Like everyone else, I indulge in the occasional pumpkin spice latte. Occasional, because the other times I'm sitting in the cafe doing work, I've ordered a caramel macchiato. I'm at Starbucks doing schoolwork so often that the baristas know me by name. I spend quite a few dollars a week there, though more than I should, because I'm up charged an extra 60 cents because I can't have dairy.
Starbucks offers two non-dairy options, coconut milk and soy silk, both organic, and both delicious. I usually indulge in the coconut milk, but sometimes switch it up for the soy. Regardless of which milk I choose, I'm paying a premium because I'm lactose intolerant.
I understand why a company might feel they need to charge extra for something special, like a non-dairy milk. The average customer orders whole, or skim, or 2-percent milk, the latter being the standard. Therefore, the company needs to pay extra for the coconut and soy milks to keep them in stock. I don't have a number or the statistics to back it up, but I always hear people ordering soy lattes.
If I order three drinks a week, I'm charged an extra $1.80 a week. That's about $7.20 a month, and about $86.40 a year. I don't see why Starbucks, the largest coffee corporation in the world, shouldn't pick up that tab. It's an unfortunate truth that non-dairy milk options cost more than cow milk due to factory farming, but the price per ounce is not all that different. It's also true that Starbucks used to offer free milk options to My Starbucks Rewards members, though they nixed that deal for different, but still good, rewards.
It's time that Starbucks stop discriminating against vegans, lactose sensitive customers, and people who just plain like that smooth coconut milk taste. Everyone should be able to drink the kind of milk they need or want to without being up charged a huge amount of moolah from an already expensive coffee company.
