One of the few foods that I actually boycott is milk from cows who have been given Bovine somatotropin, otherwise known as rBGH. I'm not saying you should or shouldn't, simply that it's a purchasing decision of my own.

rBGH is a hormone that comes with a fair amount of controversy. At the least it's an unnatural way to stimulate milk production in cows, at the most, it's cruel to the animal and may lead to greater antibiotic and chemical contamination of milk and dangerous resistance to antibiotics in the human population. rBGH is a topic that has deserves its own set of posts.

The reason I bring rBGH up is that Food and Water Watch is reporting that the majority of milk that Starbucks uses is laced with the Cow Hormone. For a company that "champions… business practices that produce social, environmental and economic benefits for Starbucks communities globally", it seems a tad hypocritical. Especially when they've mentioned that they were going to address the issue.

Starbucks went on to say in 2001 that 25 percent of its milk supply is rBST-free and that it is “already discussing with existing suppliers what we can do to ensure the remainder of our supply is rBST-free.”

But there's no evidence that they've followed up on this.

I don't care that they sell milk with rBGH. It's their choice to do so, and it's my choice to not visit their stores. The issue is that their mouth says that they are "champions of the environment" when their actions show otherwise. A company cannot have it both ways. Either you're socially responsible or you're not. Either you're for the environment or you're not.

Starbucks wants us to believe they are doing the right thing, when once again they've shown that lip service is the best service they provide.

(Thanks to Jack for the heads up)

Technorati Tags: Starbucks, Coffee, rBGH,