, though (along with delegation to regulators in the executive branch). You can't really expect the legislature to think through every single nuance and corner-case a-priori, right?
Yeah like if they had a mega list of every disability they could think of, but forgot one, or a new one is discovered, what happens in court? Said new/forgotten disability wouldn't legally be a disability.
Oh of course, but I was speaking of people who are seriously disabled (not just people with lactose intolerance) and that severely impacts their ability to just go out and get a lawyer to fight for their rights.
Like, the lactose intolerant, I'm pretty okay with them needing to come up with the money to prove it in court. Lactose intolerance may be considered a disability, but it doesn't rise to the level of disability that makes it hard to hold a job.
However, a lot of other people are stuck, shit out of luck, unable to work, hell, often unable to move, and they're still fighting for their problems to be recognized as a disability. Further, even with a disability that's accepted as a disability, you still have to go to court and fight, often for years, to get a disability recognized. You're not allowed to work while you're waiting for that classification. It's just a bad system for it.
The common-law system is fine and good, but we're all aware of how it's absolutely tilted in favor of people who have money and against those who don't.
I got a disability lump sum for temporary disability due to a nerve disorder. It was based on my previous income and the percentage of time an expert judge I was able to work. (20% according to the expert.)
I only for $14,000 for 3 years of being disabled.
The disorder is now managed with medication, incidentally.
Lactose intolerance is actually normal. It's tolerance to lactose as an adult that is biologically unusual, and mostly unique to westerners. Because most of us continue eating dairy products after infancy, we continue being able to digest them. However other cultures don't continue consuming dairy after infancy, and thus lose their ability to digest it effectively.
It's a really tough argument to claim it as a disability. I don't see this case going well for the plaintiffs.
Adult lactose digestion (called lactase persistence) has evolved a few times from various mutations — one that happened in Europe, and several in Africa and the Middle East. It’s not caused in individuals by continued consumption.
That's a super weird point of view. If your argument is wrt global averages and your view of normal is black hair, brown eyes, and some average between average Chinese and Indian populations, I suppose you're right...but not in a way that's remotely useful.
Lactose intolerance is the default for adults too. Them calling it a disability is wild.
I am allergic to milk. If I ingest it I will die full stop. Food allergies should be considered as a disability in this case because if I wanted coffee with soy milk I shouldn't be made to pay extra for something out of my control. That being said since my allergies are severe enough I don't eat anything I don't make myself so this wouldn't impact me anyway but I agree with the principle of the case.
What if the dairy substitute was 10x the cost of real milk, I know it isn't, but what if it were. Or even 100x, just for argument. Are you entitled to get that for the same price?
The reasonable accommodation is offering non-dairy options at all even if it's slightly more.
Or they can remove the dairy product at no additional fee (which they do). If someone wants to add an additional, more expensive ingredient, then they can pay for it.
The ingredient is only more expensive because cow's milk is subsidized.
Well, maybe they are suing the wrong entity then. Dunkin and Starbucks don't set the price of almond milk.
Sure, they don't. But they are also massively overcharging consumers for something that barely costs them anything extra.
I'm looking at the online site for my local big chain grocery store. This is what I'm seeing, all for half gallon sizes:
Store brand regular milk is $2.69 for 2% and $2.79 for whole
Simple truth almond milk is $2.99
Store brand lactose free milk is $3.99 for all varieties (on sale from $4.49)
Simple truth soy milk is $3.49 for all varieties
Califia farms oat milk is $4.29 for all varieties (on sale from $5.99)
These are all the less expensive alternatives. So almond milk is slightly higher than regular, but the others are a pretty significant percent increase.
While you're right, we're talking about a pretty small amount of price difference for Starbucks.
A quick Google search says that a grande latte from Starbucks (16Oz) is about 14.6 Oz of milk.
Using the retail numbers (remember Starbucks has negotiated contracts with wholesale suppliers for their milk, they likely pay much less than retail cost) that is about 4.2¢/fl oz for regular milk and about 4.7¢/fl oz for almond milk. In terms of milk cost, a Starbucks grande latte is about 61¢ of regular milk and 68¢ of almond milk.
They then charge you 70¢ EXTRA for the almond milk, when they are only spending around 7¢ more to use it in your drink. They're clearly just taking advantage of many people's inability to process lactose. Though, I'm a bit biased since I'm one of them. I'm heavily lactose intolerant, so take that as you will.
While looking up the numbers I also learned that it's estimated that around 68% of the world's population is lactose intolerant, and it mostly affects non-white ethnic groups.
I'm severely lactose intolerant, so you know what I do? I DON'T FUCKING DRINK LATTES. A restaurant is under no obligation to give me a non-dairy substitute at no cost. If you want what a restaurant sells, buy it. If you don't like what they sell or think it's too expensive, fucking don't and get on with your life.
According to the Americans with disabilities act, they apparently are under obligation to do it.
They're under obligation to make a reasonable accommodation. They accomplish this in 2 ways. You can either order it without milk, or you can pay extra for a milk substitute.
Restaurants aren't required to provide gluten-free pasta, fake seafood, or artificial peanut products just because some people can't eat everything on the menu.
The ADA has very specific language about not charging extra for reasonable accommodations, and dietary restrictions are mentioned.
Restaurants are not required to stock ingredients for all allergies, and they are not required to order in special ingredients on request. But starbucks does stock non-dairy milks. Using the non-dairy milk that they already stock is a reasonable accommodation.
The case is based on a good faith reading of title III of the ADA. It's not unreasonable to argue that charging extra is illegal in this case.
If I can't eat beef (that's a real allergy) is a restaurant obligated to substitute lobster if they happen to serve it? The fact is, oat milk isn't milk. Milk treated with lactase is milk.
Do you have a source? My understanding was that they were under obligation to not charge for the accommodations, hence the lawsuit.
Their accommodation is having product without milk at all. Requiring them to provide an alternative ingredient isn't a reasonable accommodation when they have plenty of existing products without dairy. The customer can order one of those items.
Having a milk substitute that costs more for the establishment is going beyond what is required under the ADA, so up-charging for it is fine.
Do you have a source for that? From what I've found, food allergies are generally not considered a disability and therefore no accomodation is obligatory.
The ADA is a complex law, like all laws. Food allergies are mentioned by the ADA.
Although food allergies don't require proactive accommodation, disabled people are entitled to equal access despite their disability.
If a restaurant offers no substitutions that's fine. But if a restaurant offers substitutions but refuses it for those with allergies, that's not fine.
If a restaurant doesn't stock non-allergic ingredients it doesn't have to. But if the restaurant will stock special ingredients upon request, they must do the same for disabled customers.
In this case, starbucks DOES stock and offer non-dairy milks. Using a different milk is probably a reasonable accommodation. The ADA has rules against charging extra for reasonable accomodations.
The conclusion that starbucks charging extra is a violation of the ADA is not an unreasonable one.
It is not a violation to charge extra for an accomodation if everyone has to pay the same for that accomodation. See the link I posted previously; it mentions this explicitly. Their case is charging more for plus sized clothing. The price for that size of item is the same regardless if the person is obese or normal, so it's not discrimination. It only becomes discrimination when you charge a person more because they're lactose intolerant and give lactose tolerant people soy milk for no cost.
God bless America, sometimes
I had to scroll down a lot to find a sensible comment. Apparently having milk in your coffee is a constitutional right..
Lol your wrong about restaurants having no obligation to provide a substitute.
That's such a sad point of view about what you think you deserve. You should treat yourself better.
Lol wut. Why is a restaurant obligated to give you special treatment or free things? If you are allergic to peanuts are they obligated to fry their fries in a separate oil just for you??
In certain circumstances, companies are obligated to prepare food on separate surfaces or in separate oil to avoid cross contamination in case of allergies. That's what we get for caring about our countrymen and wanting them to be able to eat at restaurants.
Allergens actually do have some regulations, but I'm not sure how they work.
Spoken like a restaurant owner!
Apparently, according to you; being considerate to a section of society is trumped by maybe $1 of extra cost per item to accommodate them? What kind of a selfish ass cheapskate restaurant owner are you?
Allergies are caused by proteins, not oils generally, so peanut oil is safe for almost all people with allergies, although culturally, peanut oil just isn't that used much anymore because most businesses want money from as many people as possible and don't want to risk people's lives out of economic principles.
This is the issue with libertarianism. The argument is always an attempt at framing the conversation to an acceptable level of death in the name of expanding markets, without realizing that death actually limits markets.
Going by some arguments in this thread, to ask a restaurant to be considerate for a section of the population is considered entitled but being a cheapskate and selfish money guzzler is a god given right and should be something to be proud of. Like, it doesn't even cost the restaurant $1-$2 extra per serving. Of course, when it comes to money.. fuck being considerate right?
I used to work in restaurants (both big and small), and while what you said is true, it only cost $1-2 extra per serving. But the restaurant can never stock their ingredients by "per serving". They have to buy wholesale from their suppliers. It really hurts smaller businesses when they only get to use a couple servings out of their 5 gallon non-dairy milk jug, then have to throw it out. Those things added up fast, and that's just one example.
It's common in restaurants and cafés in Europe to use normal 1L milk cartons even for normal milk - can't that be done in the US as well?
I get why restaurants need to buy in bulk, but why is the packaging is so huge?
All the coffee shops I know use the same 1 quart carton for non-dairy milk that I use at home. They come in a box of 12 if you buy them in bulk.
I have no idea why the other commenter thinks the packaging is different.
they only get to use a couple servings out of their 5 gallon non-dairy milk jug
Don't buy so much at one time then? Doesn't seem that difficult a problem to solve, I do it every time my dairy-averse partner stays over for the weekend. Buy an amount that is reasonable for expected usage needs, it's easy. I'm not out here buying a 5 gallon bucket and then whining when my guests haven't drank all of it.
