1995
Broadway 1001
Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Second
Floor Suite
1128
New
York, NY 10023-5860 Washington,
D.C. 20036
Citizens
for the Integrity of Science Nat.
Ctr. for Public Policy Research
12309
Briarbush Lane 777
N. Capitol St., N.E.
Potomac,
MD 20854 Suite
803
Washington, D.C.
20002
Competitive
Enterprise Institute Hudson
Institute
1001
Connecticut Ave., N.W. Center
for Global Food Issues
Suite
1250 P.O.
Box 202
Washington,
DC. 20036 Churchville,
VA 24421-0202
AgBioWorld
Foundation
P.O.
Box 85
Tuskegee,
AL 36087-0085
Howard
Schultz, Chairman of the Board Gregory
B. Maffei, Member of the Board
Starbucks
Coffee Company Starbucks
Coffee Company
P.O.
Box 34067 360
networks, Inc.
Seattle,
WA 98124-1067 2200 6th Avenue, Suite
1122
Seattle,
WA 98121
Arlen
I. Prentice, Member of the Board
Starbucks
Coffee Company Howard
P. Behard, Member of the Board
Kibble
& Prentice Starbucks
Coffee Company
600
Stewart Street, Suite 1000 6926 SE 34th St.
Seattle, WA 98101 Mercer
Island, WA 98040-3327
Barbara
Bass, Member of the Board James
G. Shennan, Jr., Member of the Board
Starbucks
Coffee Company Starbucks
Coffee Company
Gerson
Bakar Foundation Trinity
Ventures
3 Bayside Village Pl., Suite 304 3000 Sand Hill Road, Building 4, Suite 360
San Francisco, CA 94107 Menlo
Park, CA 94025
Craig
J. Follery Member of the Board
Starbucks
Coffee Company
The
Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc
1
Pepsi Way
Somers, NY 10589-2201
Dear Members of the Board of Starbucks Coffee Company:
On behalf of our member organizations which represent consumers, public health advocates, food and agriculture experts, scientists and academics, we commend Starbucks’ Board of Directors’ opposition to the pending activist proposal regarding foods produced using biotechnology-improved crops.
We also wish to thank the Board for adopting a responsible policy regarding the offering of premium-priced certified organic or soy milk options to your consumers as alternatives to, not replacements for more affordable and safe conventional dairy products.
Unfortunately,
the Organic Consumers Association is now threatening Starbucks with continued
attacks if Starbucks does not capitulate to their demands.
The
Organic Consumers Association coalition members – who receive significant
financial support from the organic industry and, in the case of the Institute
for Agriculture and Trade Policy, even run their own for-profit organic coffee
company that competes with Starbucks – now threaten a return to Seattle to
protest the upcoming Starbucks’ annual shareholder meeting. Sadly, these activist groups include the
organizers of and many of the participants in the December 1999 World Trade
Organization protests which resulted in millions of dollars in damage to the
city and the destruction of Starbucks’ property.
The
Organic Consumers Association February/March 2002 newsletter proclaims:
Starbucks is clearly rattled
by the OCA market pressure campaign… Now all we've got to do is to keep up the
pressure on Starbucks until they meet all of our demands. After Starbucks surrenders, then we can turn
our market pressure campaigns on the other, even larger, food and beverage
companies…
An
OCA letter to Starbucks’ Sue Mecklenberg this past January threatens:
Imagine a press conference where we stand outside a Starbucks location and test your Cappuccinos for the presence of rBGH…
This
scare tactic is particularly interesting because no such test exists.
The
U.S. Food and Drug Administration has repeatedly noted that all cows naturally
produce bovine growth hormone (bGH), all milk naturally contains traces of bGH,
and bGH and rbGH are biologically indistinguishable. No test exists because the milk from cows receiving supplemental
bGH is exactly the same as all other milk.
This is just more evidence of
OCA’s willingness to make false and misleading claims to manipulate
companies like Starbucks.
Providing
real consumer choice by offering certified organic milk or soy milk was and
continues to be a responsible approach to resolving the consumer choice
issue. We want to be sure, however,
that Starbucks is aware of concerns regarding the sustainability of organic
production and the potential issues that may arise from turning towards organic
products exclusively.
In January, Unilever’s CEO
Niall FitzGerald cautioned that the limitations to organic farming must be
acknowledged; suggesting that truly “sustainable” farming included leveraging
the potential of biotechnology crops.
Earlier his month, American
Association for the Advancement of Science president and Time Magazine's
environmental “Hero for the Planet,” Peter Raven, told the Pew Trust that
biotech crops were better for the environment than organic methods. Green
Revolution hero and Nobel peace prize-winner Norman Borlaug joined Raven in
noting that pesticide reductions associated with biotechnology-crops were an
improvement over organic methods.
Many organic dairy farmers
in Europe -- where tax payers heavily subsidize the organic conversions -- are
being forced to sell their milk as conventional at a significant economic loss
due to lack of promised consumer demand for the higher-costing organic
milk. In the U.S. organic dairies in
New England are being paid less than promised for their milk, also due to
sagging markets. And, this past August,
the New York Times Magazine exposed the fact that over 70 percent of all organic
milk is now produced by one company on mega-farm dry lots where cows never see
a blade of grass. The milk is then super-heated (which the Times reports
incorrectly makes it less nutritious) for longer-shelf life before being
shipped thousands of miles to customers misled to believe they are supporting
family farms providing local fresh milk.
Putting
family farmers at risk and misleading consumers is certainly not something one
would associate with a responsible company like Starbucks. Unfortunately, the activist groups led by
the Organic Consumers Association do not believe in allowing family dairy
producers the freedom to use their best judgment about how to run their farms
or in offering consumers real or truly informed choice. They continue to spread misinformation
regarding the economics and safe use of productivity-enhancing supplements and
continue to target Starbucks to help further their campaign against
biotechnology and other aspects of conventional agriculture.
These
activists continue to demand that Starbucks only use dairy products from cows
certified as not receiving supplemental bGH.
This, of course, removes any real consumer choice, damages farmers’
ability to remain profitable, increases the burdens on the environment and
reinforces myths and blatant falsehoods promoted by these activist groups and
the organic food industry about the safety of milk.
The
activists also ask Starbucks to label brand-name products as “rbST free.” Such
labeling has been determined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to be
false and misleading. Milk from cows receiving supplemental bST and from those
not receiving supplemental bST is indistinguishable. We hope you will consider
sharing information like this with shareholders or customers in need of
additional information on this topic.
We
continue to offer you our support and strongly urge you to take the opportunity
of your upcoming Annual Meeting to denounce these activists, their tactics, and
their misleading fear campaigns. Absent
a clear message that responsible businesses will not be party to such false and
misleading attacks Starbucks’ customers will continue to be victims of this
irresponsible manipulation. We will gladly send representatives from our
coalition to your meeting to support such statements should you so
request.
Again,
we ask that Starbucks to continue opposing misleading food fear campaigns, and
that Starbucks continue its support for responsible and truly sustainable
farming. We look forward to your
response and to Starbucks taking a stand against fear-mongering and extreme
activist groups. Thank you.
Sincerely:
Steven
J. Milloy, Citizens for the Integrity of Science, on behalf of
Elizabeth M. Whelan, American Council on Science and Health
Alex Avery, Hudson Institute, Center for Global Food Issues
Gregory Conko, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Frances B. Smith, Consumer Alert
C.S. Prakash, AgBioWorld Foundation
David Ridenour, National Center for Public Policy Analysis
cc: Dennis Stefanacci, Senior Vice President for Corporate Social
Responsibility
Orin Smith, President and CEO