Before everyone gets down on non-dairy milk drinkers, remember that the government subsidizes the hell out of dairy milk production to make it cheaper in the first place.
They subsidize soy, oats, and almonds too.
Is that accurate?
I used to buy a lot of soy milk since I’m lactose intolerant and it was cheaper than milk a decade ago. But now it’s nearly the same price or double for the same brand. And now I’m wondering if it’s a Soy conspiracy.
Most farming is subsidized, the debate then is which one is subsidized more. A bit of a specious argument at the end of the day.
Pretty easy answer, though, considering 2/3rds of crops are fed to cows and therefor the cost of creating dairy milk is much higher.
Soy is heavily subsidized. It’s the main crop in most Midwestern states, even more than corn.
80℅ of the world’s soy market is animal feed.
Yep, so a double subsidy for livestock. All farming is subsidized, which does have some value to keep farms producing an excess for times of need, but the amount of subsidies for some industries is insane. Republicans will talk about the free market and then advocate for socialized farming to buy votes, because they don’t actually care about logic or consistency. The same is true for coal and other forms of dirty energy that should be stomped out either by the market by now or by reasonable regulations, but instead we’ve kept them going with taxpayer money.
Isnt most soy used as animal feed tho? Or is it only from certain regions?
It’s a capitalist conspiracy.
More to the relevant point, those alt milks are still cheaper to produce and Starbucks has the scale to do so. You know what it takes to make oatmilk? Oats, sugar, water, small amount of oil. Almond milk? Replace oat with almond, except you can use more of the material.
In oatmilk the sugar and oil are optional ingredients for taste and texture. Almost all oatmilk brands contain salt for taste.
I’ve only found one brand that uses three ingredients, oat water salt. They charge a premium for it, but it’s the best tasting one I’ve found.
Yep. I would LOVE to be able to consume dairy without shitting my guts out, but as that’s not an option I get to either pay extra or go without.
I think I’d rather get down with the sickness. (Because I’m lactose intolerant)
Right? I would love to see a future where the right wing gets their way and makes calling almond milk “milk” illegal, but is also forced to stop subsidizing cow excretions. Do I buy the Authentic Cow Milk for $10 a gallon, or the Almond-Based Dairy Alternative for $6…?
The plaintiffs say in the lawsuit that lactose intolerance is a disability listed under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the surcharges violate that act.
Is it though? I mean don’t get me wrong, it sucks that people who are lactose intolerant have to pay more, but is it really a disability?
I’m lactose intolerant but even I think this is absurd. What about every other food allergy in existence? Should substitutions cost the same even if the ingredients don’t? Furthermore, we’re talking about a splurge item from a coffee shop. You can still make coffee at home or buy coffee without milk in it.
Well the ADA only requires ‘reasonable’ accommodations. So I guess the logic of this case would be that if the substitution only costs a little bit more than the original ingredient then they should offer it at the same price. But this would still allow for business to charge extra when making the substitution would be ‘unreasonably’ expensive.
Therein lies the rub as what one person considers reasonable another might not. Charging 1:1 for the increased cost of almond or soy milk seems reasonable but charging an additional markup over what they set for dairy milk might not be.
If their case has merit, I hope they win, but I honestly wish these lawyer fees and court time could be better used to tackle more lucrative issues like suing Ticketmaster/Live Nation for their whole anti-consumer business model and price gouging or suing Comcast for their monopoly in my area. There are probably 1000 different places to buy coffee in my city but only one way to buy event tickets and one company offering broadband/high speed internet.
What’s absurd is that Almond, Soy, and Oat doesn’t cost more than dairy milk when you look at prices at a grocery. But Starbucks charges extra for it anyway.
I think a lot of people have no idea that many dairy alternatives are essentially the same price now. And that’s at a retail consumer level where the markups are biggest in the chain, bulk wholesale like what Starbucks pays would have an even smaller gap.
People are assuming there’s a massive difference in price, that just doesn’t really exist anymore… And that also ignores the absolutely MASSIVE markup Starbucks has for their coffee in the first place. It definitely doesn’t cost Starbucks $.50 to use Oat milk instead of regular milk, but that’s what they might charge the consumer for the substitution in a $6 coffee that cost them maybe $0.50 to make.
What’s absurd is thinking that this argument makes logical sense. Do you think Starbucks buys milk at the grocery store? What do you think the ratio of milk to each milk alternative is? 100:1? 1000:1? The scale at which the purchase each would greatly affect the price.
When I worked at a restaurant that used a lot of milk it came in a 3 or 5 gallon plastic sack that went into a dispensing machine. Milk alternatives are likely purchased by the case in consumer packaging. The cost is entirely different.
Even if it isn’t, I’d prefer a world where people aren’t shitting their pants or leaving toxic fart clouds in their wake because they need to save .50 on a coffee.
Gluten free up charge is a thing everywhere and Starbucks is so overpriced that I go to a gas station for the occasional cup of to go coffee I get and there’s no real dairy anywhere there.
If it does, then the cost difference to the business should probably be subsidized / written off in taxes.
deleted by creator
If you adhere to that philosophy, then why not adhere to the fact that there are other coffee shops customers can take their business and let the better shop who can achieve cheaper rates for alternative milks win as opposed to imposing a price control?
This isn’t Healthcare where shopping around isn’t an option, and it isn’t a niche thing where there isn’t competition.
Shit I’m all for strong market regulations, but this might be a tad too far and ignorant to business ownership – especially one where we seek new entrepreneurs and not mega companies who can afford teams of lawyers.
deleted by creator
Because no one has ever made an unjust law, right?
deleted by creator
So here is how this goes just so you know.
Now all of the drinks go up in price so that the charge is just absorbed by the other customers.
The business makes no less money, hell they probably make more profit now and now everyone has to pay extra.
Yeah of course, that’s so unfair to tell business people that they can’t overcharge people
Can you demonstrate that they are overcharging? Have you calculated the costs? Did you include the extra refrigeration space required, the wholesale cost of bulk milk in non-consumer packaging versus milk alternatives likely purchased by the case in consumer packaging? Do their distributors charge more for milk alternatives because they represent a lower volume than traditional milk.
