This Tuesday, consumer, environmental and social justice activists in 300 other U.S. cities and five other nations (United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada, Australia and Japan) will be leafleting and staging protests in front of Starbucks coffee shops. These protests are timed to coincide with Starbucks' annual stockholders meeting, which takes place in Seattle Feb. 26. Protestors, including shareholders in Seattle, will call attention to Starbucks' use of genetically engineered ingredients in their foods and beverages, as well as Starbucks' refusal to brew Fair Trade, shade-grown coffee as its \coffee of the day"" at least one day a week.
Starbucks, the largest coffee-shop chain in the world, recently began to give in to at least some of the demands of this global campaign, but remains under pressure from activists and even some of its shareholders, for full implementation of the campaign's demands. Starbucks CEO Orin Smith admitted last year that Fair Trade, shade-grown coffee represents only one-tenth of 1 percent of Starbucks' total sales and that most of its beverages and foods contain genetically engineered ingredients.
Fortunately, in Madison there are many coffee shops that offer an alternative to injustices perpetuated by Starbucks. For instance, there are many individually owned coffee shops; there are many coffee shops that serve Fair Trade coffee; there are many coffee shops that serve organic products and abstain from serving rBGH milk; and finally there is one coffee shop that is cooperatively owned. Unlike Starbucks, Cafe Assisi is doing these positive actions. When asked, an employee/owner of the cafe said, ""An important distinction between us and Starbucks is that we only brew Fair Trade coffee and that all of us are equally invested in the cafe, as opposed to corporate executives who are reaping in all of the profits.""
Thus, not only this Tuesday but from here forward we should support local business and let Starbucks know that their unjust actions will not be tolerated.
In his opinion piece (""Parents must not rely on CD, movie censor ratings,"" Feb. 22), Will Temby makes some good points about the potential hazards of relying on ratings systems. However, when he talks about seeing parents with preteen children at the Cypress Hill concert, he overlooks something important. He says, ""After years of hearing about parental outrage at the entertainment industry for targeting minors in advertising, I thought by now parents would inform themselves about the bands before taking their kids to a concert like this."" But how does he know the parents hadn't listened to Cypress Hill before the show? Even if they haven't, is their being there such a bad thing?
Allowing preteens to attend such a concert in the first place might be questionable, but if they are going let them go, the least a parent could do is go with them. Think of it like a PG-13- or R-rated movie. Mom or Dad may not know everything that will be seen or heard beforehand, and they may not even agree with most of it, but by watching with their children, they will at least be aware of what their kids are exposed to, and can discuss it with them afterwards. So while parents certainly shouldn't let ratings systems do all the work for them, they do serve as a decent guideline for helping to make good decisions.
