August 21st, 2005
Starbucks = fat
As I was reading the comments on this Swedish post on coffee, I was reminded on a little piece of fact from the great book titelled “Fat – The Anthropology Of An Obsession
Two new products, the Strawberries & Crème Frappuccino Blended Crème and the Double Chocolate Chip Frappuccino Blended Crème recently earned the “Food Porn of the Month Award” from the Center for the Science in the Public Interest’s (CPSI) Nutrition Action Healthletter. Past winners of this award include the Coconut Crème Frappuccino and the Vanilla Crème Frappucino. This award is not for the best hard-core food ad but for food products the CPSI considers to be impressively unhealthy. A 20-ounce venti of either of these products has over 600 calories and while the Strawberries & Crème has 7 grams of fat, the Double Chocolate Chip Frappuccino contains 16 grams of fat. (Venti means “really big” for those not fluent in American coffee café Italian). Neither drink actually contains coffee; the Nutrition Action Healthletter calls them “fattuccinos” – more like milk shakes than coffee.
August 21st, 2005 at 22:03
Yeah, yeah. I know. But I don’t drink that stuff. A regular Frappuccino is *not* that bad – the size I get is just a little over 300 kcals. Which is ok. Because – it tastes like heaven. Ooooh.. Starbucks. Please. Please come to Sweden. Soon.
(And the mug was very cute by the way.)
August 22nd, 2005 at 07:46
Ha, I read you; another addict read. As you well know I condemn Starbucks, not only because of their crappuccinos (of which the above contain no coffee) but because of their worthless “human relations” and their being a ruthless corporation. But as long as you can get your fix…
I say let the rotters rot. Their growing coffee in third-world countries is very Nike-esque. As long as the consumers don’t see the slow, tearing destruction of the people and their countries at the bottom of the coffee-cup [how poetic of me], people will cheerfully rhyme “venti” and “frappuccino” with “staggering child-mortality-rates”.
Besides, there’s another part of that very article I quoted from, where Americans are treated to a fairly new phenomenon. As they use faux-sugar, sweet-n-low and other ingredients in their coffee, simply to relieve the feeling that they have stuffed their bodies with stuff that should not be there, they award themselves with putting “sinful” (which is the word most Americans use in this context, when eating something “they really shouldn’t” – also taken from said article) stuff on top, e.g. whipped cream and real sugar. Oh mother.
So terrible “sweeteners” get juiced up by the real deal as well, as the consumer drinks a “Kenyan styled” (which is a clever marketing scheme that means the coffee styled doesn’t have to have a thing to do with Kenya) frappuccino, not giving a turd sandwich about what the worker in that Starbucks earns an hour while the board of Starbucks gets richer and richer, and earns loads of tax cuts (including the famous death tax, in the USA of course) which, in turn, leads them to pave the way for international “success”?
I thought Hitler was loathed for doing the above, yet most people (and this is not specifically pointed at you, Anne) gulp this process down with the sweetened taste of success that only a mocca-double-gulp-venti-frappuccino-raspberry-(no-coffee-tho) can give. I mean, isn’t it strange that Starbucks-employees form a quasi-union on the web to show the world what’s going on, as their employer is vehemently against unions? No, it’s not. I like it when the underdog rears its rear against its master, but the real responsibility lies with the consumer.
Just check out The Delocator, a site set up only to provide people with alternatives to coffee-huts steered by transnational corporations. Is it needed? As Beck would put it: hell yes. Just check this simple little page to become convinced. And if you’re not, convince me why you’re right.
Here’s a telling little picture.
August 22nd, 2005 at 18:45
mmm!!! just had a venti double chocolate chip frappuccino with nico and ynot yesterday!!! mmm!!! soooo gooooood…..
August 22nd, 2005 at 22:14
Goes to show some people won’t and don’t care, even if other people starve and are killed so they can have their coffee. The very same goes for people wearing Nike despite their sweat-shops where children work until they’re unfit to.
All in the name of the corporations, and, of course, religion.
