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
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.
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
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.
but it is still a violation of the ADA to add that for the accomidation of the disability. Also, in a sain world built for people, we would not charge extra for providing the safe guards needed to not kill people.
Not to mention that you have to prepare and store it in an entirely different area. Otherwise you have to completely scrub the same area to try and prevent cross contamination and probably special air filtration systems to keep flour out of the air. I had a coworker tell me she got anaphylaxis once over an apple getting small amounts of flour on it. It is almost better to get pre-made from another company where it comes sealed and serve it that way.
I feel for people with severe food allergies. I thankfully only have a severe cat allergy, but I had a friend with a soy allergy. He refused to eat out as most employees either don’t know, will have to spend 10+ minutes trying to read every single label, or will misunderstand and say it doesn’t anyways. If we were cooking for him, we could at least check or show him all of the ingredients beforehand.
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?
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
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.
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.
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?
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…
Also it seems like every company has forgotten about accessible web design. Wouldn’t even surprise me if some government websites were inaccessible too.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Add comment