Is Starbucks Evil?

We’ve all heard the anti-corporation brigade yelling about Starbucks and how it’s turning the world into a giant corporate generic mess, exploiting farm workers in the third world, driving small cafes out of business, and burning their beans to make them look darker. But Starbucks says they’re a model corporate citizen, donating large amounts of money to the third world, rejuvenating neighborhoods and employing thousands as they pay above market rates.

So who is right? Is Starbucks really evil? You decide.

The negatives:

* The Organic Consumers Association says Starbucks is lagging on using Fair Trade coffee, where the grower of the coffee bean itself is paid a living wage, no matter what the going rate of coffee is. “Despite repeated pledges, Starbucks is still buying coffee and chocolate produced under exploitative labor conditions, and in the case of cocoa plantations in Africa, workers who are actually slaves.” According to Global Exchange, Starbucks buys over 100 million pounds of coffee each year, yet less than 1% is purchased from coffee farmers who are guaranteed a living wage. Source: Scotland on Sunday, May 4, 2003

* Starbucks employees aren’t always happy with their bosses, and that’s why they formed the Starbucks Baristas Union. The union, along with fair trade outfit, Global Exchange, want Starbucks to increase the amount of fair trade coffee they purchase from 1% to 5%. Says the union leaders, “We see our struggles for humane wages and working conditions as united [with the coffee growers [-] No longer will Starbucks be allowed to run roughshod over its baristas or coffee farmers.” Source: Inter Press Service, July 7, 2004

* Starbucks was called to task by environmentalists “for failing to adhere to its Environmental Mission Statement by slipping from industry leader to laggard on Fair Trade, and for adopting a patchwork approach to sustainability through its “Commitment to Origins” line of coffees.” Source: The Green Life

* Though Starbucks makes claims of improving workers conditions in the third world, the company will not allow human rights monitors to verify their claims. Critics say that there is little evidence that any improvement programs have been implemented. Source: Biodemocracy News, March 2001

* Starbucks refuses to guarantee that milk, beverages, chocolate, ice cream, and baked goods sold in the company’s stores are free of genetically-modified ingredients, including recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH), a Monsanto-produced cow steroid. The substance is banned in every industrialized nation besides the U.S., because it is known to cause health problems in dairy cows, and is “associated with a higher risk of cancer in humans.” Source: Biodemocracy News