We all eat. Whether we eat food simply for sustenance or for entertainment
value, it's an important part of life. In the U.S. we are starting to see a
rising debate over "food", from farming practices, to food
production, to diets, to grocery costs. A major player in the campaign for
ingredients transparency is Vani Hari of foodbabe.com. Vani is famous for
researching what ingredients are hidden in popular, main stream foods. Earlier
this year she pulled the rug out from under Subway for using “yoga mat” (azodicarbonamide)
in their bread with a petition that reached over 50k signatures in 24hrs; the
next day Subway released a statement that they had decided to create a new
recipe for their bread because they want their clientele to have the best
possible experience. Now she’s going after Starbucks for their Pumpkin Spice
Lattes, which she claims contains a host of ingredients that are inconsistently
available at stores and even inconsistent between store bought lattes and the
at home mix. The difference with the responses to these investigations is how
strongly people are supporting Starbucks for not using real pumpkin, and ignoring
the other ingredients exposed in the mixes. I wondered why so many people were
ready to take down Subway, but are defending Starbucks. What is the difference?
The perception I have of the ways Vani presented the arguments against each
company seemed to threaten “America” in contrasting ways. In the Subway
investigation she compared the bread ingredients in the US to the ingredients
in the UK and Australia; in the Starbucks investigation she claimed that
Starbucks Pumpkin Spice Latte has anything but
pumpkin. I imagine this put “America” in a defensive position for both
investigations. With the Subway investigation I imagine people reacting with “Why
should they get better ingredients than us? We deserve as good, if not better,
than anyone else gets”, and with the Starbucks investigation I imagine people
reacting with “Starbucks is an American institution and we stand by America”.
Whatever their reasons are for defending Starbucks on this, I wonder why
Americans fight so hard to defend companies that have marketed as an American institution, and are potentially making us
all sick, instead of saying that as Americans we deserve better than this to
every company. Shouldn’t every company be treated with the same expectations of
“doing us right”?
Check out Vani’s blog for more information on her investigations http://foodbabe.com/
I think you bring up a good point about why people were so quick to accuse Subway of not using whole ingredients in their bread, but aren't that ready to attack Starbucks. I do wonder how long it took people to react to Subway, perhaps the Pumpkin Spice Latte issues haven't had enough time to sink in. Also, I wonder if people consider Subway's bread a staple that they can't avoid if they want to eat at Subway while the Pumpkin Spice Latte is more of a luxury that not as many people care about. Corporations have certain sway within communities and Starbucks certainly has a lot. I do commend them for their pursuits in educating their employees, but there is certainly a disconnect between that and adding chemicals to their products. I'm hopeful more people like Vani will make us consider what we consume. In the meantime, I will be eating whole foods as much as possible.
ReplyDeleteSammie, I wonder too if it isn't the way that the both Subway and Starbucks were outed. On the one hand you tell people they may be eating yoga mats and on the other you're just telling them they aren't eating real pumpkin and then folks think "well, fake pumpkin is much better than yoga mats" while they're both potentially equally harmful. When you compare something you're ingesting to an inanimate object, it makes for great drama and fear. While the pumpkin latte has anything but pumpkin it in it hasn't been equated to eating anything like plastic or rubber. People usually won't go home after their long day and remember to look up what is really in a pumpkin latte whereas subway bread, well, they know that it's yoga mat bread. How information is presented (and the language used) bears significant importance to the way in which people are going to respond. Perhaps the shock factor has something to do with the way people are responding as well?
ReplyDeleteAlso, great point on bread as a resource, Laura.
I completely agree with both follow-up comments! I strongly felt that the way the information was presented was a factor in how people responded. With the Subway one, it took less than 24hrs and with Starbucks... it's not going anywhere and quickly. I do think part of the Starbucks support might be that PNW loyalty to local born companies AND how prevalent Starbucks is in this area. Can't seem to get away from it.
ReplyDeleteI think people are willing to defend Starbucks more than Subway because people have worked Starbucks into their routine. Subway is a convenient sandwich shop but it hasn't worked itself into the American routine like Starbucks has. From a marketing point of view, Starbucks has done everything right. Coffee is part of a routine for most people. The whole atmosphere of Starbucks is comforting to those who go there everyday, and they expect the same flavor of latte whether they are going to a Starbucks in Seattle or New York. I do follow food news and heard about both the Starbucks Pumpkin Spice Latte ingredients and the Yoga Foam in the bread. However, I think people are less likely to give up their Starbucks. Moreover, I think they are less likely to give up the exact same type of coffee that they get everyday before work. Pumpkin spice lattes are seasonal yes, but people want same thing they have every fall. A different Starbucks Pumpkin Spice latte would mean a lot more change for someone than a different bread recipe. From someone who doesn't have Starbucks in their routine, their ingredients were pretty disturbing. Whatever happened to just sugar, milk, and spices?
ReplyDeleteAlso the pumpkin spice lattes at Eugene City Bakery are made with real pumpkin and they are very, very good.