August 22nd, 2005 at 23:03
oh, was I supposed to read what you wrote? all I saw was double chocolate chip frappuccino.
hmm…you know, you need to lighten up. everything has unintended consequences, including boycotting products.
August 22nd, 2005 at 23:20
Actually, a nice venti frappuccino (your choice of flavor) should help you feel much much better! Mmm!
Look, I even punctuated and capitalized to soothe you.
August 23rd, 2005 at 09:08
Boycotting multi-national corporations does extremely seldom mean bad consequences for others than said corporations. On the contrary. For a quite fresh example, check this post on some of the doings of the biggest terrorist nation in the world, plus how a few Indian women fought to topple Coca-Cola and Pepsi from draining their wells and indirectly, yet very intently, killing their young.
I believe you forget you’re writing “lighten up” to a person who’s very personally afflicted by these things: I don’t really mind you not giving a fuck about how, for example, friends of mine were precision-bombed by a government merely trying to play out its God complex while acting world police in accordance with their own laws, or that you have no care about the consequences of child-labour or that corporations empty the natural resources of poor countries, but I do mind your not thinking that your actions have no consequences; even though you may not even be reading this, I believe you have voted for Bush twice, correct?
Like Ice Cube, an American black rapper once said: “Don’t tell me to get down/It’s all about coming up”. But those blacks are really too much in your face, right? They need to lighten up. It all remembers me of two Bill Hicks-lines, independent of each-other:
“Hey, you sick fuck! What else do you do? Walk up to a cripple and dance?”
“Just remove the safety-labels off every product in this country, and the problem will take care of itself.”
August 23rd, 2005 at 18:48
hmm…I don’t know where you fact check my voting record. As far as I know, I’ve only voted in one Presidential election and it wasn’t for dear W. Oh, I’ve also voted for a new library and an increased school budget.
Well, child labour is a grey area isn’t it? Is it better to have kids working for low wages or no wages at all and have them beg all day for their families or fall into prostitution? Low wages to you may be higher than the other options they have. Yes, now tell me how kids have gone blind, etc. and how I don’t give a shit because of my ignorance. I agree it’s a bad situation, but you can’t just boycott and not give alternative solutions to the problems. Tell me what I can do to help these kids and not just put them out of a job and then I will read and pay attention and support that cause.
I have had many encounters with needy kids and their families growing up in a third world country. I think helping others individually is just as good as trying to impact in a mass way. Depends on what one can do.
me – everything has unintended consequences, including boycotting products.
you – but I do mind your not thinking that your actions have no consequences
Why do you write that I think actions have no consequences? Isn’t that the opposite of what I wrote?
Let’s say one successfully runs a business to the ground by boycotting it, don’t a lot of people lose their jobs? What happens then?
Well, I think I’ve written enough considering my ADD. However, here are some parting words from dear Oingo Bongo,
“If you throw away a knife, if you throw away a knife, the world will never be the same.”
August 24th, 2005 at 03:00
As I guessed your voting pro-Bush, I thought I was correct as you are (according to your telling me) conservative, christian and anti-feministic. On the other hand, political inaction (i.e. choosing not to vote) is just another way of saying one does not care of what happens in one’s society.
I understand your views on child labour, and even though the option you give is likely (i.e. begging opposed to prostitution) I have no statistics, and have found no statistics, reading how common this problem is. Ergo, we (this far) have no idea of how common that type of choice is.
I do, however, know that boycotting corporations that support child labour leads to their changing their ways. How else can a consumer, in the quick run, make these psychopathic entities change? I can think of two ways, yet none of these (usually) provide a quick change:
1. Joining, working for and donating to organisations against human injustice. Amnesty is one of these, ECPAT another, Greenpeace a third, and Doctors Without Borders a fourth, just to draw some very relevant examples, yet there are many more like them worth supporting whole-heartedly.
2. Voting for a good, or, in most cases most likely, voting for the least bad politician (who stands a chance to win). As I’ve written, political inaction (at least on election day) is a political contribution as valid, and just as strong, as casting one’s vote for a party. As actions have consequences, most people know that not acting also has consequences, especially in the political arena.