When you don't buy in bulk your unit costs go up.
I don't know what the profit margins of Starbucks are, but in many cases they're much tighter than people realize. The sale price has to cover materials, wages, insurance, property costs, and lots of other things. $1 a serving would be a pretty huge percent increase.
You could make the same argument about anything. I want the higher end iPhone and they should give it to me for the same price as the lower end to be considerate. If they don't they're greedy. I want leather seats in my car for the same price as cloth. And there are loads of restaurants that charge extra for substitutions if the substitute costs more (e.g., "premium sides").
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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
Prices for items at scale can be difficult to understand.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
Look, I am not "trying to push you into complying with the linguistic framework that legitimizes your perception of reality", I am telling you that language is important and you can't make words up or subvert the meaning of them, else society will not understand you at best, or think that you are just a lunatic at worst. Sure you can decide that for you "up" means "down" and insist that everyone else is wrong, but then you are probably wasting your time replying to others' comments on social media.
I get where you are coming from, you really care about your ideas, but so do antivaxers and lots of other radicalized groups that are just drifting off reality and, well most of society thinks they are just lunatics. I am not even a native English speaker but a few examples:
"Murder" is defined as the killing of a person. I understand why you are using it for animals but it comes off wrong, that's not what the word means, and the only use of it as an hyperbole (a karaoke singer killing a song) has the opposite meaning that you are trying to convey. There are plenty of words for describing the killing of animals and some of them are already loaded with meaning, it's not like "slaughter" and "butchering" are used lightly. You don't need to come up with your own vocabulary, that's like Trump saying "bigly" he looks like an idiot to a non-maga crowd.
The word "formula" refers is an artificial (formulated) human milk substitute, your use of it to refer to "cow's milk" sounds pretty ridiculous, particularly when you add another 3-4 words around it and when the rest of society uses the word milk to refer to cows' milk, or if specified, to other milks like goat or soy.
Your example where you use "meat" to refer to grains is just bonkers; and describing meat as "rotting" is just silly, as technically so are broccoli that have been cut off the plan: specifying that any food is rotting while waiting to be eaten, while technically not wrong, makes the person you are talking to wonder what is going on in your head.
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.
Based on the above, I am afraid it is merely 'edgy'. In fact it's worse, people that talk like this come through as they are either 12 years old trying to cause a reaction, or just lunatics. You are really not making any favour to your cause, and I will come back to that later because that is a shame
Still on language, I am not sure in what world "Chick culling" sounds almost innocuous, it describes exactly what it is, quite perfectly, it's a horrible practice, do you really need to add any more words?
One more thing that is quite annoying about radicalized groups is they tell you to check something up on Youtube or do your own research, I am very familiar with the concept of chick culling, I don't like it, you don't need to be vegan to know how certain industries work and suggesting it in that way is again off putting.
I am familiar with most of the arguments vegetarians and vegans use as I have been interested in tangential topics for a long time, I am passionate about environment, permaculture and food self sufficiency.
Some of the points I actually agree with, I am against industrial practices like chicks culling, the way animals are treated in industrial farming, I agree that the planet would be better off if we all reduced meat consumption dramatically and if there were more vegetarians and vegans. I think that if someone is passionate about these and other messages they should try to convey them in a way that they can be absorbed by the rest of society. That is, if you want to convince anyone to marry your cause or part of it. And if you don't want to, why are you even wasting words?
The reason why I am particularly annoyed when people do this is that there are some topics that I would be interested to discuss like adults, particularly where I stop agreeing with veganism, and this is just off putting. Example, I have three egg producing chickens that are treated like pets, they have plenty of space, protection, access to food, water and treats, they play with my babies, and they drop one egg each every day that they quickly forget about and they proceed to ignore. I use those eggs to feed my family and to reduce our meat consumption with something that is organic, nutritious and (in my opinion) ethically produced with no impact on the planet. In fact, the contrary is true because those chickens eat my leftovers and I use their poo as fertiliser.
I'd like to understand how many people are vegans because industrial farming is a horrible practice, and how many would for example still eat eggs if they were produced more "humanely" like I do, and the reason why I am interested is that i cannot conceive non-industrial farming without animals being heavily involved, at the very least for using their shit to grow plants.
In short, there are some discussions I'd enjoy having, but every time a vegan engages they distort the language and they make the assumption that I don't know anything about industrial farming :)
Admittedly my language can be edgy, but I think you're being hyperbolic. Also, would you apply your logic about language to neopronouns? Because currently the common language is structured to reinforce gender binaries. Neopronouns are a challenge to this anachronistic, inadequate language. In the same way that vegan language changes are met with contempt and resistance, so are neopronouns. But that doesn't change that it's necessary. For example one thing that does need to change is the pronouns used for animals. 'it' is unacceptable, because animals are living beings, not objects. She/him/they is more appropriate. There's nothing radical about this.
Mind you the language that I'm using in this context is meant to be provocative. If I'm speaking to another vegan I simply refer to plant milk as milk, or specify exactly which plant-kind if I need to refer to one specifically. If I'm talking about the stuff that's produced by animals and I'm not trying to be incendiary, I simply refer to it as 'dairy'.
It's ironic that you're comparing the views of vegans to anti-vaccers, since you omnivores are likely responsible for more illnesses and death from diseases than they are. The majority of infectious diseases have a zoonotic origin, and much of that is the result of animal domestication and farming. Animal ag is also by far the single largest cause of the rise of antibiotic resistant diseases. Covid itself likely never would have occurred if we were a largely vegan world. And most pressingly, h5n1 - which has a 50-60% fatality rate in humans - is virtually guaranteed to become another pandemic if we are not taking every measure to shut down all bird farms as rapidly as possible. The fact that it hasn't happened already is frankly a miracle. Carnists who hate anti-vaccers are hypocrites in the extreme. (And yes, this means your chickens could very well be the death of you).
The words 'slaughter' and 'butcher' work fine, but why not also 'murder'? Are you trying to imply that it's somehow sanctioned, or not wrong to kill an animal? It is wrong to kill animals, so 'murder' is apt.
Again, the baby cow formula thing is meant to be provocative. I used the language in that case to highlight, from a human health perspective, how it's no surprize that western civilization has the prevalence of diseases that we do - heart disease, diabetes, obesity - when we're saturating so many of our foods with a substance, or formula, that's evolutionarily adapted to make a calf into a much larger cow as quickly as possible. Incendiary maybe, but also useful in highlighting how something that most people consider "food" is really something not fit for human nutritional needs at all. You cannot consume dairy without 1) becoming addicted to it, and 2) inexorably ripping your life's trajectory in the direction of a lot of suffering from unnecessary disease and premature death. Something that does that is not food. This same logic applies to eggs, btw. Eggs might not be addictive like dairy is, but consuming them regularly causes most of the same disease onsets. That would make this my second reason why your chicken raising is a bad idea (both practical health related arguments). So if anything is absurd, it's to refer to animal products as food, when really they're more like poison to humans.
"Meat" is a non-issue. What I've been seeing is a gradual supplanting of the word 'meat' with the word 'protein', anyway. For all we know, the use of the word 'meat' may eventually fall out of usage all together. I only make jokes about plants being the "real meat" to, again, provoke discussion. Like with dairy, I'm pointing out the absurdity of using language that implies that the rotting carcasses of animals are food, when in fact the consumption of animal products in general, including animal flesh, is the leading cause of death in industrialized nations. Poison. I also use this colorful language because carnists have this strange cognitive dissonance where, the slaughter that is done to animals is correctly recognized as the gore and abuse that it is (I've even been censored by mods on lemmy for posting links to the Dominion documentary), but carnists don't recognize the end-products as being that same trauma-infused gore. I am conveying a hint at the macabre nature of what you carnists force onto the rest of us. Vystopia. What you call "meat" is only carnage and systematic violence being carried out in the most casual, unconscious ways.
As a sidenote, flesh is rotting. You know how smokers are less able to smell exactly how strong the scent of tobacco is on themselves? In the same way carnists very often have a faint rotting odor, particularly when you have just eaten. Since going vegan one of the most visceral things I've experienced is that no matter how fresh a cut of animal flesh is, it always has a rotten smell. And technically speaking all high-protein foods putrefy, so while animal flesh is rotten, broccoli would be fermenting.
"Chick culling" does sound pretty bad. But anyone who doesn't know what that is, would never guess that it means that when they purchase eggs, they are paying for something where male chicks are separated and sent down a conveyer belt where they are systematically ground up into a paste en mass. Carnist language is like the sanitized language that Nazis used for their wrongs - it's clearly meant to downplay the true extent of atrocity.
Alright, now let's talk about those backyard chicken. I've already pointed out how for practical and health reasons alone, you'd be better off without the chickens or their eggs. Animal flesh, dairy, and eggs are all nutritionally package deals, and they're mostly the same package - things that our body can't properly process, and thus they are the primary causes of heart disease, our number one killer (as well as potentially other health problems like diabetes, cancer, and possibly autoimmune disorders as well). I would suggest finding and joining a whole-food plant-based support group. You'll quickly find that people routinely report dramatic changes in their health when they switch to wfpb. I don't just mean feeling good, I mean hard stats like their cholesterol levels dropping, body fat melting away, real results. Obviously anecdotes are no substitute for science, but it means something when the science and anecdotes are consistent.