Well no shit, but the obvious questions hanging over us are: 1) Does this apply to the letter of the law, or the spirit; and second to that 2) should such a law exist? 3) Why are you invoking double-standards for business competition when arguably coffee shops who don’t meet a competitive price-point for a non-essential item will lose? I say again what was clearly deflected: a) this is not a situation where consumers cannot shop around, and b) this is not a niche service that cannot be found elsewhere.
If you want markets whatsoever and thriving small-businesses, this is the kind of shit that as an aggregation cripples competition with mega-corporations
The issue with the ADA is that it does not specify what counts as a disability, rather it gives an explanation of what is considered a disability. This leads to endless confusion and to court cases exactly like this, which are leveraging the text of the ADA as it stands to make their point.
The lawyer quoted in the article is correct, considering they already accommodate people with diabetes without surcharge, it can be argued the same courtesy needs to be extended to the lactose intolerant, who do not have a “choice” in whether they can consume dairy.
Because they cannot just consume dairy like other customers, the lawyer is arguing that no longer charging for the difference is a “reasonable accomodation” to the fact that their clients bodies cannot process dairy. That definitely rises to the same level of reasoning for those who suffer diabetes, in my opinion.
Anyway, that’s the frustrating thing about a lot of the ADA. It basically requires people who don’t know if their unique position qualifies them to spend a lot of money on lawyers up-front just to find out if the courts will actually accept that as true. It’s really well fucked because most disabled people don’t have money to be pissing away on such a legal project. Most of them are busy just trying to survive. In other words, most of the time you have to hope a lawyer will take up your case pro-bono.
Source: My cancer isn’t cancery or debilitating enough to count as a disability, even though “cancer” is in the list on the ADA website.
This leads to endless confusion and to court cases exactly like this, which are leveraging the text of the ADA as it stands to make their point.
That’s how common-law systems are designed to work, though (along with delegation to regulators in the executive branch). You can’t really expect the legislature to think through every single nuance and corner-case a-priori, right?
Yeah like if they had a mega list of every disability they could think of, but forgot one, or a new one is discovered, what happens in court? Said new/forgotten disability wouldn’t legally be a disability.
Oh of course, but I was speaking of people who are seriously disabled (not just people with lactose intolerance) and that severely impacts their ability to just go out and get a lawyer to fight for their rights.
Like, the lactose intolerant, I’m pretty okay with them needing to come up with the money to prove it in court. Lactose intolerance may be considered a disability, but it doesn’t rise to the level of disability that makes it hard to hold a job.
However, a lot of other people are stuck, shit out of luck, unable to work, hell, often unable to move, and they’re still fighting for their problems to be recognized as a disability. Further, even with a disability that’s accepted as a disability, you still have to go to court and fight, often for years, to get a disability recognized. You’re not allowed to work while you’re waiting for that classification. It’s just a bad system for it.
The common-law system is fine and good, but we’re all aware of how it’s absolutely tilted in favor of people who have money and against those who don’t.
I got a disability lump sum for temporary disability due to a nerve disorder. It was based on my previous income and the percentage of time an expert judge I was able to work. (20% according to the expert.)
I only for $14,000 for 3 years of being disabled.
The disorder is now managed with medication, incidentally.
Lactose intolerance is actually normal. It’s tolerance to lactose as an adult that is biologically unusual, and mostly unique to westerners. Because most of us continue eating dairy products after infancy, we continue being able to digest them. However other cultures don’t continue consuming dairy after infancy, and thus lose their ability to digest it effectively.
It’s a really tough argument to claim it as a disability. I don’t see this case going well for the plaintiffs.
Adult lactose digestion (called lactase persistence) has evolved a few times from various mutations — one that happened in Europe, and several in Africa and the Middle East. It’s not caused in individuals by continued consumption.
So you’re saying that I am disabled because I can drink milk?
Oh and just to clarify I don’t drink milk that shit is disgusting, but I can.
That’s a super weird point of view. If your argument is wrt global averages and your view of normal is black hair, brown eyes, and some average between average Chinese and Indian populations, I suppose you’re right…but not in a way that’s remotely useful.
Lactose intolerance is the default for adults too. Them calling it a disability is wild.
I am allergic to milk. If I ingest it I will die full stop. Food allergies should be considered as a disability in this case because if I wanted coffee with soy milk I shouldn’t be made to pay extra for something out of my control. That being said since my allergies are severe enough I don’t eat anything I don’t make myself so this wouldn’t impact me anyway but I agree with the principle of the case.
What if the dairy substitute was 10x the cost of real milk, I know it isn’t, but what if it were. Or even 100x, just for argument. Are you entitled to get that for the same price?
The reasonable accommodation is offering non-dairy options at all even if it’s slightly more.
Or they can remove the dairy product at no additional fee (which they do). If someone wants to add an additional, more expensive ingredient, then they can pay for it.
The ingredient is only more expensive because cow’s milk is subsidized.
Well, maybe they are suing the wrong entity then. Dunkin and Starbucks don’t set the price of almond milk.
Sure, they don’t. But they are also massively overcharging consumers for something that barely costs them anything extra.
I’m looking at the online site for my local big chain grocery store. This is what I’m seeing, all for half gallon sizes:
- Store brand regular milk is $2.69 for 2% and $2.79 for whole
- Simple truth almond milk is $2.99
- Store brand lactose free milk is $3.99 for all varieties (on sale from $4.49)
- Simple truth soy milk is $3.49 for all varieties
- Califia farms oat milk is $4.29 for all varieties (on sale from $5.99)
These are all the less expensive alternatives. So almond milk is slightly higher than regular, but the others are a pretty significant percent increase.
While you’re right, we’re talking about a pretty small amount of price difference for Starbucks.
A quick Google search says that a grande latte from Starbucks (16Oz) is about 14.6 Oz of milk.
Using the retail numbers (remember Starbucks has negotiated contracts with wholesale suppliers for their milk, they likely pay much less than retail cost) that is about 4.2¢/fl oz for regular milk and about 4.7¢/fl oz for almond milk. In terms of milk cost, a Starbucks grande latte is about 61¢ of regular milk and 68¢ of almond milk.
They then charge you 70¢ EXTRA for the almond milk, when they are only spending around 7¢ more to use it in your drink. They’re clearly just taking advantage of many people’s inability to process lactose. Though, I’m a bit biased since I’m one of them. I’m heavily lactose intolerant, so take that as you will.
