Starbucks tells Bloomberg NO

[Will E Worm]

Starbucks Refuses to Follow NYC Sugary Drink Ban — Mayor Bloomberg Dismisses this as 'Ridiculous'


Michael Bloomberg's large, sugary drink ban will start in NYC tomorrow.

But Bloomberg is facing some intense opposition from corporate giant Starbucks. The coffee chain said it would make no immediate changes to its business based on the ban.

Bloomberg told television show Face The Nation that Starbucks not changing its offerings is "ridiculous."

When interviewer Bob Schieffer pointed out that Starbucks wasn't changing its offerings because it was confused about which of its products would fall under the ban, Bloomberg retorted that the corporation should know better.

“Starbucks knows how to market things, knows how to package things,” Bloomberg said. “They can change instantly when it’s in their interest to do so.”

The new mandate limits sugary drinks sold at restaurants, movie theaters, street carts, and more to 16 ounces. But some drinks, such as those made up of 50 percent milk or more, are exempt.

It will be enforced by city health inspectors during inspections, when restaurants violating the ban will lose points on their sanitation score. It's not clear, however, how significant the penalities will be or whether the city would take stronger action to target as big an offender as Starbucks.

Starbucks spokeswoman Linda Mills told us that it would not make immediate changes to its menu because of the ban.

" Our understanding is that any beverage with 50 percent or more milk is exempt from the ruling," Mills said. "Because many of our beverages are made from milk or are customized by the customer, many of our beverages fall outside the ban."

But Starbucks will still continue to offer beverages like its green iced-tea lemonade in larger sizes too. That drink doesn't contain milk but is high in sugar.

Starbucks also "recognizes pending litigation" about the ban and "doesn't want to make any knee-jerk reactions," Mills said.

The American Beverage Association filed to stop the ban until a judge decides on whether to stop it altogether.

Starbucks competitor Dunkin' Donuts is taking the mandate seriously.

At Dunkin', customers will have to add their own sugar or flavors to large and extra-large hot beverage and medium and large iced beverages. The company also announced that sweet beverages like hot chocolate will only be available in small and medium sizes.

Bloomberg's ban, which only affects restaurants and places that sell prepared foods, is meant to combat obesity.

Critics of the ban say it will be difficult to enforce and will make business less efficient.

For example, instead of a Dunkin' Donuts employee adding sugar to a drink and handing it off, customers will have to line up to add their own sugar.

Article


Great news...

:clap:

This is what everyone should do. Bloomberg's "law" is not constitutional and he doesn't have this type of power.


He's just an old grouch trying to make everyone's lives misrable.

 

[Jeep!]

Just so you know, this is the same Starbucks that refused to pay corporation tax abroad; they're no stranger to defying laws because of profit--don't mistake greed for civil disobedience.

 

[darkwarrior3007]

Just so you know, this is the same Starbucks that refused to pay corporation tax abroad; they're no stranger to defying laws because of profit--don't mistake greed for civil disobedience.

Have you met Will, Jeep? He'll say that Starbucks should refuse to pay corporate taxes.

 

[Jeep!]

Have you met Will, Jeep? He'll say that Starbucks should refuse to pay corporate taxes.

Oh I know. I'm really just fore-warning anyone who might read his post and misinterpret it as Starbucks taking a moral stand when they really just want to keep making more money. I'm not naive enough to think I could change Mr. McVeigh's mind.

 

[meesterperfect]

did Starbucks break any laws in doing this?
but also how is their not abiding by bloomerburgs stupid law going to make them more money?
what's the connection?

btw i have a way to avoid all of this. I don't buy their shit.
I'm wit Paulie:

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Starbucks makes a good cup of coffee. I would not stop buying their product over silly reasons...mainly because I drink coffee black, and even if they offered a 50oz cup, the amount of sugar you put in it, is up to you

I know nothing else of their menu....I have testicles, and I drink black coffee impdaddy

 

[meesterperfect]

i like my coffee with just a small shot of milk, nothing else.
i think it enhances the flavor.
but i'm still pretty masculine despite i think.
i just rarely buy any coffee on the outside

 

[Jeep!]

I take mine black, and when I'm out I take it from a local business. I've tried Starbucks a few times when I've been dragged in and I've never enjoyed their coffee; it's just down to whatever supplier/beans/recipe they're using and it's not my kind of thing.

 

[darkwarrior3007]

From what I've read, it looks like a judge threw out Bloomberg's law.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/judge-throws-nyc-ban-large-sugary-drinks-193247946--politics.html

 

[Will E Worm]

Have you met Will, Jeep? He'll say that Starbucks should refuse to pay corporate taxes.

I have never said anything like that.

I'm not naive enough to think I could change Mr. McVeigh's mind.

You are naive if you think it was McViegh who masterminded Oklahoma. :1orglaugh

And, that a cratering charge, fertilizer, can destroy a building that is a hard target.
(Steel reinforced concrete)

did Starbucks break any laws in doing this?
but also how is their not abiding by bloomerburgs stupid law going to make them more money?
what's the connection?

btw i have a way to avoid all of this. I don't buy their shit.
I'm wit Paulie:
youtube;cUKJWsnAAXs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUKJWsnAAXs

It's not going to make them any more money. These people are nuts.

 

[Jeep!]

You are naive if you think it was McViegh who masterminded Oklahoma. :1orglaugh

Jews did Waco! Martians shot Spencer Percival!

 

[meesterperfect]

Jews did Waco! Martians shot Spencer Percival!

Actually Waco was all Bill Clinton jeep.

 

[Jeep!]

Actually Waco was all Bill Clinton jeep.

Didn't know Clinton was an ATF agent...

 

[meesterperfect]

All right a Waco debate!
ATF>FBI> Janet Reno>Bill Clinton.
I don't care how alcoholic you are, You don't inject powerful teargas that when ignited by the concussion grenades youre chucking in turns to Cyanide into a house full of children.
It's just not right.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Dn8Oyi_zp...Abw/Tlze6B4MvHc/s1600/burnt-child-at-waco.jpg

 

[Jeep!]

All right a Waco debate!
ATF>FBI> Janet Reno>Bill Clinton.
I don't care how alcoholic you are, You don't inject powerful teargas that when ignited by the concussion grenades youre chucking in turns to Cyanide into a house full of children.
It's just not right.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Dn8Oyi_zp...Abw/Tlze6B4MvHc/s1600/burnt-child-at-waco.jpg

Missed this or I'd have responded sooner. I've never denied Waco was anything other than a callous atrocity, but it's a bit too Nuremburg to insist it was Clinton, and not the actual ATF men on the ground who were responsible. Each and every one of the agents present that day is guilty of nothing short of murder, but it was them who were responsible, not the guy who's their boss' boss' boss.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Maybe not Clinton, but Reno, and the person under her have some responsibility in that fiasco.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe not Clinton, but Reno, and the person under her have some responsibility in that fiasco.

 

[mikexmoran]

I like Dunkin' Donuts better.

Funny...when I have coffee at home or work it is skim milk, no sugar. At good ol' DD, it is with whole milk and sugar.

...With Jamesons' is best tho'!

 

[xfire]

I buy Dunkin' Donut coffee by the bag from the grocery store. Good stuff. I don't add cream, milk, or sugar. I can't stand Folgers anymore. They started adding Robusta beans to their mix and it's just yuck.

 

[mikexmoran]

...and while I think Bloomberg's heart is in the right place, education on health is the right path. Trying to legalize choice isn't.
We could get into a whole Darwin discussion too, but that wouldn't be quick enough.