Now ethics. Admittedly backyard chicken raising doesn't seem so bad at first glance. It's certainly significantly less cruel than commercial operations. But as the article I'm about to post gets into, is your chicken's own biology really compatible with producing eggs so abundantly? Like, you know it can't be a comfortable experience to lay an egg, right? One of the ways I've heard it described is that it's akin to a woman going through her period every day (with the addition of a relatively large object coming out of their body every day). That's not a comfortable life.
And also in the article, you have to think about how you perceive your chickens, and your motives for having them around. When you look at an animal of any kind, do you recognize that they have an intrinsic, moral right to life and the pursuit of their own wills and happiness in the same way humans do? Or do you permit their existence only because it brings benefits to you? Vegan ethics are not just about reducing or eliminating acts of cruelty and suffering. The core of vegan ethics is recognizing that all animals are here with us, not for us, and they have as much right to exist as we do, and for their own ways and reasons. We need to seek an end to speciesism, and raising backyard chickens for personal gain is a form of speciesism.
Lastly I have a basic Permaculture certification (for whatever that's worth). For the environmental side of things, what you're looking for is veganic gardening/farming/Permaculture. For most practices out there, it's not about keeping animals out entirely. What veganic growers do in addition to plant-based methods of soil building like composting, mulches, cover crops (eg., legume-based nitrogen fixing); is to have free-living symbiotic relations with animals. So vermicomposting, for example, is fine as long as your bin has no bottom and is open in the ground so worms can come and go as they please. Another option is putting up houses for bats, and occasionally cleaning them which brings in manure. The simple act of growing one oak tree on your property (if you have the room for one) can eventually provide a home for something like 300 species of animals. The key difference is the absence of captivity or exploitation of any kind.
Dairy is subsidized by the government. They absolutely do want to stick it to anyone who doesn't support the system.
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.
On the other hand, if young Timmy goes into anaphylactic shock everybody would change their tunes faster than you can say "Anaphylaxis"
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.
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.
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".
Good margins is why they’re fine.
What about the extra charge for gluten free buns? Or vegan chese? Or impossible burgers? If I can't ride my bike up big hills can i get an e-bike for the same price? If I'm very tall can i get an airplane seat upgrade for free?
gluten free buns
For people with gluten intolerance, they'd have a similar case. Lactose intolerance isn't a choice just as much as gluten intolerance isn't a choice.
Source: I've had a friend who has had celiac disease his whole life. I was jealous of him in high school because he was always so skinny, and I didn't know he had it. Not fucking jealous anymore.
Yeah. I have a friend who can't have onions, garlic, dairy, or gluten. At least dairy and gluten have decent subs now. Losing onion and garlic would be miserable!
I have Celiac Disease and let me tell you, I would love to see gluten free items cost the same as regular foods.
The only thing you apparently can do is to include an itemized list of GF items you've bought over the year and include it in your tax return. However, the amount of bureaucracy is probably a great deterrent for people like me to not do this and just eat the extra cost.
If I can't ride my bike up big hills can i get an e-bike for the same price?
If you have a disability you can get a mobility scooter
If I'm very tall can i get an airplane seat upgrade for free?
Neither the very tall (nor the obese for that matter) are part of a protected class, and their relative sizes are not considered disabilities. However those physical conditions can lead to disabilities (heart and joint issues for example) which then lead to reasonable accommodation.
Your straw men are cute, but this isn't Kansas, we don't need them here
Can you explain why the examples they gave are different than the case at hand? I think they have a point but I'm interested in hearing the opposing viewpoint (yours) before I form an opinion on the situation.
TBH, not much, except that in the case of dairy and gluten intolerance there's a case to be made for reasonable accommodation under the ADA. The rest of his comments were increasingly silly
Also there's many things wrong with American disability law, social safety nets, and the complete dysfunction of what passes for "healthcare". Splitting hairs on what constitutes a disability is emblematic of these failings.
I was just 90 percent goofing and 'what abouting.' It's only an issue because we have milk alternatives. Dairy bothers me but i don't care for the alt milks so i mostly order tea. If i really want a coffee i get a small splash of milk and deal with the consequences. Also, there's a whole thing with whether it's milk sugar or milk fat or A1/A2 that bothers people - so sometimes skim milk or A2 milk is less upsetting and no more expensive.
Lol okay sorry if i came on too strong
Hmm with all due respect I'm leaning towards not liking this lawsuit. Similar to splitting hairs on what constitutes a disability, I think calling an allergy a disability cheapens the system.
I think what would be "most fair" in this scenario would be for healthcare to cover lactaid like it does with epipens, etc.
For the record, I am pro-ADA and pro-nationalised healthcare. I just feel like this lawsuit is frivilous
Appreciate the Kansas side burn
Im sorry but as someone who works in the field of disability this makes me irate. We have whole states who are not in compliance with the ADA when it comes to employment and even accessible enternces to state and federal buildings and yet the federal government is powerless to stop them, but we can use the ADA to sue coffee shops? Sure it's a good thing I guess but the larger and more important provisions of that legislation continue to be overlooked and unimplemented despite lawsuits filed against states only seeking conscent decrees, but we can make a big scene of suing for non diary creamers.
You can sue anyone for any reason. It doesn't mean it holds water and this one certainly doesnt. For the ada it has to be a significant effect on your daily life, food allergies aren't going to be part of that and a business has the right to charge more for what costs them more which would be a reasonable accommodation anyway.
Yes and advocacy groups have sued the states that are not in compliance on larger points of the ADA, like labor conditions. Guess how much media attention those suits get?
None, those are logical so they don't grab attention the same way as the ravings of a lunatic.
well because those threaten the status quo at large. If companies had to start hireing with provisions of the ADA then they would lose less profit so they hush those up. but this one, this povides the illusion that the ADA is for the most part being followed and its just a few minor odds and ends $1.50 here and their that are out of wack...
Went to the local courthouse the other day, it is cube-esk at the base and has 4 entrances one on each side. 3 they keep locked. The handycap accessible ramp is one of those that is locked. I couldn't understand it, what is the point of installing the ramps if you are still going to block it off to funnel people through another door nearest the metal detectors.
Also it seems like every company has forgotten about accessible web design. Wouldn't even surprise me if some government websites were inaccessible too.
I'm sorry but lactose intolerance is not a disability.
It's also not an equivalent product. It's not like you get to choose if milk has lactose, the dairy-free option has completely different components and sources.
Except you can. The lactose-free milk has lactase added, which is the enzyme needed to break down lactose. Otherwise it's more or less the same product.
Oh, right, that. For some reason my mind immediately went to Oat Milk and other plant based dairy. I love Oatmilk, it works for breadmaking too.
Shout out to oat milk. The best substitute milk in general, but the absolute star for substitutions in baking.
it is, it is similar to an alergy and 2) legaly it is considered a disability under the ADA if someone or a group of people would consider it as one... have you been to wisconsin
I've been getting Lactaid ads alllllll over the Internet since reading that article.
Guess there is a new advertiser site that needs blocking ..
Use firefox and ublock origin, and all that ends. I haven't seen an ad in a decade.
Yeah, Firefox and ublock. Plus privacy badger, and Blokada5.
Still got me somehow. The ad showed up in an app, not a browser. Updated/added more blocklists.
EDIT: You were right! Get a gold star for that one. The Lemmy app I use was still set to open links itself, not the default browser. I forgot I'd changed it when I used Sync, but not when I switched to Connect! I still had many ads blocked because of the VPN.
Pihole might help?
Yup, got that too for my home network. Though I suspect several advertisers have gotten wise and hard coded different DNS into their programs. I don't see the requests I think I should on some devices. There is not a lot of troubleshooting when it comes to IPv6 and while there are many AAAA queries on my server, there are a higher percentage on the server I set up for my parents.
ITT: A lot of people wanting to argue the headline and not the articles or legislation.
The plaintiffs said they would order drinks that included milk and would substitute the milk for non-dairy alternatives, such as soy, oat, coconut, or almond milk, and were charged an extra $0.50 to $0.80 for the substitution.
The lawsuit notes that Starbucks typically uses 2% milk for their milk-based products and would substitute that milk for another type of milk, such as 1% or skim, for no additional cost. Starbucks will also offer caffeine-less or sugar-free options for no additional cost.
Customers who are lactose-intolerant or have milk allergies may pay up to $2 extra at Dunkin’ Donuts when substituting oat or almond milk for dairy in their beverages. (from the link in the article)
The lawsuit against Dunkin’ points out that the chain already modifies its regular beverage offerings to remove caffeine and sugar at no additional cost for those with diabetes, weight-control issues or hypertension. The coffee company also asks customers about their allergies, informing them that their products may contain allergens. “Once Dunkin’ asks about allergies, and someone with a disability requests a dairy-free product as an accommodation, they can’t impose a surcharge — as they don’t for caffeine-free drinks, etc.,” Kanter said.
Kanter, the founding director of Syracuse University’s disability law and policy program, believes the lawsuit makes a strong case for discrimination under the ADA. “If a person qualifies as a person with a disability, and they’re entitled to an accommodation or modification — which in this case looks pretty simple as nondairy milk — they cannot be charged extra,” said Kanter.
The legislation is simple, and being tested currently in the courts with how it effects business practices. It's also telling how privileged most of you are on here, you imagine yourself as the "owner" who is shocked and dumbfounded by this turn of events. Anyone who has actually worked in the restaurant or service industry knows this is company bullshit.
The Alternative-Milk items are mere percentages of percentages. All Food Costs and future sale projections are calculated for proper ordering. They already have the items on hand....there would be no restructuring or change in conducting business under a judgement on this case. The use of other free alternatives (sugar-free,etc) for disabilities being used as advertising is a damning indication everyone skips over. Caffeine-free doesn't cost more to have or stock? Any of the Splenda/etc is corporeal and drops out of the Ether for everyone?