While looking up the numbers I also learned that it’s estimated that around 68% of the world’s population is lactose intolerant, and it mostly affects non-white ethnic groups.
I’m severely lactose intolerant, so you know what I do? I DON’T FUCKING DRINK LATTES. A restaurant is under no obligation to give me a non-dairy substitute at no cost. If you want what a restaurant sells, buy it. If you don’t like what they sell or think it’s too expensive, fucking don’t and get on with your life.
According to the Americans with disabilities act, they apparently are under obligation to do it.
They’re under obligation to make a reasonable accommodation. They accomplish this in 2 ways. You can either order it without milk, or you can pay extra for a milk substitute.
Restaurants aren’t required to provide gluten-free pasta, fake seafood, or artificial peanut products just because some people can’t eat everything on the menu.
The ADA has very specific language about not charging extra for reasonable accommodations, and dietary restrictions are mentioned.
Restaurants are not required to stock ingredients for all allergies, and they are not required to order in special ingredients on request. But starbucks does stock non-dairy milks. Using the non-dairy milk that they already stock is a reasonable accommodation.
The case is based on a good faith reading of title III of the ADA. It’s not unreasonable to argue that charging extra is illegal in this case.
If I can’t eat beef (that’s a real allergy) is a restaurant obligated to substitute lobster if they happen to serve it? The fact is, oat milk isn’t milk. Milk treated with lactase is milk.
Do you have a source? My understanding was that they were under obligation to not charge for the accommodations, hence the lawsuit.
Their accommodation is having product without milk at all. Requiring them to provide an alternative ingredient isn’t a reasonable accommodation when they have plenty of existing products without dairy. The customer can order one of those items.
Having a milk substitute that costs more for the establishment is going beyond what is required under the ADA, so up-charging for it is fine.
Do you have a source for that? From what I’ve found, food allergies are generally not considered a disability and therefore no accomodation is obligatory.
The ADA is a complex law, like all laws. Food allergies are mentioned by the ADA.
Although food allergies don’t require proactive accommodation, disabled people are entitled to equal access despite their disability.
If a restaurant offers no substitutions that’s fine. But if a restaurant offers substitutions but refuses it for those with allergies, that’s not fine.
If a restaurant doesn’t stock non-allergic ingredients it doesn’t have to. But if the restaurant will stock special ingredients upon request, they must do the same for disabled customers.
In this case, starbucks DOES stock and offer non-dairy milks. Using a different milk is probably a reasonable accommodation. The ADA has rules against charging extra for reasonable accomodations.
The conclusion that starbucks charging extra is a violation of the ADA is not an unreasonable one.
It is not a violation to charge extra for an accomodation if everyone has to pay the same for that accomodation. See the link I posted previously; it mentions this explicitly. Their case is charging more for plus sized clothing. The price for that size of item is the same regardless if the person is obese or normal, so it’s not discrimination. It only becomes discrimination when you charge a person more because they’re lactose intolerant and give lactose tolerant people soy milk for no cost.
God bless America, sometimes
I had to scroll down a lot to find a sensible comment. Apparently having milk in your coffee is a constitutional right…
Lol your wrong about restaurants having no obligation to provide a substitute.
deleted by creator
That’s such a sad point of view about what you think you deserve. You should treat yourself better.
Lol wut. Why is a restaurant obligated to give you special treatment or free things? If you are allergic to peanuts are they obligated to fry their fries in a separate oil just for you??
In certain circumstances, companies are obligated to prepare food on separate surfaces or in separate oil to avoid cross contamination in case of allergies. That’s what we get for caring about our countrymen and wanting them to be able to eat at restaurants.
Allergens actually do have some regulations, but I’m not sure how they work.
Spoken like a restaurant owner!
Apparently, according to you; being considerate to a section of society is trumped by maybe $1 of extra cost per item to accommodate them? What kind of a selfish ass cheapskate restaurant owner are you?
Allergies are caused by proteins, not oils generally, so peanut oil is safe for almost all people with allergies, although culturally, peanut oil just isn’t that used much anymore because most businesses want money from as many people as possible and don’t want to risk people’s lives out of economic principles.
This is the issue with libertarianism. The argument is always an attempt at framing the conversation to an acceptable level of death in the name of expanding markets, without realizing that death actually limits markets.
Damn, sucks to be you.
Stand up for yourself instead of putting a shitty corporation above yourself.
Wont someone think of poor multinational corporation starbucks?
Going by some arguments in this thread, to ask a restaurant to be considerate for a section of the population is considered entitled but being a cheapskate and selfish money guzzler is a god given right and should be something to be proud of. Like, it doesn’t even cost the restaurant $1-$2 extra per serving. Of course, when it comes to money… fuck being considerate right?
I used to work in restaurants (both big and small), and while what you said is true, it only cost $1-2 extra per serving. But the restaurant can never stock their ingredients by “per serving”. They have to buy wholesale from their suppliers. It really hurts smaller businesses when they only get to use a couple servings out of their 5 gallon non-dairy milk jug, then have to throw it out. Those things added up fast, and that’s just one example.
It’s common in restaurants and cafés in Europe to use normal 1L milk cartons even for normal milk - can’t that be done in the US as well?
I get why restaurants need to buy in bulk, but why is the packaging is so huge?
All the coffee shops I know use the same 1 quart carton for non-dairy milk that I use at home. They come in a box of 12 if you buy them in bulk.
I have no idea why the other commenter thinks the packaging is different.
they only get to use a couple servings out of their 5 gallon non-dairy milk jug
Don’t buy so much at one time then? Doesn’t seem that difficult a problem to solve, I do it every time my dairy-averse partner stays over for the weekend. Buy an amount that is reasonable for expected usage needs, it’s easy. I’m not out here buying a 5 gallon bucket and then whining when my guests haven’t drank all of it.
When you don’t buy in bulk your unit costs go up.
I don’t know what the profit margins of Starbucks are, but in many cases they’re much tighter than people realize. The sale price has to cover materials, wages, insurance, property costs, and lots of other things. $1 a serving would be a pretty huge percent increase.
You could make the same argument about anything. I want the higher end iPhone and they should give it to me for the same price as the lower end to be considerate. If they don’t they’re greedy. I want leather seats in my car for the same price as cloth. And there are loads of restaurants that charge extra for substitutions if the substitute costs more (e.g., “premium sides”).