Boycotting a corporation is much like boycotting a psychopath. You’re dealing with an entity working to reach its goals no matter what the consequences are; mostly this means no matter what, which is quite frankly put in most cases where the actions of corporations are defined, e.g. in the documentary “The Corporation“: to make money. In my example from India, the women of Adivasi fought Coca-Cola and Pepsi as their lands and families were being killed. The corporations did not care, and even tried to bribe their way to exploiting the natural resources until they would dry up, killing vast numbers of people.
According to your logic, these people should not have boycotted Coca-Cola and Pepsi, as that would have put workers at Coca-Cola and Pepsi out of their jobs. I, however, put the problem into a different perspective: if these people wouldn’t have, their families, earth and futures would have died, literally.
Even though this example is harsh, it touches the problem at its core. Even if we adapt your example of not opting to boycott with the end-consumers, problems quickly arise. Let me give you an example:
I opt to support a few organisations that are against human injustice, donating money to them, as I boycott certain corporations, e.g. McDonalds. In this example, I don’t target a certain restaurant, but the corporation in itself. Hence, I never eat at McDonalds, pay for their products or endorse them in any way. There are numerous accounts of just how psychopathically this corporation acts, yet there are, and can be, no real statistics that effectively show how my not purchasing or endorsing this corporation affects their workers. Granted, running a horrid, unethical business like McDonalds into bankruptcy leads to workers being laid off, and the corporation (with its psychopathic ways) is stopped. So, what is the alternative? It is simple: the psychopathic entity continues to act. Is this acceptable? No.
As I support organisations that work for giving the people in third-world countries alternatives, and at the same time try to stop corporations and business working merely for money and against basic, human, ethical claims; e.g. I give children an alternative to working at Nike or becoming prostitutes. And it’s easy. One merely has to donate a small sum to these organisations and effectively boycott the unethical companies.
It’s a matter of not being a sheep; while one’s co-workers may all flock off to McDonalds every lunch-break they get, I can’t help but think of the consequences. And while drinking at Starbucks may feel fine for some, I couldn’t do that and say I’m against psychopathic entities (i.e. most corporations).
There is a third option to the two above that I mentioned: civil disobedience. If one should choose to do as you and not accept boycotting, many actions of the US government for the past decades would be unacceptable (by your own standards). For example: as many countries boycotted Iraq in a variety of ways while unified bombing their civil population and infrastructure (including their water-supply and their crops), hundreds of thousands of people died simply because the boycott partially meant that Iraq was not allowed to import medicines for its population. Here’s a quote from U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to Lesley Stahl’s question on “60 Minutes” on 1996-05-12:
As a bonus, here’s a fair view of this quote, taken from this page:
This is not an extreme example, neither is it a country-bound one, but it explains that you, according to your own device against boycotting, support civil disobedience (as I bluntly guess you do not support the killing of innocent people in Iraq). I’m with you, so far. At the same time, I say boycott whatever you will, as this is the advantage of living in a capitalistic society; everybody does not purchase from every avaiable company, correct? Hence, does my not buying vegetables from a specific supplier mean I’m boycotting them simply because I opt not to? There’s a capitalistic problem for you.
Also: does boycotting child-murdering psychopaths ring bad? Probably not. Does boycotting Nike ring bad? It does? Your problem: Nike is that very child-murdering psychopathic entity. This is exactly like stating that boycotting nazis during WW2 was a bad thing to do.
You do not, as is your right in every aspect, say whether you’ve supported Bush or not during the latest American election, but of course, political inaction during election day does not simply mean one does not care, but also induces hypocrisy; I state this as most of what we do on a daily basis is political: as is obvious, opting where you drink your coffee is a political choice.
I’ll leave with words from other sayers:
Primal Scream, “Swastika Eyes“:
Faithless, “Weapons of Mass Destruction“:
August 25th, 2005 at 19:34
Goodness, I’ll read your reply in its entirety later. Let me clarify my “poliltical inaction”. I’ve only voted in one presidential election because I’ve only qualified for one. Got it? OK! And in the previous one I wasn’t qualified for, I donated to the Green party. OK? Happy? Now off to lunch!