Again, the numbers are so low for alternative-milk your brain would skip a beat if you look at their figures.
Starbucks pays to produce one cup of regular coffee. Amateur speculative estimates range from $0.20 to $0.75.... Starbucks has recently been repurchasing its own shares and paying dividends to increase returns to investors....The costs of goods sold, depreciation and amortization expenses, and store operating expenses have declined over the last six years, with only general and administrative expenses rising. (link)
Starbucks isn't saying shit, they know the reality of how bad it actually looks. There is no "Woe is me" in any of their financial reportings so they just have to bite the bullet.
Starbucks also expects to continue robust store development in China, with net unit growth of approximately 13% annually. Globally, Starbucks expects to approach 45,000 stores by the end of 2025... Starbucks now expects global revenue growth in the range of 10% to 12% annually from fiscal 2023.... growth is expected to be in the range of 15% to 20% annually through fiscal 2025. Starbucks plans to resume its share buyback program reinstituting a healthy return of shareholder capital, yielding an annual EPS benefit of approximately 1%, net of incremental interest, beginning in fiscal year 2024. Between dividends and share buybacks, the company expects to return approximately $20 billion to its shareholders in the next three years. (link)
They're playing ball in China, we've all seen enough examples of companies having to bend the knee or getting out. I don't get why everyone is not happy about these events. Want a "free" market where large corporation monopolies exist? Sure, but you gotta at least allow some crumbs to fall for the peasants lest they get hangy again. Want freedom and inclusion for all groups of people to experience life? Starbucks is an American institution now by cultural standards, you can't academically refute that looking at any media or even economical standpoints. It's on every corner, reasonable accommodations should be made and enforced for the general public. This isn't a Ma and Pa coffee shop, this is why lower court judges exist and can weigh in on individual cases where they can seriously consider the context of the business standards.
obligatory:
The ADA is designed to give disabled people equal treatment and access, even if that equal access comes at unequal cost.
Non-dairy milk costs more. But so does weelchair accessable seating, and most other accommodations. But those accommodations cannot cost extra by the ADA.
As with every law, the ADA is long and has many exceptions and qualifications. But, Starbucks's milks doesn't seem to be an exception from my cursory reading of title III. This case has a case.
So in essence, they aren't be allowed to charge extra if the customer is intolerant? Isn't there basic milk w/o lactose for that though? Or just serve it without milk?
Not trying to make a case here, just asking:
By that rationale, could Starbucks have a policy in place where if you request a more expensive non-dairy option, you get an upcharge unless you give proof of a medical condition?
Basically saying, "Look, we're happy to accommodate specific dietary restrictions at no additional cost for those with medical needs. We're also happy to provide these options to all other customers at an upcharge reflecting the increased cost of these ingredients to us."
I did look specifically for that, but I couldn't find any language in title III of the ADA about whether disabled people can or can't be required to prove or claim to be disabled.
I read the some of the text of the ADA. That's the extent of my research. If you're interested look into the statutes and case law and report back.
Stop giving these greedy corporations money. There's other alternatives for your coffee fix.
I don't think that this will mean that all non-dairy creamers would have to be given for free.
It would only mean that one non-dairy creamer would be. Oat, almond, soy milk are probably the more expensive types of non-dairy creamers.
They already offer a dairy free option: black coffee. I'm not sure that would solve the problem.
Brewed coffee and espresso are not the same beverage and cannot be substituted for one another.
Most of Starbucks drinks are primarily milk with 2-3 espresso shots. By weight, they sell milk with coffee flavor.
I used to drink brewed coffee, now I effectively drink Americanos (at home I use a areopress). And anyone who stays at my place, that's what they're getting, and I've never had a complaint. In fact it's usually compliments. So I'm not sure I agree.
However, I think I wasn't clear about my point. I'm just saying they already provide a non dairy alternative so providing a single one for free either doesn't meet the desires of this lawsuit, or the lawsuit will fail because it already exists.
I absolutely agree that Starbucks is mostly milk. So maybe you're right and that will make the difference.
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.
Can't access the site, but isn't non-dairy milk often more expensive?
Prediction: Starbucks resolves the issue by raising all "milk" product prices to match the most expensive option.
And then they blame it on the lawsuit.
Lol why wouldn't they. I would.
If I had to change my burgers and fries prices at my burger joint so they are the same price as vegan burgers and non-peanut oil, I'd just raise the prices of everything to the new floor.
Because the reality people are shitty and they are going to claim the accommodation whether they have the "disability" or not.
This person capitalisms
Eww! No I don't! Take it back!
Because of government subsidies, yes.
Nope, capitalism
State capitalism.
I don't think that it is. At least the soy milk I sometimes drink is cheaper than the organic cows milk my wife drinks. Oat probably is more expensive.
Reminds of how back in the day, few places had veg options but would often have a bean version that was cheaper than the meat version cool. Now? Restaurants will have less bean options but have an Impossible meat option that's more expensive than meat 🙄
To produce? No
As sold? Yes
Dairy is ludicrously subsidized, and as such cheaper than it really should be.
And that changes what?
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
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 premium added because they can, but the additional safeguards in production of foods like this has a price.
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.
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.
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
Dude, I hear you. Trust me, I HATE being the sensitive tummy guy, but I hate alternating fits of constipation and turd monsoons for 72 hours even more.
I always try to say mine is a sensitivity as opposed to an actual allergy and just to make a good faith effort. FWIW my friends who are full blown celiac just don't eat out unless it's a dedicated GF facility.
My feelings on gf being trendy are mixed: in some cases some karens downplay the seriousness but at the same time, having more awareness leads to more options... like Jersey Mike's having gf bread. I had no idea before this
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.
Edit: after reading your comments I see everyone's point. With that being said, wouldn't pizza places that charge more for gluten-free crust fall under the same category?
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.
You can’t sue McDonald’s because they don’t have a non dairy cheese replacement for your cheeseburger.
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.
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.
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.
the non dairy cheaper alternative would be coffee
Not if they offer non-dairy creamer it isn't...
If an accomodation is offered you cannot charge extra for it. This is not a difficult concept.
If McDonald's offered vegan cheese as a substitute for their cheeseburgers, and they upcharged someone with lactose intolerance, they'd be in the same trouble. That's why they never brought the McPlant to US markets - because they didn't want to introduce an accommodation they couldn't monetize.
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.
Would they be in violation of the act if they did not offer these alternatives at all?
This is the same as the argument that tall people need more leg room on a plane, and shouldn’t be charged to upgrade their seat. Or that someone with a bad back should be able to fly business for free.
I mean, certain airlines are starting to adopt size policies which will grant you an additional seat if you are overweight. Why is it such a stretch to believe that tall people should receive the same accommodation?
I'd say that if anything, the tall people should receive the accommodation but the overweight people should not.
both in this cases these would be counted as disabilites under the ADA... also there is no reason why someone who is overweight should not be accomidated
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.
(c) 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(c) 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.
My conclusion is that the case has merit, and is not frivolous. I don't want to conclude anything beyond that, because that's what courts and lawyers are for, and I am neither.
If this were a slam dunk, starbucks would have probably chosen to either not charge, or not offer non-dairy milk. It will be interesting to see how this case proceeds.
It wouldn't change their inventory at all though.
You make really good points. But I'm going to call out this point...
But because Starbucks currently offers non-dairy milk, those options are subject to the ADA, specifically:
Oat milk is not milk. It's a completely different product made from grain, not mammals. If I'm lactose intolerant at a bar can I request vodka? It has about as much relation to cow's milk as oat milk. In fact, I think vodka arguably closer to oat milk than cow's milk. The only reasonable one for one replacement for cows milk is lactase treated cow's milk. Anything else is not comparable.
Or, what if Starbucks stocked lactase treated goat's milk. Is that a substitute for cow's milk? It's much more similar to cow's milk than oat milk.
lol wut
this only makes sense if they're making like 3x in profits over normal dairy.
Ooh ooh I know the answer to this one. Just make normal dairy drinkers pay 2 dollars extra that way no one is being discriminated against and the corporate coffers are set to be overflowing.
Whether or not lactose intolerance is a disability or not push back on this is pushback on all special orders getting a premium price across the board. No one with a disability should have to pay extra for standard access.
This is quite the reach. I say this as a disabled person
Why not? I would charge more.
If dairy restrictions are a disability, then me being left handed is also a disability.
But every lactose intolerant person I know drinks milk and eats ice cream almost in spite of themselves, they don't even consider lactaid.
O...kay?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Isnt most soy used as animal feed tho? Or is it only from certain regions?
It's a capitalist conspiracy.
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.
I think I'd rather get down with the sickness. (Because I'm lactose intolerant)
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...?
Is it though? I mean don't get me wrong, it sucks that people who are lactose intolerant have to pay more, but is it really a disability?
I'm lactose intolerant but even I think this is absurd. What about every other food allergy in existence? Should substitutions cost the same even if the ingredients don't? Furthermore, we're talking about a splurge item from a coffee shop. You can still make coffee at home or buy coffee without milk in it.
Well the ADA only requires 'reasonable' accommodations. So I guess the logic of this case would be that if the substitution only costs a little bit more than the original ingredient then they should offer it at the same price. But this would still allow for business to charge extra when making the substitution would be 'unreasonably' expensive.
Therein lies the rub as what one person considers reasonable another might not. Charging 1:1 for the increased cost of almond or soy milk seems reasonable but charging an additional markup over what they set for dairy milk might not be.