I hate to say anything in defense of Starbucks (as a small Coffee House owner), but non-dairy costs more in general. It’s not like they are upcharging because they want to stick it to the lactose intolerant.
The idea that it costs more to put oats in a blender with an enzyme is more expensive to produce than breeding and feeding cows is pretty laughable. Non-dairy is only more expensive because of gigantic subsidies that simply don’t need to exist in the modern era.
Edit: the number of you simping for a gigantic corporation is surprising. Oat water is cheap to make. Milk is not. You buy milk at the grocery store nearly at cost. You buy oat milk in branded containers in the yuppy-vegan-white-women priced section at gouging prices. Starbucks does not have costs like the grocery store lists their prices.
None of this is relevant the only point is if it costs the coffee house more. In other news vans that have wheelchair lifts installed are more expensive than those without.
I completely disagree because of the huge volumes that starbucks uses. They can just buy chobani and get the oat water at cost.
You have now justified imposing upon coffee shops based on a completely fictional world you have invented where maintaining non-dairy options doesn’t actually cost more even though it on average does.
Look at the processes to create dairy and non-dairy ingredients.
Dairy can be done on the small scale, but it is typically done on an industrial scale where animals are reared and exploited in an extremely labor, water, energy, and space inefficient process. The outputs are raw milk which must be processed into different milk products and pasteurized then refrigerated and transported.
Compare that to oat milk.
Arable land is sewn and watered. It is tended and then reaped. Oats are processed in a crusher and kiln. They are then crushed again, boiled with enzymes, pasteurized, cooled and transported.Which one really costs more? Everyone is focusing on price at the store but they aren’t asking which product actually costs more. Dairy costs vastly more than oat milk and it is plain to see. The reason oat milk is priced higher is due to low volumes and grocers knowing they can rip off vegan white women which is their overwhelming demographic. The reason dairy milk is priced lower is due to enormous government subsidies and nearly a century of mechanization and optimization.
Why does this matter for starbucks? Because they can easily vertically integrate to remove the price barrier and instead focus on cost. Oat milk costs are extremely cheap when at larger scales like those of a corporation the size of starbucks. Stop focusing on how expensive it is at the grocery store level - it is not an apples to apples comparison to what huge corporations deal with.
I don’t disagree that it could be cheaper if its price were determined by price of inputs. I disagree that it matters. No judge in this case is able to fix for some definition of fix the market they are simply deciding in the actual world where we live if its reasonable to force coffee shops to spend more and charge the same for milk alternatives. I assert it isn’t. Coffee out and about is a luxury good and if it costs to much you ought to simply make it at home
Oh I don’t give a damn about the whole starbucks v ADA bit. I’m just chuffed by the price of oatmilk being out of sync with reality
Concrete is literally rocks, it should be free right?
If you pause to make your product safe just because it costs you more to ensure your customers don’t die, bear in mind that I would have formed a less than ideal opinion of you in my mind before I even met you.
Selling dairy containing drinks doesn’t put your customers at risk. If they didn’t offer non-dairy creamers and I was horrifically allergic to dairy I wouldn’t say oh well I guess I have to shit myself to death today.
It’s cheaper for Starbucks to buy Cow milk than oat milk because the dairy industry is very heavily subsidized. Starbucks doesn’t make the milk.
Could Starbucks eat the pennies of cost difference to make sure everything’s fair with no loss in revenue by moving prices around? Yes.
Were the cost increases they put on non-dairy milk just enough to cover those costs? No.
Did they add those costs to hurt people who can’t have dairy? No.
But, does their profiting by charging more cost people who can’t drink dairy more than people who can? Yes.
Regardless of their intent here we have a situation wheresome people must pay more for the same drink.
Let’s not forget starbucks isn’t in any way the good guy here. They’re spending millions on Union busting so they don’t have to pay their workers so they can afford to eat 25c or whatever. If they shouldn’ have to, then should the individual? If you think the individual should, why?
So you are agreeing with the person you are replying to that non diary is more expensive?
Yes: At the grocery store.
No: At multinational commercial quantities.
If you say so
Prices for items at scale can be difficult to understand.
I suspect that the real “extra cost” comes from having the slight amount of extra space it takes to stock the non-milk, ship it, handle it and the extra time it takes the employee at the counter to make a different drink.
Not saying they can’t just “eat the costs”, but companies never do that. Everything is accounted for and has the 10%+taxes profit margin slapped on top.
If the usage of non-milk would increase, I bet prices would come down in coffee shops as well.
Not really Starbucks’ jurisdiction tho
Eh… at their economies of scale I think the oat water would be far, far cheaper. They’ve vertically integrated quite a few ingredients - what’s oat or almond milk to add to the list?
Re your edit, no one is simping for Starbucks, just common sense. You don’t have to have milk with your coffee. For fuck sake, you don’t even have to have a coffee.
Want something unusual in your coffee? Pay for it.
Not happy, about how much they are charging for it. Make your fucking coffee at home before leaving the house and put whatever you want in there.
We are not talking insulin prices here, let’s get real.
Unusual? You should check your biases. Plant milks have been around for a long time (at least the 1400s), are anything but unusual, particularly when the majority of the world has intolerance to baby cow growth formula.
Sure, and that why when you walk into a shop and ask for milk, everyone asks you “what kind of milk would you like”?
baby cow growth formula.
LOL, way to be taken seriously
Well, it is serious. Cow’s milk is a formula that’s adapted for the purpose of taking a small calf, and transforming them into a huge cow as rapidly as possible. Is it any surprize that we have obesity, diabetes, and heart disease epidemics?
You think milk is the cause why you have obesity, diabetes and hearth disease?
Look vegetarians and vegans have a couple of good points that can be used to get more people interested. Keep going calling milk whatever you called it, referring to ‘murdered animals’ and making up shit to explain obesity and no wonder you can’t even convince your mum to take you seriously.
I love this, “If vegans weren’t [x], we would…” … what? Take us seriously, what do you mean by that? Are you implying that if only I would say the approved things, you would actually go vegan?! Is vegan discourse a Shin Megami Tensei dialogue tree game, where making the arbitrarily chosen, pre-approved word choices is the key to success?
And I suppose all those people who were saying, “all lives matter”, were right when they said they ‘no longer’ support movements like BLM because a few riots happened?
