How does Starbucks rank on toxic chemicals?

Starbucks is still failing to publicly address key toxic indirect food additives that may be in food contact materials. With a grade of F, it was one of nine retailers out of 43 in our review to score zero points with no significant public-facing commitments to address the safety of indirect food additives that can be in food contact materials.

Despite substantial public attention to toxic indirect food additives, including PFAS, phthalates, and bisphenols, there is no indication that Starbucks is taking any action to address these challenges. While a recent report found that Starbucks appears to be using polyethylene food-handling gloves, a safer alternative to PVC gloves, the company has not confirmed this is a company-wide policy. While Starbucks has joined the NextGen Cup Challenge, partnering with Closed Loop Partners to design and commercialize a globally recyclable and compostable cup, there is no indication that this effort addresses chemical safety.

Opportunities for improvement: Starbucks can make progress by developing a public written safer chemicals policy covering toxic indirect food additives that may be in food contact materials, covering at least bisphenols, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and phthalates, setting quantifiable goals with clear timelines, and eliminating and safely replacing any toxic indirect food additives that may be in food contact materials. Starbucks should also become a signatory to the Chemical Footprint Project.

Share52

Summary of Starbucks’ Grade

0 out of 17.5 points

Policy: Adopted a retailer safer chemicals policy

Explanation of Points

Starbucks has no public written safer chemicals policy related to toxic indirect food additives, has not set public quantifiable goals for reducing and eliminating these chemicals of high concern (CHCs) and does not have a publicly available beyond restricted substance list (BRSL) or a publicly available manufacturing restricted substance list (MRSL).

0 out of 5 points

Oversight: Established management responsibilities and incentives

Explanation of Points

Starbucks has not assigned senior management to implement the company’s safer chemicals policy (because Starbucks has no public written safer chemicals policy).

0 out of 12.5 points

Accountability: Ensures supply chain accountability

Explanation of Points

Starbucks has made no discernible effort to assess supplier conformance with safer chemicals policy or RSL (because Starbucks has no public safer chemicals policy).

0 out of 13 points

Disclosure: Requires suppliers to report use of chemicals in products to retailer

Explanation of Points

Starbucks has not taken any discernible action on the disclosure to itself of indirect food additives associated with food contact materials that goes beyond regulatory compliance.

0 out of 16 points

Action: Reduced or eliminated chemicals of high concern (CHCs) within the last three years

Explanation of Points

Starbucks has not publicly documented progress on reducing CHCs beyond regulatory compliance in the last three years.

0 out of 13.5 points

Safer Alternatives: Evaluates safer alternatives, avoids regrettable substitutes

Explanation of Points

Starbucks does not have a discernible approach regarding or has not made a public commitment to safer alternatives in products, packaging or operations.

0 out of 18 points

Transparency: Demonstrates a commitment to transparency and public disclosure

Explanation of Points

Starbucks has no public safer chemicals policy, BRSL, or MRSL and has not committed to disclose any of those items in 2020.

Starbucks does not appear to encourage or require suppliers to publicly disclose all indirect food additives in food contact materials and does not itself publicly disclose the identity of food contact materials that are free of CHCs that are indirect food additives going beyond regulatory compliance.

0 out of 7.5 points

Chemical Footprint: Evaluates its chemical footprint

Explanation of Points

Starbucks has not made any discernible progress on measuring its chemical footprint via the Chemical Footprint Project.

0 out of 8.5 points

Third-party Standards: Promotes credible third party standards for safer products

Explanation of Points

Starbucks has not shown any discernible progress on credible third-party safer chemicals standards going beyond regulatory compliance.

Extra Credit:

0 out of 5 points

Joint Announcement: Public commitment demonstrated through joint announcement

Explanation of Points

Starbucks has not made a discernible public commitment through a joint announcement or other coordination effort in advance of a major announcement within the time periods specified in the scoring rubric.

0 out of 15 points

Continuous Improvement: Shows continuous improvement by steadily expanding safer chemicals policy

Explanation of Points

Starbucks has not exhibited any discernible pattern of significant, consistent, or long-term improvements over the past year or a longer period of time going beyond regulatory compliance.

0 out of 5 points

Safer Products: Program to promote safer products in stores and/or on website

Explanation of Points

Starbucks has no discernible program to feature and market safer food contact materials used in its restaurants.

0 out of 5 points

Collaboration: Actively participates in collaborative process to promote safer chemicals

Explanation of Points

There is no indication that the retailer actively participates in a collaborative process or retains an independent expert body to promote safer chemicals or that it has created an external advisory board to provide input on implementation of the policy.

0 out of 5 points

Impact Investment: Investing financial resources into independent research into safer alternatives and/or green chemistry solutions

Explanation of Points

Starbucks is investing $10 million in the NextGen Cup Challenge to design a globally recyclable and/or compostable cup, but there is no indication that the retailer invests significant financial resources into independent research specifically into safer alternatives to CHCs and/or green chemistry solutions.

Take Action