Thread: Picky, picky

On 3/28/2012 2:30 PM, James Silverton wrote:
> I'm not all that worried about cruelty to bugs. Cochineal has been used
> since the fifteenth century.
>
> Bugging Out: Vegetarians Upset With Starbucks’ Use of Beetle Extract
> By Tim Newcomb
> In an effort to avoid artificial additives in its drinks, Starbucks got
> vegetarians peeved by using a new ingredient in its strawberry products,
> ABC News reports. That ingredient? Extract from dried, crushed cochineal
> beetles, as part of its red dye.
>
>
> Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/#ixzz1qRfWTCGk


I'm not up in arms about the use of cochineal either. But beetles are
animals and animals were utilized to make this beverage, and as such it
is not vegan.

Pennyaline wrote:

>I'm not up in arms about the use of cochineal either. But beetles are
>animals and animals were utilized to make this beverage, and as such it
>is not vegan.

Corporations should know better than to take sides in a religious
dispute.

James Silverton wrote:
>
> I'm not all that worried about cruelty to bugs. Cochineal has been used
> since the fifteenth century.

It's Starbucks that annoys people. Cochineal
is used in lots of other stuff -- almost anything
pink. You don't hear much about that.

Or the insects in fig newtons. (Figs are pollinated
by a wasp that dies inside the fig.)

In article <[email protected]>,
George M. Middius <[email protected]> wrote:

> Pennyaline wrote:
>
> >I'm not up in arms about the use of cochineal either. But beetles are
> >animals and animals were utilized to make this beverage, and as such it
> >is not vegan.
>
> Corporations should know better than to take sides in a religious
> dispute.

if only republicans would do the same

James Silverton wrote:
> I'm not all that worried about cruelty to bugs. Cochineal has been used
> since the fifteenth century.
>
> Bugging Out: Vegetarians Upset With Starbucks’ Use of Beetle Extract
> By Tim Newcomb
> In an effort to avoid artificial additives in its drinks, Starbucks got
> vegetarians peeved by using a new ingredient in its strawberry products,
> ABC News reports. That ingredient? Extract from dried, crushed cochineal
> beetles, as part of its red dye.
>
>
> Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/#ixzz1qRfWTCGk
>
There are a lot worse things one could be using.

--
Jean B.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:22:18 -0800, Mark Thorson <[email protected]>
wrote:

>James Silverton wrote:
>>
>> I'm not all that worried about cruelty to bugs. Cochineal has been used
>> since the fifteenth century.
>
>It's Starbucks that annoys people. Cochineal
>is used in lots of other stuff -- almost anything
>pink. You don't hear much about that.
>
>Or the insects in fig newtons. (Figs are pollinated
>by a wasp that dies inside the fig.)

And the fig digests it- so is it any more like meat than eating
veggies fertilized with worm castings?

Jim
[not a vegan so I don't have to answer that]

"Jim Elbrecht" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:22:18 -0800, Mark Thorson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>James Silverton wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not all that worried about cruelty to bugs. Cochineal has been used
>>> since the fifteenth century.
>>
>>It's Starbucks that annoys people. Cochineal
>>is used in lots of other stuff -- almost anything
>>pink. You don't hear much about that.
>>
>>Or the insects in fig newtons. (Figs are pollinated
>>by a wasp that dies inside the fig.)
>
> And the fig digests it- so is it any more like meat than eating
> veggies fertilized with worm castings?

Ewwwwwwwwww you've put me right off ....

--
http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

In article <jkvscc$emr$[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> I'm not all that worried about cruelty to bugs. Cochineal has been used
> since the fifteenth century.
>
> Bugging Out: Vegetarians Upset With Starbucks? Use of Beetle Extract
> By Tim Newcomb

It was vegans (not vegetarians) who objected. The reason they objected
was that Starbucks had previously advertised the product as suitable for
vegans and not announced the change of ingredients that makes it
unacceptable to vegans.


Janet.

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:32:12 +0100, Janet <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <jkvscc$emr$[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> I'm not all that worried about cruelty to bugs. Cochineal has been used
>> since the fifteenth century.
>>
>> Bugging Out: Vegetarians Upset With Starbucks? Use of Beetle Extract
>> By Tim Newcomb
>
> It was vegans (not vegetarians) who objected. The reason they objected
>was that Starbucks had previously advertised the product as suitable for
>vegans and not announced the change of ingredients that makes it
>unacceptable to vegans.
>
>
> Janet.

So vegans don't eat bugs. Good to know!

Do they eat bacteria? ;-)

John Kuthe...

