Did Starbucks back down too fast in insects-in-Frappuccinos flap?

Rick Sinnott writes:

"Starbucks wasn’t forcing anyone to drink their cochineal-laced frappuccinos. By demanding that the company replace the cochineal extract with lycopene, vegans and animal-rights activists may have done Mother Earth a great disservice. Fifty years after the publication of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” and people still prefer ingesting pesticides to a few powdered, organic bugs?"

* Did Starbucks back down too fast in flap over insects?

Comments

[Mark]

Did anybody claim the drink was in-fact vegan??

Here we go again with a fringe group trying to force the rest of society to cow-tow to their absurd diet.

[thetruth]

It's a tomato. Chill.

[Marcus]

As I posted over on the original article, it's one thing to accidentally eat insects, it's another entirely to industrially farm insects and then boil them in ammonia to add to food products to make them look pretty. You don't need to be a vegan to not want ammonia-boiled insects that come from some factory from God knows where in your food. Why should you need to add dye of any kind? But if you are adding dye, as a vegetarian and someone who doesn't like gross things like ammonia and scale insects, I prefer tomatoes. The author of the article makes it sound like people are picking up these insects from a meadow and adding them one by one to the Frappacccinos. It's not quite that natural or simple.

I think the bigger question no one is asking is, if it's a strawberry frappaccino, why aren't there strawberries in the drinking turning it pink?

[veganbarista]

A fringe group trying to force their absurd diet down people's throats -_-
@Mark how about the fact that even though I find meat, dairy and eggs reprehensible, immoral, and artery clogging, I am forced to prepare 200 slimy sausage egg sandwiches every morning and basically pour gallons upon gallons of stolen, pus-filled milk, caramel and whipped cream down the gullets of nonstop line of obese customers.
That's shoving a DIET down someone's throat brother, and just at work too! Veganism is a lifestyle grounded in compassion, and avoidance of exploitation, not dietary choices.
I don't say a peep all day long about how gross I feel doing all that crap, and so excuse me if I want to indulge in a treat that I have to pay extra for if I'm not on the clock, and don't want a bunch of ammonia boiled beetles swirled all in.
And no one "claimed" frapps were vegan, but it's not rocket science to substitute soy and omit whip. Don't be such a ja.

[Hirayuki]

@veganbarista: Some would say you're not a very good vegan if you're choosing to participate daily in the gross commodification of animals and animal products. I have to assume no one has put a gun to your head. Isn't there another job you could take instead?

[ncsm]

Yet another example of what a completely spineless operation Starbucks is. They will cave in to just about special interest demand for the sake of appearing "responsive"

[I <3 music]

Is this another example of corporate america and the BIG BUG lobbyist trying to force their agenda on us.

[duh]

damned if you do, damned if you don't

[thetruth]

@marcus it's been used for hundreds upon hundreds of years.
@veganbarista no. No one is forcing you to do anything. You are choosing to work at a job that goes against what you believe. That says more about you than about the company you work for.

[Caroline Russell]

As a vegetarian, I am in favor of the change. However, the fact that Starbucks uses cochineal is not new - I remember reading about it a long time ago. I just don't partake in the items containing it. Although I understand why vegans and vegetarians are upset that they have been consuming a product not in line with their chosen diet, I think that it's unfair to act as if they have been deceived. When you are a vegetarian or vegan, you have to take some responsibility for checking the ingredients in foods. New converts can be excused for some ignorance, but anyone who has put a little effort in checking ingredients knows that there are many products out there that appear to be vegan and/or vegetarian, but aren't. For example, Skittles, Starburst, and many other candies contain gelatin, which is not vegetarian.

That said, I'm a bit baffled by the reactions of many non-vegetarians/vegans... it seems like a non-issue to me, and the apparent hostility towards people who benefit from a change in recipe seems a bit over the top.

As for environmental concerns, I don't think that has anything to do with why MOST people become vegetarian or vegan. Sure, there are statistics and stuff out there that might make a good argument, but I really can't see too many people going veg for that reason alone.

And I wouldn't say that Starbucks is "spineless." It's probably just an easy enough fix that it's worth it to them to make a change. Starbucks is a business, if they can turn this situation around to their advantage without too much trouble, why wouldn't they? It's a bit silly to vilify them for their response to this situation.

[crayton-story]

If I had a choice of a colorless drink without bugs or a pink drink with bugs, I will take dye free. Although Malcom Gladwell did write in 'Blink' that the color of a Sprite can influences the taste people describe. It is a Lemon-Lime drink and in a pure yellow can people report a perceived different taste. So we do this (add dyes) for a reason. I would be happy will no dyes, either bugs or chemicals. Thanks

[Stan]

you will have no dyes. and then you will not buy product. because it looks like swill. upsell a raspberry green tea frappucino to someone. it tastes delicious. looks like crap.

[really?]

Wow
veganbarista needs a head check! Is it me or he/she contradicts himself through that whole comment and in life!
As far as this debate goes how hard is it to see that if you don't like to eat bugs then just don't buy the product. There's your choice. Get over it