|
 egular coffee
drinkers are known for a touch of pre-cup grumpiness. But last Tuesday,
thousands of caffeine-deprived
souls remained out-of-sorts even after a normally nerve-soothing
visit to Starbucks. They were piqued because protesters had been
telling them what sorts of lattes they could and could not drink.
The demonstrations, which took place in over 100 cities, were staged
by the Organic Consumers Association, a "grassroots organization
seeking organic, non-irradiated food for human and animal health."
The OCA was joined by a patchwork of disaffected "pure-food" advocates.
(My apologies to all the unnamed groups, but left-wing protesters
spring up like mushrooms around a manure pile, so it's impossible
to keep track of them all.)
Now I love protests more than politicians love, well, themselves,
so I decided to check out the action at the Dupont Circle Starbucks.
My first sight was a 50ish, long-haired-yet-balding man — a
jittery version of Frohike from the X-Files — hassling
the teenage counter girl for only offering "fair-trade" coffee beans,
not the brewed stuff. Nothing screams "revolution" like hectoring
a high-school kid.
Outside, about 15 people were pacing the classic protester circle
and handing out Xeroxed brochures on the evils of genetic engineering.
Squared off against them, Galileo v. Inquisition style, were ten
grinning counterprotesters, waving homemade signs that read "I love
Starbucks a latte!" and "Don't tell me what to drink." The anti-Starbucks
crowd seemed offended by the confrontation. The sullen fellow from
the counter muttered, "Just wait until you demonstrate against something
and we show up."
The riposte: "Of course you'll be there: We only protest you guys."
There was no real drama in the streets, but the scene was far more
impressive than the protesters' arguments. The company, it seems,
is being pilloried for three things: first, for using dairy products
that come from cows treated with bovine growth hormone (rBST); second,
for not doing enough to raise wages in coffee-bean growing countries;
and third, for not selling brewed "fair-trade" coffee in its cafés.
In addition, the protesters demand that Starbucks abjure genetically
engineered coffee, which the company doesn't sell.
Fearing bad publicity, Starbucks is folding faster than a Gap employee
in training. Starbucks CEO Orin Smith issued a statement saying
that the company soon hopes "to be able to offer all of our milk
products rBST-free."
There's certainly nothing wrong with Starbucks responding to consumer
demand by offering such milk as an option. Businesses succeed by
catering to the tastes of their various customers, even when those
tastes are based on irrational fear.
But it's a mistake to go full-bore anti-technology. Cows treated
with rBST produce as much as 15 percent more milk than untreated
cows, which translates into cheaper cappuccino. The Food and Drug
Administration--not known for its willingness to let risky products
on the market--has repeatedly determined that rBST is safe and that,
in fact, milk from hormone-treated cows can't be distinguished from
other milk. As former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has said,
"Milk from cows given [rBST] is the same as any other milk. So,
there should be no doubt in the minds of consumers that the milk
they drink is just as safe, nutritious and wholesome as it has always
been."
The OCA's demand for organic farming is equally senseless. A worldwide
switch to such methods, which are far more resource-intensive than
modern farming, would starve millions of people and doom many endangered
species. Meanwhile, the supposed health and environmental benefits
of organic foods have been debunked repeatedly by scientists.
American consumers consistently show that they aren't afraid of
biotechnology. Yet the OCA's letter to Starbucks warned that, "As
consumer concern over genetically engineered food increases … Starbucks
may face financial and reputational risks from product recalls or
from consumer protests outside your cafes, boycotts, shifts to other
brands, and shareholder protests."
Of course, what the authors really mean is that "our groups will
protest outside your cafés" and "we will buy $10 of your stock and
raise hell at your meetings." That isn't a mass-consumer movement,
it's a threat. Their ultimatum is spelled out near the end of the
letter: "If you are unwilling to contact us and begin negotiations
that will result in a time-line for implementation of these three
demands, you leave us no choice but to launch a national and global
campaign highlighting Starbuck's unwillingness to address consumer
demands for safe foods sustainably produced."
Comply, or we will bury you.
Who are these people to "negotiate" on my behalf? If coffee drinkers
become concerned about the safety of Starbucks products, they will
stop going there. Shareholders will dump its stock and the company's
profits will plummet faster than Bill Clinton's poll numbers. Is
any of this happening? Of course not.
Worst of all, the OCA would throw thousands of Third-World workers
out of their jobs by insisting on policies intended to artificially
inflate wages in coffee-producing nations. Refusing to trade with
countries that cannot match U.S. wages or working conditions is
exactly the wrong approach to raising living standards abroad. The
OCA's brand of humanitarian protectionism may be "killing with kindness,"
but it is killing nonetheless.
American businesses should stop pandering to the fear and ignorance
of the political fringe. If OCA members want to grow food the way
my great-great-grandfather did, fine. Just let me enjoy my morning
coffee in peace. Please.
|
