Starbucks - Evil or Eviller? And why?

Remove all ads!

LKD: The Hot Chocolate at Timmies is excellent--especially with the Butter Caramel Flavour shot that they offer...

 

I'm not willing to call Starbucks "evil", but I still refuse to drink their coffee. Aside from the fact that a lot of their stores don't even have one fair trade product (which, in a pinch, I'll buy), the beans they use for espresso are never fair-trade. Given that I can just get my fair trade espresso from one of the numerous locally owned shops that exclusively serve fair-trade coffee for less than what Starbucks charges (although I'd gladly pay a little more), I take my business elsewhere.

 

If you're just talking about the price, then I agree. My point was that if I wanted a regular coffee, I probably wouldn't go to Starbucks. Just like I probably wouldn't pick McDonalds if I wanted a salad (which is why I used that as a comparison). To me, SB is known for their speciality flavored coffee, and that's the reason the vast majority of the customers go there. I don't think they would have expanded to their current prevalence if they just served regular coffee, scones, and muffins.

While I'm sure some people buy the regular coffee - they wouldn't offer it at all if no one did - I imagine it's about the same percentage of people who order a salad at McDonalds.

 

Agreed.

Well, I'm not so sure about that. I go to the Starbucks in our office 2-3 times a week, and just get regular coffee (either their house coffee or the "featured" coffee, which is the same price). There are often 4 or more people in line ahead of me, and it's not unusual for half of them to order regular coffee. While I suspect that more people order the specialty coffee than regular, I don't think the ratio is as high as you suggest. But then again, that's just in this one store.

 

Everytime I see this topic the kid's voice from Time Bandits keeps entering my head:

Don't drink that! It's EVIL!

 

Are you suggesting that a coffee company can only be ethical if it follows what the 'Fair Trade' brand decrees to be ethical? Or more to the point, slavishly follows every one of Fair Trade's decrees? I'd be with Starbucks on this one. They have a good reputation for their work practices and will usually pay over the minimum rate required by Fair Trade anyway as they have to source 'premium' beans for their high value products. I don't mean to knock the work Fair Trade do but Starbucks's reputation stands up well on its own without having to borrow another organisation's fuzzy feel-good factor.

My liking them may be helped by the fact that there's only about three or four Starbucks in my entire country. They provide a very good service if one wishes to get a drink and have a sit down in the middle of town. I'd also find their prices competitive. Not to take away but to sit down certainly.

The only issue I would have with Starbucks is that, um, I don't like coffee. Which is kinda a big thing seeing as how they do pretty much nothing else. Their hot chocalate is only OK and I'm not sure if they do tea. I even got a chilled fruit drink at an airport a while ago to find that it was laced wth caffeine. It was awful.

 

Sorry, Aldeth, but I've never had a decent coffee in the USA. For some reason, there seem to be very few people there who know how to make it properly. I'm not sure why.

I don't think anybody seriously thinks that Starbucks is "gourmet coffee" - for the same reason that nobody seriously thinks a Big Mac is gourmet burger.

A $20 coffee maker will probably not make you a decent coffee!

 

You see, most of you have me at a disadvantage. While many of you have drank coffee here in the U.S., I have not drank coffee in many of your native countries, so I cannot compare.

The $20 coffee maker comment was more hyperbole than anything. Come to think of it, even replacing the carafe will probably cost you more than $20, so you're right - it's more than that. However, the point was that coffee makers for "regular coffee" are fairly inexpensive. Now obviously, if you want an expresso or a cappacino you're going to have to spend more.

My wife and I are both coffee drinkers, and we like our coffee strong. It's been a while since we have purchased a coffee maker, and I don't remember what we paid for it, but it couldn't have been that expensive. In fact, we go through coffee bean grinders much more quickly than we go through coffee makers. I think we're on our third grinder, but on our first coffee maker.

I certainly have had my fair share of bad coffee experiences over here in the US. There are definitely places where it is bad. What surprises me is people like Ragusa who think all US coffee is bad, and Harbourboy who "never" had a good cup of coffee in the US, even though he lived here for quite a while. It seems unbelievable to me that anyone who has expereinced a fair cross section of coffee houses here in the states would come to that conclusion. And, as I have previously stated, there are even diners and doughnut shops that make decent coffee.

 

Aldeth,
seriously, what Harbourboy said matches what I heard from friends who went to the US. I trust their judgement. Very diverse group, too, from professionals working in the US, exchange pupils and students to tourists and au-pairs and my cousin ...

