Starbucks announced this week that starting Nov. 7, its US and Canadian stores will drop surcharges for plant-based milks — including oat, soy, almond and coconut — that add 70 to 80 cents to the cost of a drink.
It’s a change that plant-based diet advocates have long campaigned for, citing the dairy industry’s grave animal welfare and climate impacts. In 2022, legacy In partnership with actor James Cromwell PETA – superglued himself at a Starbucks counter in New York City to protest the upcharge.
The news comes as the coffee giant tries to win back customers after a while identified drop Sales compared to last year. Some customers are leaving because of inflation, “sticking to $8 lattes, while others are boycotting the chain for various reasons”. The New York Times (Incl Gaza War and union busting, although it is unclear how much this affected Starbucks’ business). The plant did not help the milk fee. In the US, around a quarter As of 2021 data, Starbucks beverages include milk that is ordered with plant-based milk, and adds much more to the cost of a drink to the customer than the actual cost of Starbucks’ plant-based milk.
According to Switch 4 is goodA nonprofit that advocates moving away from dairy and has long campaigned against plant milk surcharges, it cost Starbucks charges 9 to 28 cents extra to make drinks with soy, nut, or oat milk. That means an additional 70- to 80-cent charge can amount to a markup of more than 700 percent, depending on the milk substitute. A Starbucks spokesperson told Vox that the decision to withdraw the surcharge was made for the convenience of customers but did not respond to questions about Switch4Good’s analysis.
The company has also been Case for upcharge Based on the disparity because nearly one-third of Americans — disproportionately people of color — have difficulty digesting lactose, a sugar found in milk.
While changing course on the plant milk upcharge was, after all, a business decision, it could also be a milestone for the food industry. Stagnant efforts to combat climate changeGiven the large carbon footprint of milk. The switch will help more mainstream dairy-free milk, a more humane and sustainable alternative to conventional dairy, in what has otherwise been a turbulent year for the plant-based food market.
Starbucks’ new policy is a big deal for the climate
The social and environmental costs of producing cow’s milk are much higher than those of plant-based milk—costs that are not priced into what consumers pay for dairy, which benefits from government subsidies designed to make animal products cheap and plentiful.
For one, there is animal cruelty. Depends on the dairy business model Artificially impregnating cows and separating them from their calves at birth so that humans can milk them. Calves are usually forced to live alone in small enclosures while dairy cows are housed in large, industrial sheds, costing Short time on pasture.
After multiple cycles of pregnancy and birth, when a dairy cow’s milk productivity declines, she is usually sent to slaughter.
More important to Starbucks Greenhouse gas emissions of milkThat’s more than one-fifth of the company’s global carbon footprint. Milk production drops dramatically More land and waterand contribute far more greenhouse gas emissions and water pollution than plant-based alternatives. Climate scientists agree that reducing dairy and meat consumption in rich countries is a necessary part of climate mitigation.
Starbucks is committed Halve its greenhouse gas emissions by 2030and its extension Plant-based menu options That goal is a key element. Removing the plant’s milk upcharge, a Starbucks spokeswoman said in a statement, also contributes to the company’s sustainability plan.
As of 2023, the coffee chain created Minimal progress towards reducing its carbon footprint; Its overall emissions rose from its 2019 baseline, as its emissions from cow’s milk rose 8 percent during the period. Starbucks is such a large purchaser of milk that dairy emissions across its global operations are equal to the surroundings 2 percentage Emissions from all US dairy production.
Food companies are struggling to reduce their emissions Because most of their menu revolves around meat and dairy, the most carbon-intensive foods. Starbucks’ decision to drop the dairy-free surcharge should help. Substituting nondairy milk is already Starbucks’ second most requested drink customization, according to the company, so the change could push its customers even further to go dairy-free. This can also push other chains to follow.
What the Starbucks shift could mean for the future of plant-based dairy
The move represents a rare win in recent years for the US plant-based food industry. After a meteoric rise in the late 2010s — as Beyond Meat and Impossible Burgers went mainstream and Oatly became the go-to milk for baristas and consumers alike — the sector has since floundered. There are several fast food chains Plant-based burgers have been dropped from their menu, while the responsible livestock sector attacked plant-based startups. Consumers have opted for cheaper animal products amid high inflation.
Plant-based milks, however, have weathered the plant-based response better than most; From 2021 to 2023, Revenue rose 9 percentAccounting for approx 15 percent of total milk sales (Although the number of dairy milk units has decreased). Meanwhile, plant-based meat sales fell an estimated 13 percent during the same period.
Because of Starbucks’ size and influence, dairy-free milk’s market share could grow — and cow’s milk sales, which have been declining for decades, could decline even further.
Starbucks’ policy change, however, is more than a sign of the staying power of plant-based milk; It demonstrates the potential of plant-based and anti-factory farming movements to apply sustained pressure on corporations and get results.
PETA and Switch 4 is good It has been calling on the company to withdraw the surcharge for years. Although Starbucks said the change was a business decision, protests, celebrity endorsements and petitions likely helped, creating the perception that charging more for plant-based options was unfair. And there have been protests at times ridicule As the work of vegans angry at the 70-cent charge, the successful campaign will now primarily benefit Starbucks’ millions of nonvegan customers who only enjoy plant-based milk or need it because of lactose intolerance (and, of course, factory-farmed cows and the climate).
“This action follows a vigorous five-year campaign, letters from more than 160,000 PETA supporters, protests at Starbucks across the country, and help from actor James Cromwell… as well as an appeal from Sir Paul McCartney,” the PETA statement read. PETA suspended its campaign in September to give the new Starbucks CEO, Brian Nichol, time to “make the right decision.” “And he delivered.”
If Starbucks wanted to, it could go further by making plant-based milk the default option for its dairy drinks. In 2022, Blue Bottle, a Nestlé-owned upscale coffee chain with nearly 100 locations worldwide, announced that it was creating Oat milk is the default milk on beverage orders at US locations as part of a larger effort to reduce carbon emissions. Now, if a Blue Bottle customer wants cow’s milk, they have to request it, but most don’t; Months after making the switch, Blue Bottle reported that 63 percent of consumers were sticking with oat milk.
The blue bottle approach, which Other food companies also adopted, showing how much our food choices are influenced by our food environment. Small changes — from eliminating surcharges to changing default options — can move us toward a more climate-friendly future. Starbucks is the latest, and largest, company to put conventional dairy and plant-based milk on a level playing field. Others should follow.
