Not a fan of Starbucks, but I've gotta give 'em credit. Under their new regime, they've gotten rid of the surcharge for non-dairy milks. Now I don't mind making Starbucks an option when I have to get a coffee super-early before my neighborhood coffee shop opens or when I'm flagging in the afternoon at work. No surcharge is cheaper for me and simpler for all involved.
"And I know it costs around $12 for eight quarts. So letâs do the math: if youâre only using about three ounces per drink⌠youâre not just covering costs."
Let's do the math -- 8 quarts = two gallons. But in reality, Costco's package is 1.5 gallons. Milk is what, $6 a gallon? So it is a little more expensive. And businesses aren't supposed to just cover costs.
But that being said, I'm just being snarky, and I completely agree it's egregious. 50 cents maybe.
@2 Yes, but I think the OP is calling for a more equitable arrangement whereby everyone shares that extra cost instead of placing the entire burden on the lactose-intolerant. Seems reasonable enough to me.
@3: Should you pay a little more for your burger so that someone can enjoy a Filet Mignon at a restaurant? Same thing. It isn't a "burden" when someone pays more for a pricier option. The lactose-intolerant are not some marginalized community who need a campaign for their "rights". Your micro socialism is what's unreasonable here.
@4 Thing is, for the lactose-intolerant it's not an "option." Your analogy fails unless you can find someone who's allergic to burgers but not to steak.
@5: I wouldn't put those who are lactose intolerant (including myself) in a disadvantaged category. We can have an Americano with Pumpkin Spice and a little cream instead of having a latte. So yeah, plant based milk is an option.
Also, plant based milk, especially almond milk, takes vast amounts of water to produce. So why encourage it?
It is worth pointing out that cows contribute to global warming. This includes milk. The idea that someone would charge more for non-dairy "milk" instead of cows milk is not only cold blooded for the customers but it is damaging to the environment.
Just make sure with this little boycott of yours you make it clear why this is happening. Don't be a typical passive-aggressive Seattleite and stop going without at least talking to the manager (if not writing them a letter). Personally I wouldn't hesitate to get all "New York" on them. Ask very loudly why they charge more for oats milk even though cows milk is much worse for the environment.
I'm embarrassed to say i couldn't resist doing the actual math.
One data point here basically but Costco 2 gal of milk (256oz) pack is $7.11 = $0.33 for 10oz
Kirkland oatmilk is 11.91 for 192oz = $0.74 for 10oz.
(I think oatmilk is a lot better than almond re the wasting water in Cali thing right?, so not a factor here?).
So what, $0.40 cents in material cost. Maybe a $0.35 mark up, some of that for the inconvenience... Need to clean an extra steam bucket thing. hold more inventory.
Seems reasonable. Both sides really.
I'm not sure subsidizing for the lactose intolerant is reasonably viable? I am not intolerant but prefer milk alts for certain drinks...
You're already paying $7 for someone else to make you a cup of hot bean flavored water... If $8 is gonna break your bank maybe stay home and make it yourself instead?
Sounds like oa has the perfect solution, stay home, brew your own and save a few $. On a related note regarding nich customers, a certain fast food place has a sign posted saying all products served here may contain traces of the following: (insert laundry list of allergens here).
@11/12: You're not home and want a latte but there's no time to go home and fix it and still make your meeting on time and you need a caffeine fix now.....
@9 Bullshit. First of all, it isn't "cow farts" you moron. It is as much the cows burping as anything else. But more importantly you are completely wrong on all points: https://www.treehugger.com/oat-milk-vs-cows-milk-5223129. To quote two sentences from this scientifically based summary:
Just one cup of cow's milk comes in at 1.3 pounds of greenhouse gas emissions, three times higher than any plant-based alternative. Cow's milk is indisputably the most water-intensive milk type, just one gallon requiring a staggering 628 gallons of water.
Each sentence has a study to back it up. Next time do a little research about a subject you obviously know little about before trying to correct someone.
@14: You stupid treehugger - do you research the subject yourself or just pretend that you did? From the article you linked to:
"The good news is that a reported 85% of their water intake comes from rainâgreen waterâwhile only 8% of it is blue. That percentage varies depending on each farm location's precipitation levels. Cattle farms in Canada have a much lower blue water footprint than those in perpetually parched California, for instance."
SIMPLETASTE Milk Frother, 4-in-1 Electric Milk Steamer, Automatic Warm and Cold Foam Maker and Milk Warmer for Latte, Cappuccinos, Macchiato
Visit the SIMPLETASTE Store
@16, I drink both dairy and non-dairy milk, and my experience with the milk frothers I've tried is that they sadly don't work on non-dairy. They will warm it but not make it the quality of foam you get at a coffee shop.
Not a fan of Starbucks, but I've gotta give 'em credit. Under their new regime, they've gotten rid of the surcharge for non-dairy milks. Now I don't mind making Starbucks an option when I have to get a coffee super-early before my neighborhood coffee shop opens or when I'm flagging in the afternoon at work. No surcharge is cheaper for me and simpler for all involved.
Two things:
"And I know it costs around $12 for eight quarts. So letâs do the math: if youâre only using about three ounces per drink⌠youâre not just covering costs."
Let's do the math -- 8 quarts = two gallons. But in reality, Costco's package is 1.5 gallons. Milk is what, $6 a gallon? So it is a little more expensive. And businesses aren't supposed to just cover costs.