I for myself am perfectly willing to change my view if proven otherwise, but I have yet to visit the US. Thinking about it, British coffee is pretty rotten, too, and Irish coffee (not THAT Irish coffee) I also found unconvincing. Maybe coffee is just a continental thing.

Going back to the thread, my sister finds that Starbucks is evil because they are overpriced, have pretentious names and because the cream on a latte-majore-tralala-royal-XS is gooey. She also likes the couches

 

I learned to drink coffee in the Navy. A common practice to lower cost is the "reseed method" -- you take the old grounds and add about 50% more fresh grounds to it to make another pot (30-50 cup pots, by the way).

Even McDonalds coffee is gourmet compared to that. I don't have any problem with drinking any coffee as long as it's not burned (or overpriced like Starbucks). Since my coffee palate is not very refined I am unwilling to pay much for a cup of coffee -- even the best cup I've drank is not much better than what I make at home in my $50 coffee maker.

 

OK, this has become really silly - I mean, for the most part, coffee is nothing more than beans and water. You grind the beans, add the water and you get coffee. Now I know some beans are flavored, thusly, you get flavored coffee.

There IS a difference in the quality of beans, and particular harvests of beans, and there are different types of beans (like Arabica) used in coffee. Also, there is a difference in the ripeness of the coffee beans: unripe beans are used in cheaper coffee.

Juan Valdez sits under his coffee tree and sorts the beans. He sends all the unripened beans to America and all the mature, ripe beans, with all the good flavor to Europe. Everyone knows that why the coffee is better in Europe than it is in America. Just ask Juan.

I agree. It's the same coffee.

 

They are definitely better than Maxwell of Folgers, but they still aren't on par with Fair trade standards. Their beans aren't shade-grown and are often grown in clear-cut land, and while they pay more for their premium beans, what they pay still isn't on par with fair trade standards. Further, I don't have the time or patience to constantly be checking Starbucks' buying habits when I could just purchase higher quality shade grown fair trade coffee for a lower cost.

Contrary to what some people seem to be asserting, there is a noticeable difference between different types of coffee. Just as some people develop a high appreciation of different wines or beers, some people develop such a palate for coffee.

 

Well, I'm sure there is. But I have a feeling that there may be a difference in the water. Whenever I travel it's one of the first things I notice, that the water is different, especially the chemicals, or the hardness or softness of the water. SInce its the main ingedient in the coffee it could be that those from other countries are tasting that difference. It's just a thought. I know people who use only bottled water to make coffeee. They claim it's smoother. And I agree.

 

Good point on the water, Chandos. While that very well may explain some of the possible difference between the European and American coffee experiences, several other factors also come to mind. Where the beans were grown, whether they were shade grown or grown under direct sunlight, how long and at what heat the beans were were roasted, and how recently it was roasted (fresher is always better) all play a huge role in the flavor of the coffee. Once you get used to drinking shade-grown coffee purchased directly from a local roaster (when you buy it directly, the beans are a day or two old at most), everything else - even what you get at most high-end coffee shops - tastes like ****. Assuming (a big assumption, since I haven't looked this up) that Starbucks roasts their beans at several centralized locations, the quality difference could simply be a matter of how freshly roasted the beans are.

 

Example then: in all my time in the USA, I could not find anywhere that would serve a basic flat white. This is a pretty staple cup of coffee that any barista should be able to make but in the USA, I could never find one. You might get a cappuccino or a latte, but no flat white.

And don't get me started on "non-dairy creamer" . . . shiver . . . . .

And thus, you prove my point. If you believe that coffee is just beans and water, then that explains why there is so much bad coffee in the USA. There is a real skill and art to making a nice coffee that depends on how you roast, store, grind, and brew your coffee. Then, of course, there is the skill in getting the milk right.

Where's Chevalier when you need him?

 

Harbourboy, you just didn't know what to order. A flat white is the same as a properly made North American Cafe Latte, which you can order pretty much anywhere. It does differ from a Starbucks style latte in the preparation of the milk, but Starbucks does lots of things wrong.

 

More Coffeeology

Harbourboy is absolutely right, Chandos. Decidedly coffee is not just about water and beans. For illustration, just read this earlier post.