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:13:50 -0600, Pennyaline wrote:

> On 3/28/2012 2:30 PM, James Silverton wrote:
>> I'm not all that worried about cruelty to bugs. Cochineal has been used
>> since the fifteenth century.
>>
>> Bugging Out: Vegetarians Upset With Starbucks¢ Use of Beetle Extract
>> By Tim Newcomb
>> In an effort to avoid artificial additives in its drinks, Starbucks got
>> vegetarians peeved by using a new ingredient in its strawberry products,
>> ABC News reports. That ingredient? Extract from dried, crushed cochineal
>> beetles, as part of its red dye.
>>
>>
>> Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/#ixzz1qRfWTCGk
>
> I'm not up in arms about the use of cochineal either. But beetles are
> animals and animals were utilized to make this beverage, and as such it
> is not vegan.

As far as I remember, many vegetarians are still up in the air about
the classification of bugs. Practically everything plant, processed
or raw, has bugs in it. I they want to be strict about it, they'll be
pretty hungry and malnourished.

-sw

"Janet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> In article <jkvscc$emr$[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> I'm not all that worried about cruelty to bugs. Cochineal has been used
>> since the fifteenth century.
>>
>> Bugging Out: Vegetarians Upset With Starbucks? Use of Beetle Extract
>> By Tim Newcomb
>
> It was vegans (not vegetarians) who objected. The reason they objected
> was that Starbucks had previously advertised the product as suitable for
> vegans and not announced the change of ingredients that makes it
> unacceptable to vegans.
>
>
> Janet.


One would think people who are so picky about what they injest would know
better than to buy coffee from Starbucks I had Starbucks coffee exactly
once, about 10 years ago. It was nasty. Very bitter. I like the
occasional good strong cup of black coffee. That stuff made me cringe.

Jill

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> "Janet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]..
> > In article <jkvscc$emr$[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> >>
> >> I'm not all that worried about cruelty to bugs. Cochineal has been used
> >> since the fifteenth century.
> >>
> >> Bugging Out: Vegetarians Upset With Starbucks? Use of Beetle Extract
> >> By Tim Newcomb
> >
> > It was vegans (not vegetarians) who objected. The reason they objected
> > was that Starbucks had previously advertised the product as suitable for
> > vegans and not announced the change of ingredients that makes it
> > unacceptable to vegans.
> >
> >
> > Janet.
>
>
> One would think people who are so picky about what they injest would know
> better than to buy coffee from Starbucks

Veganism is about far more than what they ingest.

Janet

On 3/29/2012 11:55 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>
> "Janet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]..
>> In article <jkvscc$emr$[email protected]>, [email protected]
>> says...
>>>
>>> I'm not all that worried about cruelty to bugs. Cochineal has been used
>>> since the fifteenth century.
>>>
>>> Bugging Out: Vegetarians Upset With Starbucks? Use of Beetle Extract
>>> By Tim Newcomb
>>
>> It was vegans (not vegetarians) who objected. The reason they objected
>> was that Starbucks had previously advertised the product as suitable for
>> vegans and not announced the change of ingredients that makes it
>> unacceptable to vegans.
>>
>>
>> Janet.
>
>
> One would think people who are so picky about what they injest would
> know better than to buy coffee from Starbucks I had Starbucks coffee
> exactly once, about 10 years ago. It was nasty. Very bitter. I like the
> occasional good strong cup of black coffee. That stuff made me cringe.

As far as I know, the only thing Starbucks sells these days is sugar,
whipped cream and chocolate with a little coffee in it. The last
beverage I purchased from Starbucks, also about ten years ago, was
dreadful. It was straight coffee, and it was burned and overextracted to
the point of being undrinkable. It's no wonder that their sugary crap
drinks are their big sellers; no one would be able to drink the stuff
otherwise.

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 17:29:10 -0600, Pennyaline
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On 3/29/2012 11:55 AM, jmcquown wrote:
> >
> >
> > One would think people who are so picky about what they injest would
> > know better than to buy coffee from Starbucks I had Starbucks coffee
> > exactly once, about 10 years ago. It was nasty. Very bitter. I like the
> > occasional good strong cup of black coffee. That stuff made me cringe.
>
> As far as I know, the only thing Starbucks sells these days is sugar,
> whipped cream and chocolate with a little coffee in it. The last
> beverage I purchased from Starbucks, also about ten years ago, was
> dreadful. It was straight coffee, and it was burned and overextracted to
> the point of being undrinkable. It's no wonder that their sugary crap
> drinks are their big sellers; no one would be able to drink the stuff
> otherwise.