If their case has merit, I hope they win, but I honestly wish these lawyer fees and court time could be better used to tackle more lucrative issues like suing Ticketmaster/Live Nation for their whole anti-consumer business model and price gouging or suing Comcast for their monopoly in my area. There are probably 1000 different places to buy coffee in my city but only one way to buy event tickets and one company offering broadband/high speed internet.
What’s absurd is that Almond, Soy, and Oat doesn’t cost more than dairy milk when you look at prices at a grocery. But Starbucks charges extra for it anyway.
I think a lot of people have no idea that many dairy alternatives are essentially the same price now. And that's at a retail consumer level where the markups are biggest in the chain, bulk wholesale like what Starbucks pays would have an even smaller gap.
People are assuming there's a massive difference in price, that just doesn't really exist anymore... And that also ignores the absolutely MASSIVE markup Starbucks has for their coffee in the first place. It definitely doesn't cost Starbucks $.50 to use Oat milk instead of regular milk, but that's what they might charge the consumer for the substitution in a $6 coffee that cost them maybe $0.50 to make.
What's absurd is thinking that this argument makes logical sense. Do you think Starbucks buys milk at the grocery store? What do you think the ratio of milk to each milk alternative is? 100:1? 1000:1? The scale at which the purchase each would greatly affect the price.
When I worked at a restaurant that used a lot of milk it came in a 3 or 5 gallon plastic sack that went into a dispensing machine. Milk alternatives are likely purchased by the case in consumer packaging. The cost is entirely different.
Even if it isn’t, I’d prefer a world where people aren’t shitting their pants or leaving toxic fart clouds in their wake because they need to save .50 on a coffee.
Gluten free up charge is a thing everywhere and Starbucks is so overpriced that I go to a gas station for the occasional cup of to go coffee I get and there’s no real dairy anywhere there.
If it does, then the cost difference to the business should probably be subsidized / written off in taxes.
The issue with the ADA is that it does not specify what counts as a disability, rather it gives an explanation of what is considered a disability. This leads to endless confusion and to court cases exactly like this, which are leveraging the text of the ADA as it stands to make their point.
The lawyer quoted in the article is correct, considering they already accommodate people with diabetes without surcharge, it can be argued the same courtesy needs to be extended to the lactose intolerant, who do not have a "choice" in whether they can consume dairy.
Because they cannot just consume dairy like other customers, the lawyer is arguing that no longer charging for the difference is a "reasonable accomodation" to the fact that their clients bodies cannot process dairy. That definitely rises to the same level of reasoning for those who suffer diabetes, in my opinion.
Anyway, that's the frustrating thing about a lot of the ADA. It basically requires people who don't know if their unique position qualifies them to spend a lot of money on lawyers up-front just to find out if the courts will actually accept that as true. It's really well fucked because most disabled people don't have money to be pissing away on such a legal project. Most of them are busy just trying to survive. In other words, most of the time you have to hope a lawyer will take up your case pro-bono.
Source: My cancer isn't cancery or debilitating enough to count as a disability, even though "cancer" is in the list on the ADA website.
That's how common-law systems are designed to work, though (along with delegation to regulators in the executive branch). You can't really expect the legislature to think through every single nuance and corner-case a-priori, right?
Yeah like if they had a mega list of every disability they could think of, but forgot one, or a new one is discovered, what happens in court? Said new/forgotten disability wouldn't legally be a disability.
Oh of course, but I was speaking of people who are seriously disabled (not just people with lactose intolerance) and that severely impacts their ability to just go out and get a lawyer to fight for their rights.
Like, the lactose intolerant, I'm pretty okay with them needing to come up with the money to prove it in court. Lactose intolerance may be considered a disability, but it doesn't rise to the level of disability that makes it hard to hold a job.
However, a lot of other people are stuck, shit out of luck, unable to work, hell, often unable to move, and they're still fighting for their problems to be recognized as a disability. Further, even with a disability that's accepted as a disability, you still have to go to court and fight, often for years, to get a disability recognized. You're not allowed to work while you're waiting for that classification. It's just a bad system for it.
The common-law system is fine and good, but we're all aware of how it's absolutely tilted in favor of people who have money and against those who don't.
I got a disability lump sum for temporary disability due to a nerve disorder. It was based on my previous income and the percentage of time an expert judge I was able to work. (20% according to the expert.)
I only for $14,000 for 3 years of being disabled.
The disorder is now managed with medication, incidentally.
Lactose intolerance is actually normal. It's tolerance to lactose as an adult that is biologically unusual, and mostly unique to westerners. Because most of us continue eating dairy products after infancy, we continue being able to digest them. However other cultures don't continue consuming dairy after infancy, and thus lose their ability to digest it effectively.
It's a really tough argument to claim it as a disability. I don't see this case going well for the plaintiffs.
Adult lactose digestion (called lactase persistence) has evolved a few times from various mutations — one that happened in Europe, and several in Africa and the Middle East. It’s not caused in individuals by continued consumption.
That's a super weird point of view. If your argument is wrt global averages and your view of normal is black hair, brown eyes, and some average between average Chinese and Indian populations, I suppose you're right...but not in a way that's remotely useful.
Lactose intolerance is the default for adults too. Them calling it a disability is wild.
I am allergic to milk. If I ingest it I will die full stop. Food allergies should be considered as a disability in this case because if I wanted coffee with soy milk I shouldn't be made to pay extra for something out of my control. That being said since my allergies are severe enough I don't eat anything I don't make myself so this wouldn't impact me anyway but I agree with the principle of the case.
What if the dairy substitute was 10x the cost of real milk, I know it isn't, but what if it were. Or even 100x, just for argument. Are you entitled to get that for the same price?
The reasonable accommodation is offering non-dairy options at all even if it's slightly more.
Or they can remove the dairy product at no additional fee (which they do). If someone wants to add an additional, more expensive ingredient, then they can pay for it.
The ingredient is only more expensive because cow's milk is subsidized.
Well, maybe they are suing the wrong entity then. Dunkin and Starbucks don't set the price of almond milk.
Sure, they don't. But they are also massively overcharging consumers for something that barely costs them anything extra.
I'm looking at the online site for my local big chain grocery store. This is what I'm seeing, all for half gallon sizes:
These are all the less expensive alternatives. So almond milk is slightly higher than regular, but the others are a pretty significant percent increase.
While you're right, we're talking about a pretty small amount of price difference for Starbucks.
A quick Google search says that a grande latte from Starbucks (16Oz) is about 14.6 Oz of milk.
Using the retail numbers (remember Starbucks has negotiated contracts with wholesale suppliers for their milk, they likely pay much less than retail cost) that is about 4.2¢/fl oz for regular milk and about 4.7¢/fl oz for almond milk. In terms of milk cost, a Starbucks grande latte is about 61¢ of regular milk and 68¢ of almond milk.
They then charge you 70¢ EXTRA for the almond milk, when they are only spending around 7¢ more to use it in your drink. They're clearly just taking advantage of many people's inability to process lactose. Though, I'm a bit biased since I'm one of them. I'm heavily lactose intolerant, so take that as you will.
While looking up the numbers I also learned that it's estimated that around 68% of the world's population is lactose intolerant, and it mostly affects non-white ethnic groups.
I'm severely lactose intolerant, so you know what I do? I DON'T FUCKING DRINK LATTES. A restaurant is under no obligation to give me a non-dairy substitute at no cost. If you want what a restaurant sells, buy it. If you don't like what they sell or think it's too expensive, fucking don't and get on with your life.
According to the Americans with disabilities act, they apparently are under obligation to do it.
They're under obligation to make a reasonable accommodation. They accomplish this in 2 ways. You can either order it without milk, or you can pay extra for a milk substitute.
Restaurants aren't required to provide gluten-free pasta, fake seafood, or artificial peanut products just because some people can't eat everything on the menu.
The ADA has very specific language about not charging extra for reasonable accommodations, and dietary restrictions are mentioned.
Restaurants are not required to stock ingredients for all allergies, and they are not required to order in special ingredients on request. But starbucks does stock non-dairy milks. Using the non-dairy milk that they already stock is a reasonable accommodation.
The case is based on a good faith reading of title III of the ADA. It's not unreasonable to argue that charging extra is illegal in this case.
If I can't eat beef (that's a real allergy) is a restaurant obligated to substitute lobster if they happen to serve it? The fact is, oat milk isn't milk. Milk treated with lactase is milk.
Do you have a source? My understanding was that they were under obligation to not charge for the accommodations, hence the lawsuit.
Their accommodation is having product without milk at all. Requiring them to provide an alternative ingredient isn't a reasonable accommodation when they have plenty of existing products without dairy. The customer can order one of those items.
Having a milk substitute that costs more for the establishment is going beyond what is required under the ADA, so up-charging for it is fine.
Do you have a source for that? From what I've found, food allergies are generally not considered a disability and therefore no accomodation is obligatory.
https://accessdefense.com/?p=2623
The ADA is a complex law, like all laws. Food allergies are mentioned by the ADA.
Although food allergies don't require proactive accommodation, disabled people are entitled to equal access despite their disability.
If a restaurant offers no substitutions that's fine. But if a restaurant offers substitutions but refuses it for those with allergies, that's not fine.
If a restaurant doesn't stock non-allergic ingredients it doesn't have to. But if the restaurant will stock special ingredients upon request, they must do the same for disabled customers.
In this case, starbucks DOES stock and offer non-dairy milks. Using a different milk is probably a reasonable accommodation. The ADA has rules against charging extra for reasonable accomodations.
The conclusion that starbucks charging extra is a violation of the ADA is not an unreasonable one.