But that being said, I'm just being snarky, and I completely agree it's egregious. 50 cents maybe.
@2 Yes, but I think the OP is calling for a more equitable arrangement whereby everyone shares that extra cost instead of placing the entire burden on the lactose-intolerant. Seems reasonable enough to me.
@3: Should you pay a little more for your burger so that someone can enjoy a Filet Mignon at a restaurant? Same thing. It isn't a "burden" when someone pays more for a pricier option. The lactose-intolerant are not some marginalized community who need a campaign for their "rights". Your micro socialism is what's unreasonable here.
@4 Thing is, for the lactose-intolerant it's not an "option." Your analogy fails unless you can find someone who's allergic to burgers but not to steak.
the upcharge is the penalty for ruining a perfectly good latte with non-diary milk đ
@5: I wouldn't put those who are lactose intolerant (including myself) in a disadvantaged category. We can have an Americano with Pumpkin Spice and a little cream instead of having a latte. So yeah, plant based milk is an option.
Also, plant based milk, especially almond milk, takes vast amounts of water to produce. So why encourage it?
It is worth pointing out that cows contribute to global warming. This includes milk. The idea that someone would charge more for non-dairy "milk" instead of cows milk is not only cold blooded for the customers but it is damaging to the environment.
Just make sure with this little boycott of yours you make it clear why this is happening. Don't be a typical passive-aggressive Seattleite and stop going without at least talking to the manager (if not writing them a letter). Personally I wouldn't hesitate to get all "New York" on them. Ask very loudly why they charge more for oats milk even though cows milk is much worse for the environment.
@8: Cow farts are not more "worse" for the environment than depleting water tables. Please make a note of it!
I'm embarrassed to say i couldn't resist doing the actual math.
One data point here basically but Costco 2 gal of milk (256oz) pack is $7.11 = $0.33 for 10oz
Kirkland oatmilk is 11.91 for 192oz = $0.74 for 10oz.
(I think oatmilk is a lot better than almond re the wasting water in Cali thing right?, so not a factor here?).
So what, $0.40 cents in material cost. Maybe a $0.35 mark up, some of that for the inconvenience... Need to clean an extra steam bucket thing. hold more inventory.
Seems reasonable. Both sides really.
I'm not sure subsidizing for the lactose intolerant is reasonably viable? I am not intolerant but prefer milk alts for certain drinks...
You're already paying $7 for someone else to make you a cup of hot bean flavored water... If $8 is gonna break your bank maybe stay home and make it yourself instead?
Sounds like oa has the perfect solution, stay home, brew your own and save a few $. On a related note regarding nich customers, a certain fast food place has a sign posted saying all products served here may contain traces of the following: (insert laundry list of allergens here).
@11/12: You're not home and want a latte but there's no time to go home and fix it and still make your meeting on time and you need a caffeine fix now.....
get it?
@9 Bullshit. First of all, it isn't "cow farts" you moron. It is as much the cows burping as anything else. But more importantly you are completely wrong on all points: https://www.treehugger.com/oat-milk-vs-cows-milk-5223129. To quote two sentences from this scientifically based summary:
Just one cup of cow's milk comes in at 1.3 pounds of greenhouse gas emissions, three times higher than any plant-based alternative. Cow's milk is indisputably the most water-intensive milk type, just one gallon requiring a staggering 628 gallons of water.
Each sentence has a study to back it up. Next time do a little research about a subject you obviously know little about before trying to correct someone.
@14: You stupid treehugger - do you research the subject yourself or just pretend that you did? From the article you linked to:
"The good news is that a reported 85% of their water intake comes from rainâgreen waterâwhile only 8% of it is blue. That percentage varies depending on each farm location's precipitation levels. Cattle farms in Canada have a much lower blue water footprint than those in perpetually parched California, for instance."
You pathetic twit!
SIMPLETASTE Milk Frother, 4-in-1 Electric Milk Steamer, Automatic Warm and Cold Foam Maker and Milk Warmer for Latte, Cappuccinos, Macchiato
Visit the SIMPLETASTE Store
https://www.amazon.com/SIMPLETASTE-Electric-Automatic-Cappuccinos-Macchiato/dp/B09WZX5N5W/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?crid=2ON3YZHKL5UGA&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.SScJM4GYRjefhfErzLcT0vYGO8OkJNtnQfvKB-xKgmcxVKmAKP_PBdB93sGfkACM6ikw7SXLVYKV_D4FR4vz58Hvm-tjnRTmvF4CNCMCdq133QpKDpVneIRdMxGfxTN64ru2RPVdmidq8BHCLKz61lRIRLbEhWcIOxTN6WW2XgpduuONopoUjfdYosypQU26OlMOltQ9bnVvuK7cAB1XOpVjLcOeuqLTE53ko_LJOtU.iMsWOB-h44-hhrdNexocuadOrepUnV57UpM8imovR7I&dib_tag=se&keywords=milk%2Bfrother%2Band%2Bsteamer&qid=1761676759&sprefix=milk%2Bfrother%2Caps%2C201&sr=8-1-spons&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9hdGY&th=1
Drink coffee black.
There. I solved all the problems for everyone.
@16, I drink both dairy and non-dairy milk, and my experience with the milk frothers I've tried is that they sadly don't work on non-dairy. They will warm it but not make it the quality of foam you get at a coffee shop.