August 29th, 2005 at 17:14
*k*
“Well, child labour is a grey area isn’t it? Is it better to have kids working for low wages or no wages…”
That comment kind of shows what your “state of mind”.
Children are children, they should not have to work for a living.
And in the majority of countries where children forced to be working, its the direct cause of transnational companies and foreign governments indirectly/directly forcing them to do so.
Since US is run by the companies first and then government, their objectives are clear. Financial growth is more important than human rights.
So of course they will act in that order too, you will get your product for a fair price and then that same company will have posters on campaigns where they are “giving back to society” and everybody (almost) will fall for it.
When a company bears the direct responsibility for killing their slave labour in a poor country just to get a cheap product to sell to you and then acting like a “nice” company that gives back to society, i mean thats great isnt it?!
They are giving the blood money that they earn in for example south america back to the society where you live, good solution?
And then lets not forget that the product that you are buying could also be the cause for people dying in the US (like one to many crapuccinos;)
You are not affected by it so who cares, right?
Forgive me, you did care. You stated that is better that children work instead of being unemployed..
When people like Niklas write about these companies and helps to spread the word about the bad things that they do to humanity, you should take it to heart and appreciate it rather than making comments about how good the crappucccino you are drinking is.
I mean the level of fat that they are serving in one drink, surely will help to kill of a couple americans. And as long as you are not personally affected, who cares? Right?
Hope your next Frappuccino tastes GREAT!
/Rad-e
August 30th, 2005 at 01:16
You are totally correct that children should be children and should not work. I agree.
You’ll have to remember that the original post is about the fattiness of frappuccinos and had nothing to say about their company policies. I was merely commenting on that. If people cannot control their intake, that is their problem. I don’t see why I can’t have one now and then because other people can’t control themselves. The last time I had a venti, it was split up between Nico, Tony and myself. 3 people sharing one drink! I’ve heard stories where Niklas has had 6 beers in a row. That’s up to him now isn’t it? Enjoy life when you can albeit in moderation.
I will look into the kind of company Starbucks is. I do appreciate your concerns. I just don’t like the approach. I don’t appreciate all the assumptions that were made about me (incorrect ones even more).
As for now, forgive me for enjoying a frappuccino. Enjoy your beers. I’m sure you both research every product you buy or download.
Get the balance right. -DM
August 30th, 2005 at 12:52
Honestly, I’m sorry for assuming things about you, K. On the other hand, you’re hypocritical in first writing that you dislike my assumptions, and then move on to make assumptions about me, even though they may be satirical. If that’s balance, I want to stay skewed.
I agree with Rade in his writing that child-labour is not to be applauded in any way. There is really no grey area regarding that.
I don’t care how many people share one single coffee-cup at Starbucks; as long as they know it’s the same as saying “here’s to another little nail in the coffin of free enterprise and the underdogs”. They probably think that feeling’s worth every inkling of well-being they’ll feel afterwards. That’s when I’ll reach for my verbal revolver.
August 30th, 2005 at 16:22
*K*
“I’m sure you both research every product you buy or download.”
Oh never saw that one coming..
Its all black or white isnt it!!
For starters it good to know about these little things about the corporations.
Off course neither me or Niklas know the history behind every product we consume, but the difference between us and you is that we are somewhat concious about it.
Knowledge is helping us making the right choices.
And thats where it starts, and that is something you should be thinking of.
Why? Well in today’s western “civilization” we are mainly ruled by the theories of capitalism. We get all the nice frappucinos and people that grind our coffee in colombia dont get shit, thats mainly how it works.
And see some day this will cause the end of humanity, not in our lifetime maybe (if bush junior doesnt decide to press the funny red button in his bedroom). But we are truly fucking it up for future generations.
But but but, there is one big flaw with this corrupted system, and thats the greed factor.