This thread made me reflective and two days ago I made genuine Turkish mocca (recipe per cup): give a largish spoon of very finely ground coffee (best Turkish brand is 'Mehmet Efendi', alternatively Greek coffee comes close - they may hate each other's guts but their coffee is similar) and a small spoon of sugar (orta şekerli - half sweet, the most popular variant) into an open pot (the Turkish use a special pot called cezve that has a handle at the side), and add cool water and heat it slowly under constant stirring until it boils. Voila. If you're good, the mokka has a fine foam. Once in the cup, don't stir to let the coffee grains sink to the bottom. The process is time consuming but the result is excellent. The sugar has an interesting function, it corrects some of the inherent bitterness resulting from that method. (In Turkish shops there is also an ingenious device, a vibrator/cooker that spares you the stirring. Use with caution as I don't consider Turkish electric devices safe. )

That is how the Austrians discovered Mocca after the siege of Vienna, and on that basic recipe all later coffee cooking built in the countries with a real coffee culture - which the more I think of it, means continental Europe. The Vienna coffeehouse culture then spread throughout Europe. Melitta Bentz was a housewife from Dresden, Germany, who invented the first coffee filter. She was looking for a way to brew the perfect cup of coffee with none of the bitterness caused by over brewing (this is important!). The first lever-type espresso machine was invented by Bezzera in 1901. The plunger filter, or Presso that I called wrongly 'push-staff-sieve', also called the "French" press, was actually invented by an Italian named Calimani in 1933. The first stove-top espresso maker was developed in 1933 by Alfonso Bialetti, and has been in production since the 1950's (I am a proud owner of a Bialetti machine). I am also fortunate to have a unique Krupps coffee machine, the T8, that also works with steam pressure and uses flat filter papers, and that, with spectacular visual and sound effects (think of a missile launch), produces excellent coffee.

The US contributions were instant coffee and the percolator. In 1901, just-add-hot water "instant" coffee was invented by Japanese American chemist Satori Kato of Chicago. Instant coffee is for emergency use only; given the choice I'd take Ersatz-'coffee' (my preference is the Caro brand) any day. And then there is the stereotypical American electric drip flter/percolator - in comparison the fastest and easiest but also the worst method. All percolators I have seen so far have one hole for the coffee to drip through (Ms. Melitta Benz' first commercial filters had four * [see above for 'over brewing']) - which means that in your average percolator the water stands in the filter and extracts the bitter tastes from the coffee. By design it over brews almost inevitably. This also explains why from all coffee variants percolator coffee has the highest caffeine content, and the poorest taste. The hotplate then ruins the already questionable result even further. Compared to the traditional use of filter paper, the percolator is clearly inferior.

My thoroughly biased analysis leads me to conclude that American coffee innovations were aimed on producing more and stronger coffee faster and easier. That is not at all at odds with the American way of doing things I think. Different countries, different priorities, different tastes.

* My brother has an original pre-war 4-hole filter and I envy him; I have two pre-war 3-hole filters. They don't make them anymore. Recent production only has single hole ones, which is lamentable.

 

Sorry, I missed your earlier post, professor. Well, no, that may have been what you have "heard," but that has not been my experience. Most coffee here is of the "non-see-through" variety, I assure you (And I'm not just being patriotic). Don't believe "everything" you hear, I guess. But I will take your word for it that your "Turkish Technique" results in better, if not more exotic, tasting coffee. I also have to take your word for it that your Krups coffee maker is "superior" to my Mr. Coffee maker that I bought at Krogers for $29.99 (actually I got it on sale for 24.99).

I had a Krups coffee make once that I bought from Target. It lasted about 3 months and stopped working. Oh well, its manufacture was probably out-sourced to China anyway...Blaming the Chinese...how American is that?

 

I would question the quality of the coffee you get from a machine that was much less than $100, unless it was a stovetop espresso maker, but that's not really a "machine".

 

I don't think your terminology is right. When I was a kid they used have "percolators." In fact, they did the reverse: They heated the water and shot it through the canister that held the coffee. It had a bunch of holes in it to let the coffee through. In fact, the coffee does not stand in the canister of percolators at all, IIRC.

Now we have drip makers. The coffee no longer precolates, but is just heated and dumped into the canister with the coffee. And yes, it stands in the canister with the coffee. It makes it very strong. The trick here is to use just the right amount of coffee so that it is neither too strong nor too weak. It's kind of a trial and error process, but not too difficult. When you come to Houston I will prove it to you. We will have a coffee challenge. Coffee made with bottled water is better, IMO. I think the tap water has all the bad tasting chemicals, like a lot of chlorine and Flouride. But that's why we have better teeth than you guys do.