It is not a violation to charge extra for an accomodation if everyone has to pay the same for that accomodation. See the link I posted previously; it mentions this explicitly. Their case is charging more for plus sized clothing. The price for that size of item is the same regardless if the person is obese or normal, so it's not discrimination. It only becomes discrimination when you charge a person more because they're lactose intolerant and give lactose tolerant people soy milk for no cost.
God bless America, sometimes
I had to scroll down a lot to find a sensible comment. Apparently having milk in your coffee is a constitutional right..
Lol your wrong about restaurants having no obligation to provide a substitute.
That's such a sad point of view about what you think you deserve. You should treat yourself better.
Lol wut. Why is a restaurant obligated to give you special treatment or free things? If you are allergic to peanuts are they obligated to fry their fries in a separate oil just for you??
In certain circumstances, companies are obligated to prepare food on separate surfaces or in separate oil to avoid cross contamination in case of allergies. That's what we get for caring about our countrymen and wanting them to be able to eat at restaurants.
Allergens actually do have some regulations, but I'm not sure how they work.
Spoken like a restaurant owner!
Apparently, according to you; being considerate to a section of society is trumped by maybe $1 of extra cost per item to accommodate them? What kind of a selfish ass cheapskate restaurant owner are you?
Allergies are caused by proteins, not oils generally, so peanut oil is safe for almost all people with allergies, although culturally, peanut oil just isn't that used much anymore because most businesses want money from as many people as possible and don't want to risk people's lives out of economic principles.
This is the issue with libertarianism. The argument is always an attempt at framing the conversation to an acceptable level of death in the name of expanding markets, without realizing that death actually limits markets.
Going by some arguments in this thread, to ask a restaurant to be considerate for a section of the population is considered entitled but being a cheapskate and selfish money guzzler is a god given right and should be something to be proud of. Like, it doesn't even cost the restaurant $1-$2 extra per serving. Of course, when it comes to money.. fuck being considerate right?
I used to work in restaurants (both big and small), and while what you said is true, it only cost $1-2 extra per serving. But the restaurant can never stock their ingredients by "per serving". They have to buy wholesale from their suppliers. It really hurts smaller businesses when they only get to use a couple servings out of their 5 gallon non-dairy milk jug, then have to throw it out. Those things added up fast, and that's just one example.
It's common in restaurants and cafés in Europe to use normal 1L milk cartons even for normal milk - can't that be done in the US as well?
I get why restaurants need to buy in bulk, but why is the packaging is so huge?
All the coffee shops I know use the same 1 quart carton for non-dairy milk that I use at home. They come in a box of 12 if you buy them in bulk.
I have no idea why the other commenter thinks the packaging is different.
Don't buy so much at one time then? Doesn't seem that difficult a problem to solve, I do it every time my dairy-averse partner stays over for the weekend. Buy an amount that is reasonable for expected usage needs, it's easy. I'm not out here buying a 5 gallon bucket and then whining when my guests haven't drank all of it.
When you don't buy in bulk your unit costs go up.
I don't know what the profit margins of Starbucks are, but in many cases they're much tighter than people realize. The sale price has to cover materials, wages, insurance, property costs, and lots of other things. $1 a serving would be a pretty huge percent increase.
You could make the same argument about anything. I want the higher end iPhone and they should give it to me for the same price as the lower end to be considerate. If they don't they're greedy. I want leather seats in my car for the same price as cloth. And there are loads of restaurants that charge extra for substitutions if the substitute costs more (e.g., "premium sides").
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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
Prices for items at scale can be difficult to understand.
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.
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?
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.
https://vinepair.com/articles/history-of-plant-milk/
Sure, and that why when you walk into a shop and ask for milk, everyone asks you "what kind of milk would you like"?
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
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
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
Look, I am not "trying to push you into complying with the linguistic framework that legitimizes your perception of reality", I am telling you that language is important and you can't make words up or subvert the meaning of them, else society will not understand you at best, or think that you are just a lunatic at worst. Sure you can decide that for you "up" means "down" and insist that everyone else is wrong, but then you are probably wasting your time replying to others' comments on social media.
I get where you are coming from, you really care about your ideas, but so do antivaxers and lots of other radicalized groups that are just drifting off reality and, well most of society thinks they are just lunatics. I am not even a native English speaker but a few examples:
"Murder" is defined as the killing of a person. I understand why you are using it for animals but it comes off wrong, that's not what the word means, and the only use of it as an hyperbole (a karaoke singer killing a song) has the opposite meaning that you are trying to convey. There are plenty of words for describing the killing of animals and some of them are already loaded with meaning, it's not like "slaughter" and "butchering" are used lightly. You don't need to come up with your own vocabulary, that's like Trump saying "bigly" he looks like an idiot to a non-maga crowd.
The word "formula" refers is an artificial (formulated) human milk substitute, your use of it to refer to "cow's milk" sounds pretty ridiculous, particularly when you add another 3-4 words around it and when the rest of society uses the word milk to refer to cows' milk, or if specified, to other milks like goat or soy. Your example where you use "meat" to refer to grains is just bonkers; and describing meat as "rotting" is just silly, as technically so are broccoli that have been cut off the plan: specifying that any food is rotting while waiting to be eaten, while technically not wrong, makes the person you are talking to wonder what is going on in your head.
Based on the above, I am afraid it is merely 'edgy'. In fact it's worse, people that talk like this come through as they are either 12 years old trying to cause a reaction, or just lunatics. You are really not making any favour to your cause, and I will come back to that later because that is a shame Still on language, I am not sure in what world "Chick culling" sounds almost innocuous, it describes exactly what it is, quite perfectly, it's a horrible practice, do you really need to add any more words? One more thing that is quite annoying about radicalized groups is they tell you to check something up on Youtube or do your own research, I am very familiar with the concept of chick culling, I don't like it, you don't need to be vegan to know how certain industries work and suggesting it in that way is again off putting.
I am familiar with most of the arguments vegetarians and vegans use as I have been interested in tangential topics for a long time, I am passionate about environment, permaculture and food self sufficiency. Some of the points I actually agree with, I am against industrial practices like chicks culling, the way animals are treated in industrial farming, I agree that the planet would be better off if we all reduced meat consumption dramatically and if there were more vegetarians and vegans. I think that if someone is passionate about these and other messages they should try to convey them in a way that they can be absorbed by the rest of society. That is, if you want to convince anyone to marry your cause or part of it. And if you don't want to, why are you even wasting words?
The reason why I am particularly annoyed when people do this is that there are some topics that I would be interested to discuss like adults, particularly where I stop agreeing with veganism, and this is just off putting. Example, I have three egg producing chickens that are treated like pets, they have plenty of space, protection, access to food, water and treats, they play with my babies, and they drop one egg each every day that they quickly forget about and they proceed to ignore. I use those eggs to feed my family and to reduce our meat consumption with something that is organic, nutritious and (in my opinion) ethically produced with no impact on the planet. In fact, the contrary is true because those chickens eat my leftovers and I use their poo as fertiliser. I'd like to understand how many people are vegans because industrial farming is a horrible practice, and how many would for example still eat eggs if they were produced more "humanely" like I do, and the reason why I am interested is that i cannot conceive non-industrial farming without animals being heavily involved, at the very least for using their shit to grow plants. In short, there are some discussions I'd enjoy having, but every time a vegan engages they distort the language and they make the assumption that I don't know anything about industrial farming :)
Admittedly my language can be edgy, but I think you're being hyperbolic. Also, would you apply your logic about language to neopronouns? Because currently the common language is structured to reinforce gender binaries. Neopronouns are a challenge to this anachronistic, inadequate language. In the same way that vegan language changes are met with contempt and resistance, so are neopronouns. But that doesn't change that it's necessary. For example one thing that does need to change is the pronouns used for animals. 'it' is unacceptable, because animals are living beings, not objects. She/him/they is more appropriate. There's nothing radical about this.
Mind you the language that I'm using in this context is meant to be provocative. If I'm speaking to another vegan I simply refer to plant milk as milk, or specify exactly which plant-kind if I need to refer to one specifically. If I'm talking about the stuff that's produced by animals and I'm not trying to be incendiary, I simply refer to it as 'dairy'.
It's ironic that you're comparing the views of vegans to anti-vaccers, since you omnivores are likely responsible for more illnesses and death from diseases than they are. The majority of infectious diseases have a zoonotic origin, and much of that is the result of animal domestication and farming. Animal ag is also by far the single largest cause of the rise of antibiotic resistant diseases. Covid itself likely never would have occurred if we were a largely vegan world. And most pressingly, h5n1 - which has a 50-60% fatality rate in humans - is virtually guaranteed to become another pandemic if we are not taking every measure to shut down all bird farms as rapidly as possible. The fact that it hasn't happened already is frankly a miracle. Carnists who hate anti-vaccers are hypocrites in the extreme. (And yes, this means your chickens could very well be the death of you).
https://www.surgeactivism.org/coronavirusisjustthestart
The words 'slaughter' and 'butcher' work fine, but why not also 'murder'? Are you trying to imply that it's somehow sanctioned, or not wrong to kill an animal? It is wrong to kill animals, so 'murder' is apt.