Be real, you just want vegans to shut up and keep our heads down, so you don’t have to have your animal abuse challenged.
Anyway it’s not about what I think. The facts are that many things contribute to the rise of obesity and other western lifestyle diseases, including a sedentary lifestyle, poor diet (involving many factors), and possibly even things related to pollution. There is more than enough data to show, however, that the primary factor is animal consumption - including dairy. The Adventist health studies show this clearly, as well as many others.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2671114/
https://www.pcrm.org/good-nutrition/nutrition-information/health-concerns-about-dairy
Does it cost fifty cents more per cup? Doubtful.
Are we talking a non-dairy whipped topping here?
Dairy is subsidized by the government. They absolutely do want to stick it to anyone who doesn’t support the system.
Maybe not to the lactose intolerant, but the vegan people is generally more willing to spend more to avoid real milk and starbucks is certainly happy to squeeze every penny they can out of them.
On the other hand, if young Timmy goes into anaphylactic shock everybody would change their tunes faster than you can say “Anaphylaxis”
I accuse them of over-roasting their coffee beans.
They are absolutely an embarrassment to anyone with an intact nose and tongue. And I say that as someone whose fine with bottom-shelf can coffee most days of the week.
I lean into my disdain for their roasting standard on the internet for fake points. My actual impression is more along the lines of: Isn’t this supposed to be premium somehow?
Like if they served it out of acaraffe at a gas station for about a third of the price, I’d be less annoyed.
I despise Starbucks, but I’m not sure this lawsuit makes any sense. Those non-cow milks costs them more. Of course, the law often doesn’t make sense, anyway.
As another commenter said, they could just overcharge for cow milk and make the prices all the same. Then nobody is happy, but it meets the legal requirement (as I understand it).
Those non-cow milks costs them more.
so? it’s starbucks. they’ll be fine.
Those non-cow milks costs them more.
so? it’s starbucks. they’ll be fine.
Great logic, but that means every coffee shop everywhere would have to cover the additional costs of being “compliant”.
Good margins is why they’re fine.
What about the extra charge for gluten free buns? Or vegan chese? Or impossible burgers? If I can’t ride my bike up big hills can i get an e-bike for the same price? If I’m very tall can i get an airplane seat upgrade for free?
gluten free buns
For people with gluten intolerance, they’d have a similar case. Lactose intolerance isn’t a choice just as much as gluten intolerance isn’t a choice.
Source: I’ve had a friend who has had celiac disease his whole life. I was jealous of him in high school because he was always so skinny, and I didn’t know he had it. Not fucking jealous anymore.
Yeah. I have a friend who can’t have onions, garlic, dairy, or gluten. At least dairy and gluten have decent subs now. Losing onion and garlic would be miserable!
I have Celiac Disease and let me tell you, I would love to see gluten free items cost the same as regular foods. The only thing you apparently can do is to include an itemized list of GF items you’ve bought over the year and include it in your tax return. However, the amount of bureaucracy is probably a great deterrent for people like me to not do this and just eat the extra cost.
If I can’t ride my bike up big hills can i get an e-bike for the same price?
If you have a disability you can get a mobility scooter
If I’m very tall can i get an airplane seat upgrade for free?
Neither the very tall (nor the obese for that matter) are part of a protected class, and their relative sizes are not considered disabilities. However those physical conditions can lead to disabilities (heart and joint issues for example) which then lead to reasonable accommodation.
Your straw men are cute, but this isn’t Kansas, we don’t need them here
Appreciate the Kansas side burn
Can you explain why the examples they gave are different than the case at hand? I think they have a point but I’m interested in hearing the opposing viewpoint (yours) before I form an opinion on the situation.
TBH, not much, except that in the case of dairy and gluten intolerance there’s a case to be made for reasonable accommodation under the ADA. The rest of his comments were increasingly silly
Also there’s many things wrong with American disability law, social safety nets, and the complete dysfunction of what passes for “healthcare”. Splitting hairs on what constitutes a disability is emblematic of these failings.
I was just 90 percent goofing and ‘what abouting.’ It’s only an issue because we have milk alternatives. Dairy bothers me but i don’t care for the alt milks so i mostly order tea. If i really want a coffee i get a small splash of milk and deal with the consequences. Also, there’s a whole thing with whether it’s milk sugar or milk fat or A1/A2 that bothers people - so sometimes skim milk or A2 milk is less upsetting and no more expensive.
Lol okay sorry if i came on too strong
Hmm with all due respect I’m leaning towards not liking this lawsuit. Similar to splitting hairs on what constitutes a disability, I think calling an allergy a disability cheapens the system.
I think what would be “most fair” in this scenario would be for healthcare to cover lactaid like it does with epipens, etc.
For the record, I am pro-ADA and pro-nationalised healthcare. I just feel like this lawsuit is frivilous
Im sorry but as someone who works in the field of disability this makes me irate. We have whole states who are not in compliance with the ADA when it comes to employment and even accessible enternces to state and federal buildings and yet the federal government is powerless to stop them, but we can use the ADA to sue coffee shops? Sure it’s a good thing I guess but the larger and more important provisions of that legislation continue to be overlooked and unimplemented despite lawsuits filed against states only seeking conscent decrees, but we can make a big scene of suing for non diary creamers.
You can sue anyone for any reason. It doesn’t mean it holds water and this one certainly doesnt. For the ada it has to be a significant effect on your daily life, food allergies aren’t going to be part of that and a business has the right to charge more for what costs them more which would be a reasonable accommodation anyway.
Yes and advocacy groups have sued the states that are not in compliance on larger points of the ADA, like labor conditions. Guess how much media attention those suits get?
well because those threaten the status quo at large. If companies had to start hireing with provisions of the ADA then they would lose less profit so they hush those up. but this one, this povides the illusion that the ADA is for the most part being followed and its just a few minor odds and ends $1.50 here and their that are out of wack…
None, those are logical so they don’t grab attention the same way as the ravings of a lunatic.
Went to the local courthouse the other day, it is cube-esk at the base and has 4 entrances one on each side. 3 they keep locked. The handycap accessible ramp is one of those that is locked. I couldn’t understand it, what is the point of installing the ramps if you are still going to block it off to funnel people through another door nearest the metal detectors.
Also it seems like every company has forgotten about accessible web design. Wouldn’t even surprise me if some government websites were inaccessible too.
