22 points Tomte 4 hours ago 14 comments

mlhpdx 3 hours ago | parent

I’m trying to visualize the argument made that this was okay. I can’t.

altairprime 1 hour ago | parent

“People bought it in droves and whatever the fines, they’ll pale next to the profits” seems a legitimate enough justification? The cost of a diabetes death is only a few million dollars if they can cast enough doubt in a courtroom and a business has no capability for shame or humiliation. Starbucks the corporation has no moral or ethical duty unless one is enforced by their terms of incorporation, and one images Starbucks would rather die than see itself turned into a B-corp, so I doubt that’ll ever come to pass.

I’m confused why this type of thing is so reliably a surprise to us as a community. It’s the same ethical model that HN’s own industry operates under, so I’ve assumed we’d all be well familiar with it by now? Especially given how many of our salaries that exact same amorality has paid. I’m sure that’s exactly what’s happening at Starbucks, too: a bunch of people want to succeed and found a way to sweeten sugar free drinks with milk concentrate, which is a pretty genius move in a business context. I mean, this story could outright be an opening hook for a Better Off Ted episode for how cliché it is:

Veronica: “Ted, we need a smoothie that can be legally labeled sugar-free while tasting as sweet as tears of a crying young child after I’ve taken her ice cream and eaten it all up.”

Ted: “We can do that! Uh, was that a simile?”

Veronica: “No, it was vanilla.”

The business side of Better Off Ted was an accurate representation of the default state of a business’s ethics: Not Applicable. Fines and penalties for the rare case of being held accountable for impersonal malice towards customers are budgeted for in the same way that one budgets for bribes: have enough liquid assets to cover the immediate threats and delay any court proceedings long enough for the market to forget the risk while you reserve interest earned to pay it without disrupting operating profits. It externalizes ethical responsibilities onto the courts the same way Amazon externalizes packaging waste onto municipal waste streams worldwide, and outsourcing problems is Good Business 101.

I recognize one this probably seems morally bankrupt, but I’m not endorsing their behavior — I, a high-functioning sociopath, think that they’re a parasitic malignancy, and certainly I am well able to recognize sociopathy and amorality, given how often I see it in the mirror. Cancers such as theirs should be irradiated with changes to incorporation laws to be prosocial while their profits are permanently capped, with copyleft-style clauses to ensure that anyone who buys or operates their assets is then bound by those same requirements, They have done grievous harms to human labor and will clearly lie at the drop of a penny in their register, and should be used as a lesson to the other antisocial businesses on why they need to fake giving a shit through actions rather than just platitudes lest they be forced to wither to a husk of their former valuation while still operating technically profitably but in a way that’s utterly useless for financial engineering. But my opinion about how we ought to apply morality isn’t relevant here, helping others comprehend that we’re facing corporate sociopathy is — I’m only mentioning it to contrast the difference between “describe the sociopath” and “judge the sociopath” :)

helsinkiandrew 3 hours ago | parent

TLDR: Starbucks are using the term "Sugar-Free" when they mean “no added sugar” although there's sugar naturally in the ingredients.

I'm not sure how anyone can argue that isn't clearly breaking FDA guidance of containing less than 0.5g of sugar:

https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidan...

goobatrooba 2 hours ago | parent

It seems to go further. They must be intentionally adding ingredients that have a high sugar content, else they would never get to the 21g of sugar in a 21oz drink, as mentioned by the article.

Llamamoe 2 hours ago | parent

This is basically standard practice worldwide for most "sugar free" products. Most common sources are dates, apple juice concentrate, honey in my experience.

Products actually using erythritol, mannitol, or xylitol instead are a rarity.

poulpy123 26 minutes ago | parent

At least in several countries in Europe, sugar free is when there is less than 0.5% of sugar and when there is no sugar added it's "ni sugar added"

freehorse 19 minutes ago | parent

Where is that the case? In eu at least that is commonly called like "contains naturally occuring sugars" and "no added sugar". "Sugar free" is more specific and should contain <0.5g sugars/100g or ml.

"Sugar free" usually implies that it uses sweeteners instead of sugar.

These are nutrition claims and they are regulated [0]

https://food.ec.europa.eu/food-safety/labelling-and-nutritio...

Ekaros 2 hours ago | parent

Also I question how can you have sugar-free caramel? Caramel is browned sugar so I would expect it to have sugar. Maybe in this too should terms like "caramel like flavour" be mandated...

bob1029 1 hour ago | parent

If you want to see what end game Starbucks looks like, Dunkin' Donuts is probably a good place to start. They're on the border of selling products with 200g of sugar in a single cup. Getting close to half a pound. We measure our cheese burgers in units like this. Maybe it's time to start measuring coffee this way too.

johnisgood 22 minutes ago | parent

200 g of sugar in a single cup? That is insane. US definitely has a sugar problem. :|

nephihaha 1 hour ago | parent

Because artificial sweeteners taste vile.

yourusername 57 minutes ago | parent

Next: Gluten free bread made of 100% wheat flour. Well of course there's naturally occuring gluten, but we didn't add it as a seperate ingredient.

herbst 18 minutes ago | parent

I mean there is gluten free wheat flour, which my body doesn't really respond to well either.