Again, the baby cow formula thing is meant to be provocative. I used the language in that case to highlight, from a human health perspective, how it's no surprize that western civilization has the prevalence of diseases that we do - heart disease, diabetes, obesity - when we're saturating so many of our foods with a substance, or formula, that's evolutionarily adapted to make a calf into a much larger cow as quickly as possible. Incendiary maybe, but also useful in highlighting how something that most people consider "food" is really something not fit for human nutritional needs at all. You cannot consume dairy without 1) becoming addicted to it, and 2) inexorably ripping your life's trajectory in the direction of a lot of suffering from unnecessary disease and premature death. Something that does that is not food. This same logic applies to eggs, btw. Eggs might not be addictive like dairy is, but consuming them regularly causes most of the same disease onsets. That would make this my second reason why your chicken raising is a bad idea (both practical health related arguments). So if anything is absurd, it's to refer to animal products as food, when really they're more like poison to humans.
https://nutritionstudies.org/dairy-consumption-weight-loss-claims/ https://www.pcrm.org/good-nutrition/nutrition-information/health-concerns-about-dairy https://www.pcrm.org/good-nutrition/nutrition-information/health-concerns-with-eggs
"Meat" is a non-issue. What I've been seeing is a gradual supplanting of the word 'meat' with the word 'protein', anyway. For all we know, the use of the word 'meat' may eventually fall out of usage all together. I only make jokes about plants being the "real meat" to, again, provoke discussion. Like with dairy, I'm pointing out the absurdity of using language that implies that the rotting carcasses of animals are food, when in fact the consumption of animal products in general, including animal flesh, is the leading cause of death in industrialized nations. Poison. I also use this colorful language because carnists have this strange cognitive dissonance where, the slaughter that is done to animals is correctly recognized as the gore and abuse that it is (I've even been censored by mods on lemmy for posting links to the Dominion documentary), but carnists don't recognize the end-products as being that same trauma-infused gore. I am conveying a hint at the macabre nature of what you carnists force onto the rest of us. Vystopia. What you call "meat" is only carnage and systematic violence being carried out in the most casual, unconscious ways.
https://www.pcrm.org/health-topics/heart-disease
As a sidenote, flesh is rotting. You know how smokers are less able to smell exactly how strong the scent of tobacco is on themselves? In the same way carnists very often have a faint rotting odor, particularly when you have just eaten. Since going vegan one of the most visceral things I've experienced is that no matter how fresh a cut of animal flesh is, it always has a rotten smell. And technically speaking all high-protein foods putrefy, so while animal flesh is rotten, broccoli would be fermenting.
"Chick culling" does sound pretty bad. But anyone who doesn't know what that is, would never guess that it means that when they purchase eggs, they are paying for something where male chicks are separated and sent down a conveyer belt where they are systematically ground up into a paste en mass. Carnist language is like the sanitized language that Nazis used for their wrongs - it's clearly meant to downplay the true extent of atrocity.
Alright, now let's talk about those backyard chicken. I've already pointed out how for practical and health reasons alone, you'd be better off without the chickens or their eggs. Animal flesh, dairy, and eggs are all nutritionally package deals, and they're mostly the same package - things that our body can't properly process, and thus they are the primary causes of heart disease, our number one killer (as well as potentially other health problems like diabetes, cancer, and possibly autoimmune disorders as well). I would suggest finding and joining a whole-food plant-based support group. You'll quickly find that people routinely report dramatic changes in their health when they switch to wfpb. I don't just mean feeling good, I mean hard stats like their cholesterol levels dropping, body fat melting away, real results. Obviously anecdotes are no substitute for science, but it means something when the science and anecdotes are consistent.
https://adventisthealthstudy.org/studies https://nutritionstudies.org/the-china-study/ https://my.clevelandclinic.org/departments/wellness/integrative/esselstyn-program https://pmri.org/
Now ethics. Admittedly backyard chicken raising doesn't seem so bad at first glance. It's certainly significantly less cruel than commercial operations. But as the article I'm about to post gets into, is your chicken's own biology really compatible with producing eggs so abundantly? Like, you know it can't be a comfortable experience to lay an egg, right? One of the ways I've heard it described is that it's akin to a woman going through her period every day (with the addition of a relatively large object coming out of their body every day). That's not a comfortable life.
And also in the article, you have to think about how you perceive your chickens, and your motives for having them around. When you look at an animal of any kind, do you recognize that they have an intrinsic, moral right to life and the pursuit of their own wills and happiness in the same way humans do? Or do you permit their existence only because it brings benefits to you? Vegan ethics are not just about reducing or eliminating acts of cruelty and suffering. The core of vegan ethics is recognizing that all animals are here with us, not for us, and they have as much right to exist as we do, and for their own ways and reasons. We need to seek an end to speciesism, and raising backyard chickens for personal gain is a form of speciesism.
https://www.surgeactivism.org/backyardeggs
Lastly I have a basic Permaculture certification (for whatever that's worth). For the environmental side of things, what you're looking for is veganic gardening/farming/Permaculture. For most practices out there, it's not about keeping animals out entirely. What veganic growers do in addition to plant-based methods of soil building like composting, mulches, cover crops (eg., legume-based nitrogen fixing); is to have free-living symbiotic relations with animals. So vermicomposting, for example, is fine as long as your bin has no bottom and is open in the ground so worms can come and go as they please. Another option is putting up houses for bats, and occasionally cleaning them which brings in manure. The simple act of growing one oak tree on your property (if you have the room for one) can eventually provide a home for something like 300 species of animals. The key difference is the absence of captivity or exploitation of any kind.
https://spiralseed.co.uk/graham-burnett-%e2%80%92-path-permaculture/
https://veganpermaculture.org/
https://veganicpermaculture.com/
Does it cost fifty cents more per cup? Doubtful.
Are we talking a non-dairy whipped topping here?
Dairy is subsidized by the government. They absolutely do want to stick it to anyone who doesn't support the system.
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.
On the other hand, if young Timmy goes into anaphylactic shock everybody would change their tunes faster than you can say "Anaphylaxis"
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.
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).
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".
Good margins is why they’re fine.
What about the extra charge for gluten free buns? Or vegan chese? Or impossible burgers? If I can't ride my bike up big hills can i get an e-bike for the same price? If I'm very tall can i get an airplane seat upgrade for free?
For people with gluten intolerance, they'd have a similar case. Lactose intolerance isn't a choice just as much as gluten intolerance isn't a choice.
Source: I've had a friend who has had celiac disease his whole life. I was jealous of him in high school because he was always so skinny, and I didn't know he had it. Not fucking jealous anymore.
Yeah. I have a friend who can't have onions, garlic, dairy, or gluten. At least dairy and gluten have decent subs now. Losing onion and garlic would be miserable!
I have Celiac Disease and let me tell you, I would love to see gluten free items cost the same as regular foods. The only thing you apparently can do is to include an itemized list of GF items you've bought over the year and include it in your tax return. However, the amount of bureaucracy is probably a great deterrent for people like me to not do this and just eat the extra cost.
If you have a disability you can get a mobility scooter
Neither the very tall (nor the obese for that matter) are part of a protected class, and their relative sizes are not considered disabilities. However those physical conditions can lead to disabilities (heart and joint issues for example) which then lead to reasonable accommodation.
Your straw men are cute, but this isn't Kansas, we don't need them here
Can you explain why the examples they gave are different than the case at hand? I think they have a point but I'm interested in hearing the opposing viewpoint (yours) before I form an opinion on the situation.
TBH, not much, except that in the case of dairy and gluten intolerance there's a case to be made for reasonable accommodation under the ADA. The rest of his comments were increasingly silly
Also there's many things wrong with American disability law, social safety nets, and the complete dysfunction of what passes for "healthcare". Splitting hairs on what constitutes a disability is emblematic of these failings.
I was just 90 percent goofing and 'what abouting.' It's only an issue because we have milk alternatives. Dairy bothers me but i don't care for the alt milks so i mostly order tea. If i really want a coffee i get a small splash of milk and deal with the consequences. Also, there's a whole thing with whether it's milk sugar or milk fat or A1/A2 that bothers people - so sometimes skim milk or A2 milk is less upsetting and no more expensive.
Lol okay sorry if i came on too strong
Hmm with all due respect I'm leaning towards not liking this lawsuit. Similar to splitting hairs on what constitutes a disability, I think calling an allergy a disability cheapens the system.
I think what would be "most fair" in this scenario would be for healthcare to cover lactaid like it does with epipens, etc.
For the record, I am pro-ADA and pro-nationalised healthcare. I just feel like this lawsuit is frivilous
Appreciate the Kansas side burn
Im sorry but as someone who works in the field of disability this makes me irate. We have whole states who are not in compliance with the ADA when it comes to employment and even accessible enternces to state and federal buildings and yet the federal government is powerless to stop them, but we can use the ADA to sue coffee shops? Sure it's a good thing I guess but the larger and more important provisions of that legislation continue to be overlooked and unimplemented despite lawsuits filed against states only seeking conscent decrees, but we can make a big scene of suing for non diary creamers.
You can sue anyone for any reason. It doesn't mean it holds water and this one certainly doesnt. For the ada it has to be a significant effect on your daily life, food allergies aren't going to be part of that and a business has the right to charge more for what costs them more which would be a reasonable accommodation anyway.
Yes and advocacy groups have sued the states that are not in compliance on larger points of the ADA, like labor conditions. Guess how much media attention those suits get?
None, those are logical so they don't grab attention the same way as the ravings of a lunatic.
well because those threaten the status quo at large. If companies had to start hireing with provisions of the ADA then they would lose less profit so they hush those up. but this one, this povides the illusion that the ADA is for the most part being followed and its just a few minor odds and ends $1.50 here and their that are out of wack...
Went to the local courthouse the other day, it is cube-esk at the base and has 4 entrances one on each side. 3 they keep locked. The handycap accessible ramp is one of those that is locked. I couldn't understand it, what is the point of installing the ramps if you are still going to block it off to funnel people through another door nearest the metal detectors.
Also it seems like every company has forgotten about accessible web design. Wouldn't even surprise me if some government websites were inaccessible too.
I'm sorry but lactose intolerance is not a disability.
It's also not an equivalent product. It's not like you get to choose if milk has lactose, the dairy-free option has completely different components and sources.