I’m sorry but lactose intolerance is not a disability.
It’s also not an equivalent product. It’s not like you get to choose if milk has lactose, the dairy-free option has completely different components and sources.
Except you can. The lactose-free milk has lactase added, which is the enzyme needed to break down lactose. Otherwise it’s more or less the same product.
Oh, right, that. For some reason my mind immediately went to Oat Milk and other plant based dairy. I love Oatmilk, it works for breadmaking too.
Shout out to oat milk. The best substitute milk in general, but the absolute star for substitutions in baking.
- it is, it is similar to an alergy and 2) legaly it is considered a disability under the ADA if someone or a group of people would consider it as one… have you been to wisconsin
I’ve been getting Lactaid ads alllllll over the Internet since reading that article.
Guess there is a new advertiser site that needs blocking …
Use firefox and ublock origin, and all that ends. I haven’t seen an ad in a decade.
Yeah, Firefox and ublock. Plus privacy badger, and Blokada5.
Still got me somehow. The ad showed up in an app, not a browser. Updated/added more blocklists.
EDIT: You were right! Get a gold star for that one. The Lemmy app I use was still set to open links itself, not the default browser. I forgot I’d changed it when I used Sync, but not when I switched to Connect! I still had many ads blocked because of the VPN.
Pihole might help?
Yup, got that too for my home network. Though I suspect several advertisers have gotten wise and hard coded different DNS into their programs. I don’t see the requests I think I should on some devices. There is not a lot of troubleshooting when it comes to IPv6 and while there are many AAAA queries on my server, there are a higher percentage on the server I set up for my parents.
ITT: A lot of people wanting to argue the headline and not the articles or legislation.
The plaintiffs said they would order drinks that included milk and would substitute the milk for non-dairy alternatives, such as soy, oat, coconut, or almond milk, and were charged an extra $0.50 to $0.80 for the substitution.
The lawsuit notes that Starbucks typically uses 2% milk for their milk-based products and would substitute that milk for another type of milk, such as 1% or skim, for no additional cost. Starbucks will also offer caffeine-less or sugar-free options for no additional cost.
Customers who are lactose-intolerant or have milk allergies may pay up to $2 extra at Dunkin’ Donuts when substituting oat or almond milk for dairy in their beverages. (from the link in the article)
The lawsuit against Dunkin’ points out that the chain already modifies its regular beverage offerings to remove caffeine and sugar at no additional cost for those with diabetes, weight-control issues or hypertension. The coffee company also asks customers about their allergies, informing them that their products may contain allergens. “Once Dunkin’ asks about allergies, and someone with a disability requests a dairy-free product as an accommodation, they can’t impose a surcharge — as they don’t for caffeine-free drinks, etc.,” Kanter said.
Kanter, the founding director of Syracuse University’s disability law and policy program, believes the lawsuit makes a strong case for discrimination under the ADA. “If a person qualifies as a person with a disability, and they’re entitled to an accommodation or modification — which in this case looks pretty simple as nondairy milk — they cannot be charged extra,” said Kanter.
The legislation is simple, and being tested currently in the courts with how it effects business practices. It’s also telling how privileged most of you are on here, you imagine yourself as the “owner” who is shocked and dumbfounded by this turn of events. Anyone who has actually worked in the restaurant or service industry knows this is company bullshit.
The Alternative-Milk items are mere percentages of percentages. All Food Costs and future sale projections are calculated for proper ordering. They already have the items on hand…there would be no restructuring or change in conducting business under a judgement on this case. The use of other free alternatives (sugar-free,etc) for disabilities being used as advertising is a damning indication everyone skips over. Caffeine-free doesn’t cost more to have or stock? Any of the Splenda/etc is corporeal and drops out of the Ether for everyone?
Again, the numbers are so low for alternative-milk your brain would skip a beat if you look at their figures.
Starbucks pays to produce one cup of regular coffee. Amateur speculative estimates range from $0.20 to $0.75… Starbucks has recently been repurchasing its own shares and paying dividends to increase returns to investors…The costs of goods sold, depreciation and amortization expenses, and store operating expenses have declined over the last six years, with only general and administrative expenses rising. (link)
Starbucks isn’t saying shit, they know the reality of how bad it actually looks. There is no “Woe is me” in any of their financial reportings so they just have to bite the bullet.
Starbucks also expects to continue robust store development in China, with net unit growth of approximately 13% annually. Globally, Starbucks expects to approach 45,000 stores by the end of 2025… Starbucks now expects global revenue growth in the range of 10% to 12% annually from fiscal 2023… growth is expected to be in the range of 15% to 20% annually through fiscal 2025. Starbucks plans to resume its share buyback program reinstituting a healthy return of shareholder capital, yielding an annual EPS benefit of approximately 1%, net of incremental interest, beginning in fiscal year 2024. Between dividends and share buybacks, the company expects to return approximately $20 billion to its shareholders in the next three years. (link)
They’re playing ball in China, we’ve all seen enough examples of companies having to bend the knee or getting out. I don’t get why everyone is not happy about these events. Want a “free” market where large corporation monopolies exist? Sure, but you gotta at least allow some crumbs to fall for the peasants lest they get hangy again. Want freedom and inclusion for all groups of people to experience life? Starbucks is an American institution now by cultural standards, you can’t academically refute that looking at any media or even economical standpoints. It’s on every corner, reasonable accommodations should be made and enforced for the general public. This isn’t a Ma and Pa coffee shop, this is why lower court judges exist and can weigh in on individual cases where they can seriously consider the context of the business standards.
obligatory:
The ADA is designed to give disabled people equal treatment and access, even if that equal access comes at unequal cost.
Non-dairy milk costs more. But so does weelchair accessable seating, and most other accommodations. But those accommodations cannot cost extra by the ADA.
As with every law, the ADA is long and has many exceptions and qualifications. But, Starbucks’s milks doesn’t seem to be an exception from my cursory reading of title III. This case has a case.
So in essence, they aren’t be allowed to charge extra if the customer is intolerant? Isn’t there basic milk w/o lactose for that though? Or just serve it without milk?
Not trying to make a case here, just asking:
By that rationale, could Starbucks have a policy in place where if you request a more expensive non-dairy option, you get an upcharge unless you give proof of a medical condition?
