|
January
20, 2003
I wasted a year of my life working at Starbucks. This ongoing series
is my revenge.
Somewhere
on the field between social awareness and political correctness
lies the Starbucks Fair Trade blend. To quote from an actual bag:
"The Fair Trade label certifies that the farmers who grew this
coffee received a fair price for their harvest." The "Fair
Trade movement" works to guarantee coffee growers a living
wage. This all sounds nice and true, and Starbucks should be commended
for it.
Then
again, the cynic in me would start asking questions. If FT pays
its farmers a living wage, what about the non-FT coffees? What about
other coffee-growing regions? If this is such a good idea, why is
it only extended to one blend? Why not a Fair Trade Columbia, for
instance? And to all the social activists, what about the competing
coffee shops?
The sad
truth is that we're happy with gimmicks. We don't really want to
think about some peasant farmer in Central America, we just pretend
to make a difference when what we really invest is just a pittance.
Everybody likes the idea of FT; the coffee itself remains unsold.
And yet
there's the real problem: the coffee itself. Its scent and texture
are rather indistinct; the experience is as though several generic
coffees were slapped together. It's the Messina-Oats-Garfunkel-Lisa
Simpson of coffees.
And the
taste of FT is brutal, almost shocking. The word that comes to mind
is "slashing." Fair Trade slashes across my tongue like
a knife. It's as if a party of Zapatistas have invaded my mouth,
and I'm not invited. This is not a beverage; it is an indictment.
|