Except you can. The lactose-free milk has lactase added, which is the enzyme needed to break down lactose. Otherwise it's more or less the same product.
Oh, right, that. For some reason my mind immediately went to Oat Milk and other plant based dairy. I love Oatmilk, it works for breadmaking too.
Shout out to oat milk. The best substitute milk in general, but the absolute star for substitutions in baking.
I've been getting Lactaid ads alllllll over the Internet since reading that article.
Guess there is a new advertiser site that needs blocking ..
Use firefox and ublock origin, and all that ends. I haven't seen an ad in a decade.
Yeah, Firefox and ublock. Plus privacy badger, and Blokada5.
Still got me somehow. The ad showed up in an app, not a browser. Updated/added more blocklists.
EDIT: You were right! Get a gold star for that one. The Lemmy app I use was still set to open links itself, not the default browser. I forgot I'd changed it when I used Sync, but not when I switched to Connect! I still had many ads blocked because of the VPN.
Pihole might help?
Yup, got that too for my home network. Though I suspect several advertisers have gotten wise and hard coded different DNS into their programs. I don't see the requests I think I should on some devices. There is not a lot of troubleshooting when it comes to IPv6 and while there are many AAAA queries on my server, there are a higher percentage on the server I set up for my parents.
ITT: A lot of people wanting to argue the headline and not the articles or legislation.
The legislation is simple, and being tested currently in the courts with how it effects business practices. It's also telling how privileged most of you are on here, you imagine yourself as the "owner" who is shocked and dumbfounded by this turn of events. Anyone who has actually worked in the restaurant or service industry knows this is company bullshit.
The Alternative-Milk items are mere percentages of percentages. All Food Costs and future sale projections are calculated for proper ordering. They already have the items on hand....there would be no restructuring or change in conducting business under a judgement on this case. The use of other free alternatives (sugar-free,etc) for disabilities being used as advertising is a damning indication everyone skips over. Caffeine-free doesn't cost more to have or stock? Any of the Splenda/etc is corporeal and drops out of the Ether for everyone?
Again, the numbers are so low for alternative-milk your brain would skip a beat if you look at their figures.
Starbucks isn't saying shit, they know the reality of how bad it actually looks. There is no "Woe is me" in any of their financial reportings so they just have to bite the bullet.
They're playing ball in China, we've all seen enough examples of companies having to bend the knee or getting out. I don't get why everyone is not happy about these events. Want a "free" market where large corporation monopolies exist? Sure, but you gotta at least allow some crumbs to fall for the peasants lest they get hangy again. Want freedom and inclusion for all groups of people to experience life? Starbucks is an American institution now by cultural standards, you can't academically refute that looking at any media or even economical standpoints. It's on every corner, reasonable accommodations should be made and enforced for the general public. This isn't a Ma and Pa coffee shop, this is why lower court judges exist and can weigh in on individual cases where they can seriously consider the context of the business standards.
obligatory:
The ADA is designed to give disabled people equal treatment and access, even if that equal access comes at unequal cost.
Non-dairy milk costs more. But so does weelchair accessable seating, and most other accommodations. But those accommodations cannot cost extra by the ADA.
As with every law, the ADA is long and has many exceptions and qualifications. But, Starbucks's milks doesn't seem to be an exception from my cursory reading of title III. This case has a case.
So in essence, they aren't be allowed to charge extra if the customer is intolerant? Isn't there basic milk w/o lactose for that though? Or just serve it without milk?
Not trying to make a case here, just asking:
By that rationale, could Starbucks have a policy in place where if you request a more expensive non-dairy option, you get an upcharge unless you give proof of a medical condition?
Basically saying, "Look, we're happy to accommodate specific dietary restrictions at no additional cost for those with medical needs. We're also happy to provide these options to all other customers at an upcharge reflecting the increased cost of these ingredients to us."
I did look specifically for that, but I couldn't find any language in title III of the ADA about whether disabled people can or can't be required to prove or claim to be disabled.
I read the some of the text of the ADA. That's the extent of my research. If you're interested look into the statutes and case law and report back.
Stop giving these greedy corporations money. There's other alternatives for your coffee fix.
I don't think that this will mean that all non-dairy creamers would have to be given for free.
It would only mean that one non-dairy creamer would be. Oat, almond, soy milk are probably the more expensive types of non-dairy creamers.
They already offer a dairy free option: black coffee. I'm not sure that would solve the problem.
Brewed coffee and espresso are not the same beverage and cannot be substituted for one another.
Most of Starbucks drinks are primarily milk with 2-3 espresso shots. By weight, they sell milk with coffee flavor.
I used to drink brewed coffee, now I effectively drink Americanos (at home I use a areopress). And anyone who stays at my place, that's what they're getting, and I've never had a complaint. In fact it's usually compliments. So I'm not sure I agree.
However, I think I wasn't clear about my point. I'm just saying they already provide a non dairy alternative so providing a single one for free either doesn't meet the desires of this lawsuit, or the lawsuit will fail because it already exists.
I absolutely agree that Starbucks is mostly milk. So maybe you're right and that will make the difference.
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.
Can't access the site, but isn't non-dairy milk often more expensive?
Prediction: Starbucks resolves the issue by raising all "milk" product prices to match the most expensive option.
And then they blame it on the lawsuit.
Lol why wouldn't they. I would.
If I had to change my burgers and fries prices at my burger joint so they are the same price as vegan burgers and non-peanut oil, I'd just raise the prices of everything to the new floor.
Because the reality people are shitty and they are going to claim the accommodation whether they have the "disability" or not.
This person capitalisms
Eww! No I don't! Take it back!
Because of government subsidies, yes.
Nope, capitalism
State capitalism.
I don't think that it is. At least the soy milk I sometimes drink is cheaper than the organic cows milk my wife drinks. Oat probably is more expensive.
Reminds of how back in the day, few places had veg options but would often have a bean version that was cheaper than the meat version cool. Now? Restaurants will have less bean options but have an Impossible meat option that's more expensive than meat 🙄
To produce? No
As sold? Yes
Dairy is ludicrously subsidized, and as such cheaper than it really should be.
And that changes what?
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
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 premium added because they can, but the additional safeguards in production of foods like this has a price.
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.
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.
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
Dude, I hear you. Trust me, I HATE being the sensitive tummy guy, but I hate alternating fits of constipation and turd monsoons for 72 hours even more.
I always try to say mine is a sensitivity as opposed to an actual allergy and just to make a good faith effort. FWIW my friends who are full blown celiac just don't eat out unless it's a dedicated GF facility.
My feelings on gf being trendy are mixed: in some cases some karens downplay the seriousness but at the same time, having more awareness leads to more options... like Jersey Mike's having gf bread. I had no idea before this
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.
Edit: after reading your comments I see everyone's point. With that being said, wouldn't pizza places that charge more for gluten-free crust fall under the same category?
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.
You can’t sue McDonald’s because they don’t have a non dairy cheese replacement for your cheeseburger.
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.
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.
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.
Not if they offer non-dairy creamer it isn't...
If an accomodation is offered you cannot charge extra for it. This is not a difficult concept.
If McDonald's offered vegan cheese as a substitute for their cheeseburgers, and they upcharged someone with lactose intolerance, they'd be in the same trouble. That's why they never brought the McPlant to US markets - because they didn't want to introduce an accommodation they couldn't monetize.
Unless they claim to have an allergen-free kitchen.
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.
Would they be in violation of the act if they did not offer these alternatives at all?
No see my other comment for details
This is the same as the argument that tall people need more leg room on a plane, and shouldn’t be charged to upgrade their seat. Or that someone with a bad back should be able to fly business for free.
I mean, certain airlines are starting to adopt size policies which will grant you an additional seat if you are overweight. Why is it such a stretch to believe that tall people should receive the same accommodation?
I'd say that if anything, the tall people should receive the accommodation but the overweight people should not.
both in this cases these would be counted as disabilites under the ADA... also there is no reason why someone who is overweight should not be accomidated
The relevant regulation is Title III of the ADA, which is the part that applies to private businesses.
36.307 Accessible or special goods:
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(c) Charges.
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.
My conclusion is that the case has merit, and is not frivolous. I don't want to conclude anything beyond that, because that's what courts and lawyers are for, and I am neither.
If this were a slam dunk, starbucks would have probably chosen to either not charge, or not offer non-dairy milk. It will be interesting to see how this case proceeds.
It wouldn't change their inventory at all though.
You make really good points. But I'm going to call out this point...
Oat milk is not milk. It's a completely different product made from grain, not mammals. If I'm lactose intolerant at a bar can I request vodka? It has about as much relation to cow's milk as oat milk. In fact, I think vodka arguably closer to oat milk than cow's milk. The only reasonable one for one replacement for cows milk is lactase treated cow's milk. Anything else is not comparable.
Or, what if Starbucks stocked lactase treated goat's milk. Is that a substitute for cow's milk? It's much more similar to cow's milk than oat milk.
lol wut
this only makes sense if they're making like 3x in profits over normal dairy.
Ooh ooh I know the answer to this one. Just make normal dairy drinkers pay 2 dollars extra that way no one is being discriminated against and the corporate coffers are set to be overflowing.
Whether or not lactose intolerance is a disability or not push back on this is pushback on all special orders getting a premium price across the board. No one with a disability should have to pay extra for standard access.
This is quite the reach. I say this as a disabled person
Why not? I would charge more.
If dairy restrictions are a disability, then me being left handed is also a disability.
But every lactose intolerant person I know drinks milk and eats ice cream almost in spite of themselves, they don't even consider lactaid.
O...kay?
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.