There is *nothing* strong about starbucks. I tried a regular cup of
Starbucks about 6 months ago and it was the weakest tasting wannabe
crud that I've ever had the misfortune to pay more than 50¢ for. The
dirty dishwater preferences of the midwest have ruined a perfectly
good coffee. All that talk about "burned" is pure cr*p. I know
burned coffee and that wasn't it. It was barely dark roasted. The
complainers need to get back to sipping their too sweet tea and let
the real coffee drinkers enjoy a decent cuppa Joe.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

Janet wrote:

> Veganism is about far more than what they ingest.

There's supposed to be a boundary between veganism and animism.

Pennyaline wrote:

> As far as I know, the only thing Starbucks sells these days is sugar,
> whipped cream and chocolate with a little coffee in it.

Actually, they sell more milk than anything else. Their cappucino and
lattes are 3/4 milk.

> The last
> beverage I purchased from Starbucks, also about ten years ago, was
> dreadful. It was straight coffee, and it was burned and overextracted to
> the point of being undrinkable. It's no wonder that their sugary crap
> drinks are their big sellers; no one would be able to drink the stuff
> otherwise.

You'll be happy to know it's now possible to get drinkable coffee at
Charbucks. It's not great, but it's not always burnt. If they have
"house blend" (pretty blah) or "morning blend" (better), you're in
luck. Some only have "Pike's Peak" or whatever it's called, and that's
a throwback to the Big Burning Era.

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:24:31 -0500, Sqwertz <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:13:50 -0600, Pennyaline wrote:
>
>> On 3/28/2012 2:30 PM, James Silverton wrote:
>>> I'm not all that worried about cruelty to bugs. Cochineal has been used
>>> since the fifteenth century.
>>>
>>> Bugging Out: Vegetarians Upset With Starbucks’ Use of Beetle Extract
>>> By Tim Newcomb
>>> In an effort to avoid artificial additives in its drinks, Starbucks got
>>> vegetarians peeved by using a new ingredient in its strawberry products,
>>> ABC News reports. That ingredient? Extract from dried, crushed cochineal
>>> beetles, as part of its red dye.
>>>
>>>
>>> Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/#ixzz1qRfWTCGk
>>
>> I'm not up in arms about the use of cochineal either. But beetles are
>> animals and animals were utilized to make this beverage, and as such it
>> is not vegan.
>
>As far as I remember, many vegetarians are still up in the air about
>the classification of bugs. Practically everything plant, processed
>or raw, has bugs in it. I they want to be strict about it, they'll be
>pretty hungry and malnourished.

And then if they eliminated anything that utilized bugs to be
produced, they'd get even hungrier.<g>

Jim

On 3/29/2012 6:20 PM, George M. Middius wrote:
> Actually, they sell more milk than anything else. Their cappucino and
> lattes are 3/4 milk.

I was close, then.



> You'll be happy to know it's now possible to get drinkable coffee at
> Charbucks. It's not great, but it's not always burnt. If they have
> "house blend" (pretty blah) or "morning blend" (better), you're in
> luck. Some only have "Pike's Peak" or whatever it's called, and that's
> a throwback to the Big Burning Era.

I wouldn't dare try another Starbucks product. My experience was too
strongly negative for me to have anymore faith in any of their products.
And I'm really not interested in the milkshakes I've seen people
swilling left and right at work--how they get through the day without
bouts of diarrhea I'll never know.

On 3/29/2012 5:59 PM, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 17:29:10 -0600, Pennyaline
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> As far as I know, the only thing Starbucks sells these days is sugar,
>> whipped cream and chocolate with a little coffee in it. The last
>> beverage I purchased from Starbucks, also about ten years ago, was
>> dreadful. It was straight coffee, and it was burned and overextracted to
>> the point of being undrinkable. It's no wonder that their sugary crap
>> drinks are their big sellers; no one would be able to drink the stuff
>> otherwise.
>
> There is *nothing* strong about starbucks. I tried a regular cup of
> Starbucks about 6 months ago and it was the weakest tasting wannabe
> crud that I've ever had the misfortune to pay more than 50¢ for. The
> dirty dishwater preferences of the midwest have ruined a perfectly
> good coffee. All that talk about "burned" is pure cr*p. I know
> burned coffee and that wasn't it. It was barely dark roasted. The
> complainers need to get back to sipping their too sweet tea and let
> the real coffee drinkers enjoy a decent cuppa Joe.

I didn't say it was "strong." I said it was burned and overextracted.
That means bitter and roasted to the point of char. Sorry if you
disagree, but that was my experience with it and it was enough to put me
off Starbucks for the rest of my days. I'll have my coffee at home,
thanks, ground and brewed the way I like it, and I pack a small electric
kettle and two cup french press for travel (ain't no sweet tea drinker
here!). Starbucks might be brewing up dishwater now (which I also
wouldn't want), but it might as well have been a cup of charcoal slurry
with cream and sugar in 2003.