Basically saying, “Look, we’re happy to accommodate specific dietary restrictions at no additional cost for those with medical needs. We’re also happy to provide these options to all other customers at an upcharge reflecting the increased cost of these ingredients to us.”
I did look specifically for that, but I couldn’t find any language in title III of the ADA about whether disabled people can or can’t be required to prove or claim to be disabled.
I read the some of the text of the ADA. That’s the extent of my research. If you’re interested look into the statutes and case law and report back.
Stop giving these greedy corporations money. There’s other alternatives for your coffee fix.
Can’t believe so many people here are arguing in Starbucks favour here.
Sad state of affairs that people go out to defend them for such a simple easy thing to change.
Can’t believe so many people here are arguing in Starbucks favour here.
I think it is the principle that a business should be able to charge to recoup their costs. Milk alternatives are undoubtedly more expensive for Starbucks, based not only on the quantity of purchasing, but the additional refrigerated space required, and the additional man-hours necessary to stock and use alternatives.
Sad state of affairs that people go out to defend them for such a simple easy thing to change.
It’s simple and easy because you’re not the business owner who has to comply. Please understand that if Starbucks needs to comply under the ADA, then so does every other coffee shop, restaurant , and drink stand. This either ends in a loss for the Plaintiffs or an increase in all drinks to the most expensive milk alternative price.
I think it is the principle that a business should be able to charge to recoup their costs.
As if they’re so close to the line that adding an extra $0.02 to the cost of making that cup of coffee means they aren’t recouping the cost anymore?
but the additional refrigerated space required, and the additional man-hours necessary to stock and use alternatives.
As opposed to the refrigerated space and man hours they need to stock cow milk. I don’t see any extra cost here. The material itself, sure, but the space and manpower? No. Again, the actual increased cost is negligible. Spreading the cost over all sales would mean every cup of coffee costs another $0.01.
Dude… just stop. You don’t understand the thin margins a small coffee shop operates under, and that is who this would destroy.
It wont’ “destroy” them that is hyperbolic.
I’m thinking more about the implications of this legal argument. Does it mean vegetarians should be guaranteed prices equivalent to meat dishes? Is it religious discrimination if a restaurant doesn’t offer fish during Lent?
I’d rather just have Starbucks lower their prices. The actual legal case opens a can of worms we really don’t want to deal with.
If this leads to more veg options at better prices, sounds like a win to me.
Honestly just make all food cheaper, it’s become way too expensive.
I agree with you, but the alternative (in their mind) would probably be to raise the price of everything to compensate.
Not like Starbucks customers care how much they’re paying though! Lol
Yeah it’s amazing. Starbucks could just accept a 500% profit on every coffee sold instead of 600%. Their markup is insane, even including retail overhead.
But then their C-Suite would be marginally less rich…and their line would go up at a smaller angle…
Probably because an option like soy milk costs over twice as much per volume when compared to cow milk at the consumer level, so therefore any rational person would expect a drink made with the more-expensive non-dairy ingredient to cost more.
To me it’s not defending Starbucks as much as it is defending common sense.
What if they removed all reference of the word “dairy” from their products and made the consumer choose the beverage ingredients item by item, and each ingredient has a different price relative to the cost?
deleted by creator
All the assholes have convinced the rest of us that everybody is as heartless as they are. Whereas, it’s genuinely possible to be considerate and still remain in business. If anybody argues otherwise, they’re simply a bad business-person and needs to go out of business ASAP.
Why do you think a business should be compelled to sell something at any given price? I mean sure, you can burn them in the court of public opinion, but it’s another thing when you say that government regulation should dictate the cost of a coffee beverage. I think that’s where most people are landing in this, they agree it’s stupid for Starbucks to do such a petty thing, but when it comes to lawsuits involving ADA regulations it crosses a line for reasonable response.
It’s almost like the lawsuit for hot coffee where the person argued they didn’t know the coffee was hot
You mean the incident where McDonald made the coffee so hot it was beyond safe and the woman had 3rd degree burns fusing her pelvic region together?
That case is one of the most well known examples of how corporations turn serious safety incidents into “haha stupid customer not know obvious thing”, as if the victim was to blame for McDonalds wrong doing.
You chose that incident to argue your point? Wow, thank you, that makes my case here so much easier.
I still don’t understand how the “hot coffee” debunking isn’t known world round by this point.
Yeah the moment they mentioned that like McDonald’s wasn’t at fault I stopped reading anything else they had to say.
You can get third degree burns from touching water which is 150 degree F for around 2 seconds. Most coffee world wide is served between 160 and 180 F.
In that case the water was supposedly served at 190 F while competitors coffees were served at 160 F. The lawyers in that suit claimed that if the coffee had been in the 160 range it would have taken up to 20 seconds to get third degree burns. We now know that even at 160 F she would have gotten the same burns within 5 seconds.
What exactly is your point?
Coffee should not be served at 160f. That’s undrinkably hot and just burns the coffee.
McDonalds only does this maliciously so you won’t ask for a free refill.
Because the ingredients cost maybe less than a cent more and they change nearly a dollar for it.
“But they can charge whatever they like!”
No. They cannot. They cannot charge for tap water. They cannot charge for using the bathroom. They can’t lock you in the Cafe and charge you to leave. They can’t advertise for one price and sell another. They can’t charge half price for milk that’s gone rotten etc. There are lots of things they can’t do. This is another.
Because the ingredients cost maybe less than a cent more and they change nearly a dollar for it.
Can you show your work on milk alternatives costing Starbucks less than a cent more?
No. They cannot. They cannot charge for tap water. They cannot charge for using the bathroom. They can’t lock you in the Cafe and charge you to leave. They can’t advertise for one price and sell another. They can’t charge half price for milk that’s gone rotten etc. There are lots of things they can’t do. This is another.
Quite the specious analogy, but I fail to see how kidnapping is equivalent to charging a different price for a different product.
Open a grocery app. Search for oat milk, dairy milk, almond milk, soy milk. Alternative milks don’t really cost more than dairy anymore.
I don’t agree with the lawsuit, but I also don’t agree with Starbucks’ ridiculous upcharge for non dairy.
Open a grocery app. Search for oat milk, dairy milk, almond milk, soy milk. Alternative milks don’t really cost more than dairy anymore.