What this means is the real power is in our hands, the consumers.. Although the system has an incredible advantage over us consumers we still got the power, cause we have what they want…
Dwell on that and enjoy LIFE with a TINY TINY TINY bit of concern for everybody thats dying to making your life a great one.
/Rade
September 1st, 2005 at 02:34
OK, I am tired, but I will say this- my whole point was that things are grey and not black and white. I’ve never said anything that glorified child labour if you read clearly. I really haven’t stated my personal opinions have I? I don’t feel I need to. I’ve merely brought up questions.
Think of me what you will. You’ve seemed to have a hold of what I am from a very wee wee bit of misinterpreted posts and information.
Try not to assume too much about anyone or anything.
September 1st, 2005 at 04:17
And yes, Niklas, I am sorry for telling you to lighten up. I am sorry for the beers comment. Weaknesses on my part.
September 1st, 2005 at 13:06
Cant help myself..
“I’ve never said anything that glorified child labour if you read clearly. ”
and before that
“Is it better to have kids working for low wages or no wages at all…”
(Hello.. republican convention up in here?)
Oh yea that’s cleary only bringing up a question and its not reflecting your personal opinion.. (yea right)
And the assumptions will continue, against anyone who votes for world nazi party – the republicans. Believe that! (Vote Ralph Nader or Al Sharpton next time and assumptions will end
So Basically
?
EITHER U WITH US OR AGAINST US *K*
Sounds familiar
If you gonna come at us, u better come strong. wha wha whaaaaaaat!
/ #1 Stunna
September 1st, 2005 at 15:00
If the republicans assume that the Birdman is the #1 Stunna, does that mean we shouldn’t believe it to be so?
I’m against the Dubya fascists: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/30/bush.ap/index.html
Check that and then cry for the USA (and Argentina). “You can’t call the attack on Iraq a war. A war is when two armies are fighting.” –>Bill “God” Hicks
September 2nd, 2005 at 02:22
Rade, all you’ve proven is you can’t comprehend what you’ve read nor use apostrophes where needed.
September 4th, 2005 at 14:04
Apostrophes, I dont really care about them when writing posts on the internet. Must be somekind of MSN/IRC disease that ive caught.
I’ll try to better myself, maybe. (oh I have read your comments in this blog that show your English is crap so don’t (
September 4th, 2005 at 14:05
( my post got cut off, here is the rest)
All you have proven is that you are not a rocket scientist even though you are born in a NASA office.
Again:
“Is it better to have kids working for low wages or no wages at all”
- hello? Anybody home? Children of the third world calling *K*.
We just wanted to say that we would rather play than work, we hope that you can let NIKE employ your children instead since you are the one benefiting from the labour anyway..
“Tell me what I can do to help these kids and not just put them out of a job and then I will read and pay attention and support that cause.”
- hello again, children calling. We have a problem with the childrens union, the 5 year old president is not able to shorten our working day from 16h to none. PAY ATTENTION – WE THE CHILDREN SHOULD NOT WORK UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, GET IT!!! HELLO DO YOU GET IT?
WAGES OR NO WAGES! CHILDREN = NO WORK
“I have had many encounters with needy kids and their families growing up in a third world country.” (my favorite)
HELLO!!!!!! Children calling, if you grew up in a third world country, how come you have a problem understanding this miss?
Please help us, we do not want to work… please…
Whatever I comprehend or do not comprehend is rather uninteresting when we just sit down and think about it. I mean we a have girl/woman here from a third world country that is writing outlandish shit..
And then we have me that is just not taking this to seriously because I can not belive that one can grow up in a third world country and see consequenses of what we are talking about and still say that its better that children work for salary than no salary (like one dollar per year is a salary)..
No miss *K*, im not the one who should prove myself!
August 6th, 2007 at 23:58
Venti is ‘20′ in latin/italian (thus a 20oz cup).
September 21st, 2007 at 10:57
[...] I was thinking about how much fat a regular coffee in Stockholm (meaning the caffé latte) contains nowadays, I started feeling [...]