Mystican
01-09-2003, 08:25 PM
...or being denied equal treatment?
I ask this because today I ordered a hot chocolate at a Barnes & Noble café (which, for the record, isn't an actual Starbucks location, just a "distributor" of Starbucks products). I asked for it to be made with soy milk, as I have done the past couple times I've gotten hot chocolate there... but it was only today that I noticed on the receipt that "Soy Milk Substitution" costs an extra 50 cents. That was for the Venti, the largest size, so perhaps the cost for substitution is a bit less for the smaller sizes... but I think that's beside the point. Should I really have to pay extra for this simply because I choose to have my hot chocolate made without animal products? Because I have deep ethical beliefs against the use of such products in what I use or consume? Should the many people who are lactose-intolerant (which I am as well) have to pay extra to enjoy a drink that won't make them ill? Is this really equal treatment?
I've seen posts on other threads about paying a bit more for vegan products, and I *am* willing to pay extra to support animal- and earth-friendly vendors. I recognize that their prices will be higher (for now) because of the lower demand for their products, and I just hope that one day the prices will go down enough that vegan living will be affordable to everyone. (I also hope that meat production will cease to be government-subsidized so that meat prices will then reflect meat's true costs to ourselves and to the planet... but that's a subject for another discussion.) I think, though, that my main focus for this "equal treatment" bit is the big corporate entities like Barnes & Noble and others, whose audience is not limited to us herbivores. Do they really *need* to charge us extra for soy milk? It's been a long time since I last looked at the regular cow's milk cartons in the supermarket, so I'm not sure whether soy milk really is that much more expensive than cow's milk... but even if it is, do you think we should be charged extra? I can't really articulate the "why" of it properly, but I don't think it seems fair...
I know if you're in a store or restaurant that doesn't have alternative ingredients available, the best you can do is go elsewhere... and then of course write letters and e-mails and be a good little vegan activist until that first place starts stocking those alternative ingredients :D But for a place that already has the alternative ingredient(s) (like Barnes & Noble in this example) I do wonder why they can't offer all their customers the same price ... I mean, when they've already got the soy milk there... (I do recognize that if they lost money each time someone had a drink made with soy milk, instead of making a profit or breaking even, they might decide *not* to have the soy milk there any more... but aren't there some things more important than the bottom line? :( )
Anyway, just wondering what everyone's thoughts are on this issue. If you think this is unfair treatment, could you outline your arguments? :) I'd like to contact B&N headquarters soon and give them some good reasons why they should offer "Soy Milk Substitution" at no extra charge, and it would help to have your collective brainpower under my belt. :p
Oh, and I'm also going to ask them if they could please try to have vegan sandwiches available in their cafés, too. As far as I can tell (and I've asked at the counter), all the sandwiches either have cheese, or meat, or usually both... and there've been several times when I would have loved it had they had a nice tomato, lettuce, and avocado on sourdough... Sound like a good sandwich suggestion for HQ? :)
Cheers,
Erik
P.S. In my message to HQ, would it be too much to ask them to provide customers assurance that the cocoa in their hot chocolate was free trade? :)
I ask this because today I ordered a hot chocolate at a Barnes & Noble café (which, for the record, isn't an actual Starbucks location, just a "distributor" of Starbucks products). I asked for it to be made with soy milk, as I have done the past couple times I've gotten hot chocolate there... but it was only today that I noticed on the receipt that "Soy Milk Substitution" costs an extra 50 cents. That was for the Venti, the largest size, so perhaps the cost for substitution is a bit less for the smaller sizes... but I think that's beside the point. Should I really have to pay extra for this simply because I choose to have my hot chocolate made without animal products? Because I have deep ethical beliefs against the use of such products in what I use or consume? Should the many people who are lactose-intolerant (which I am as well) have to pay extra to enjoy a drink that won't make them ill? Is this really equal treatment?
I've seen posts on other threads about paying a bit more for vegan products, and I *am* willing to pay extra to support animal- and earth-friendly vendors. I recognize that their prices will be higher (for now) because of the lower demand for their products, and I just hope that one day the prices will go down enough that vegan living will be affordable to everyone. (I also hope that meat production will cease to be government-subsidized so that meat prices will then reflect meat's true costs to ourselves and to the planet... but that's a subject for another discussion.) I think, though, that my main focus for this "equal treatment" bit is the big corporate entities like Barnes & Noble and others, whose audience is not limited to us herbivores. Do they really *need* to charge us extra for soy milk? It's been a long time since I last looked at the regular cow's milk cartons in the supermarket, so I'm not sure whether soy milk really is that much more expensive than cow's milk... but even if it is, do you think we should be charged extra? I can't really articulate the "why" of it properly, but I don't think it seems fair...
I know if you're in a store or restaurant that doesn't have alternative ingredients available, the best you can do is go elsewhere... and then of course write letters and e-mails and be a good little vegan activist until that first place starts stocking those alternative ingredients :D But for a place that already has the alternative ingredient(s) (like Barnes & Noble in this example) I do wonder why they can't offer all their customers the same price ... I mean, when they've already got the soy milk there... (I do recognize that if they lost money each time someone had a drink made with soy milk, instead of making a profit or breaking even, they might decide *not* to have the soy milk there any more... but aren't there some things more important than the bottom line? :( )
Anyway, just wondering what everyone's thoughts are on this issue. If you think this is unfair treatment, could you outline your arguments? :) I'd like to contact B&N headquarters soon and give them some good reasons why they should offer "Soy Milk Substitution" at no extra charge, and it would help to have your collective brainpower under my belt. :p
Oh, and I'm also going to ask them if they could please try to have vegan sandwiches available in their cafés, too. As far as I can tell (and I've asked at the counter), all the sandwiches either have cheese, or meat, or usually both... and there've been several times when I would have loved it had they had a nice tomato, lettuce, and avocado on sourdough... Sound like a good sandwich suggestion for HQ? :)
Cheers,
Erik
P.S. In my message to HQ, would it be too much to ask them to provide customers assurance that the cocoa in their hot chocolate was free trade? :)