Does Starbucks shop at grocery stores? They likely buy non-consumer packaged milk, think 5 gallon plastic sacks, and cases of consumer packaged milk alternatives. Not to mention extra man-hours and extra refrigerated space.
Visit a Starbucks. They pull a gallon plastic milk jug from a drinks fridge under the bar when making drinks.
While there might be slight discrepancies between grocery prices and wholesale prices, the sheer size of Starbucks means they’d save on all varieties of milk (not just dairy) and I seriously doubt they pay 50 cents more per cup for alternative milks.
the sheer size of Starbucks means they’d save on all varieties of milk (not just dairy) and I seriously doubt they pay 50 cents more per cup for alternative milks.
You literally have no idea though, unless you work in supply chain for Starbucks. You’re guessing. Do they do their purchasing as a single corporation from one dairy farm, I doubt it. Plus you ignore the additional hours and need for refrigerated space. There’s more to consider than just cost per unit. Also if you use less there’s a greater chance of spoilage.
We will never know the exact numbers. However, from reported figures we know that $SBUX, $DNKN, $PNRA, $MCD all have similar margins across gross, ops and P&L (50-70, 10-20, 10-20 respectively).
the goal of all fast food centers is to produce a unit cost as close to $1, preferably lower, as possible and we also know from reported figures that 1 cent is the expected associated labor cost of a starbucks unit.
Knowing that the price of milk on commodities market is 16.42hwt or 1 cent / oz, knowing that SBUX coffee beans are 7cent/oz we can extrapolate that suitable extra costs for alternative milks must be in the single figure cent range.
Further supported by how if you are to go to a post-supply-chain-shipping-and-procurement wholesale vendor then the price of oatly barista edition oatmilk is 10c/oz and we can very safely assume that SBUX gets it much MUCH cheaper so we at least know the ceiling is $0.1
So, while I was exaggerating for effect in my original reply, the actual numbers- even if they are paying the same price as I would walking into a wholesaler (EXTREMELY unlikely):
- price of 16oz cow milk latte: $4.25, unit cost $1, milk cost 1c
- price of 16oz oat milk latte $4.95, cost $1.1, milk 10c
So in the extreme worst case scenario for starbucks they are making an extra 6% profit per ounce on oatmilk over cow milk, so not at cost-to-price parity.
And that’s the worst case, they are probably making more.
So in one comment you’ve gone from less than a cent to possibly 10 cents. And the price increase isn’t a dollar, it’s 70 cents.
Your calculations don’t seem to include increased refrigerated space required, additional man hours, increased inefficiencies, and possible increased spoilage. The price increase does not strike me as unreasonable given the circumstances.
cf supra—
exhibit a:
“So while I was exaggerating for effect in my original post”
exhibit b:
“extreme worst case scenario”
exhibit c:
“almost a dollar”
waaaay ahead of the gotchas and objections my dude.
Additional space isn’t an overhead rolling operating cost, and per unit is probably infestisimal. Additional man hours is a weird objection, do starbucks even track for “reaching for a carton slightly further away”? I imagine the time savings for moving a carton 4" closer are measured in the thousandths of seconds
oat milk has a longer shelf life (6 months) than cow milk (5 days) and when opened too (10 days vs 2)
The price doesn’t have to strike you as reasonable or not because we are discussing whether we think starbucks are making a profit on oat milk or not. To me it’s obvious they are making more of a margin on oat over dairy, whether or not that is good/bad, reasonable/unreasonable, fair/unfair is an entirely different conversation
Additional space isn’t an overhead rolling operating cost, and per unit is probably infestisimal. Additional man hours is a weird objection, do starbucks even track for “reaching for a carton slightly further away”? I imagine the time savings for moving a carton 4" closer are measured in the thousandths of seconds
Either they added a new refrigerator or made room in an existing refrigerator. To make room something needs to be removed, less room for regular milk means more trips to a walk-in to restock. More SKUs means more time on ordering and inventory. If they added a refrigerator then there’s added electricity costs.
oat milk has a longer shelf life (6 months)
I meant once opened, which is more like a week. Which means they likely all need day dots put on them. More man hours (or minutes, or seconds)
The price doesn’t have to strike you as reasonable or not because we are discussing whether we think starbucks are making a profit on oat milk or not.
They’re a business, I assume they make a profit on everything. Oat milk lattes would seem to be a strange loss leader.
Fused labia. Any time you think about whether the coffee was indeed too hot, I want you to think of the words fused labia.
Also think about the fact that they’d been warned about the coffee being unsafe multiple times prior. Also think about the fact that she initially wanted them to only pay for the reconstructive surgery after their coffee fused her labia, and they said no.
This is known as a red herring fallacy, the fact that it fused her labia doesn’t change the nature of the situation, nor does it increase the gravity of the situation.
“She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants, which absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks and groin.”
Additionanally:
“According to a 2007 report, McDonald’s had not reduced the temperature of its coffee, serving it at 176–194 °F (80–90 °C), relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future injury and liability (though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee). However, in 2013 the New York Times reported that it had lowered its service temperature to 170–180 °F (77–82 °C). The Specialty Coffee Association of America supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases. Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175–185 °F (79–85 °C), and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is 160–185 °F (71–85 °C).”
So not only did it not change the temperature at which most major brands serve coffee, the temperature that was proposed as reasonable by the defense attorneys was also still hot enough to cause third degree burns. I get that she might want them to pay for damages, but she literally dumped it on herself, the reason she was so seriously hurt was because she was 79 years old. If you’re buying hot coffee that’s freshly brewed then it should be obvious it’s hot enough to seriously burn you. If it’s over 150 F then you will get major significant burns.
As to the idea that they had been warned:
“Other documents obtained from McDonald’s showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald’s coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.”
McDonalds purportedly sells more than 50 million cups of coffee per year, over 10 years that was 500 million cups of coffee. 0.00014% is hardly a “warning.”
Actually it was an appeal to emotion. The fact that the coffee was hot enough to fuse her labia together after such a short time is actual evidence of McDonald’s negligence, so not a red herring. Also, pointing out a fallacy in your interlocutor’s argument doesn’t make you right. Also that part wasn’t an argument, so it wasn’t a fallacy in the first place.
700 reports is 700 warnings. I’m sure that McCock tastes good, but McDonald’s does not need you as it’s stoic defender. They’d kill you if they deemed it profitable.
