Page One

To the Editor: 

I would like to reply to the criticism of my letter to editor from Gerry Argue, Regional Director of Starbucks Coffee Co., that appeared in the Daily Planet on Oct. 9. 

Mr. Argue’s letter is factually correct, but I feel, very misleading. Mr. Argue re-stated Starbucks official company position on P.C. coffee. He concluded with: “As part of Starbucks commitment to origin countries, Starbucks purchases of organic, shade-grown and Fair Trade certified coffees all contribute to the greater social, economic, and environmental sustainability of coffee production.” 

Yes, Starbucks does buy organic, shade-grown, and Fair Trade coffee but Mr. Argue failed to mention that those purchases are just a tiny percentage of the total. Most of the coffee beans purchased and sold by Starbucks are not organic, shade-grown or Fair Trade. 

Whenever Starbucks states it’s company position on this issue, it always fails to mention this fact, and it always leaves the reader with the impression that most or all of their coffee is organic, shade-grown and Fair Trade which it is not. I am not anti-Starbucks (although there are plenty of people in Berkeley who are.) 

There are good things to be said about Starbucks. For example, the most common criticism of fast-food chains is that they drive local independent restaurants out of business with low prices. McDonald’s and Burger King are both selling hamburgers right now for 99 cents. Few, if any, independent restaurants can compete with that price. However; this criticism cannot be made of Starbucks. Starbucks usually charges more for a cup of coffee than local independent coffee shops. If a small coffee shop loses it’s business to Starbucks, it’s never because Starbucks lured away it’s customers with low prices. That is a point in Starbucks favor, and I think a big one too. 

Starbucks would be doing itself a big favor by being more candid about this issue. People don’t like the feeling that they are being played for suckers. 

Mark Tarses 

Berkeley