For extremely busy restaurants / cafe's where people are already waiting long periods, they probably don't want to overcomplicate things too, and increase the risk . They'd have to keep 2 different milk frothing machines, and every time a customer got sick, risk getting sued, whilst slowing down the efficiency of orders.
Whilst it might increase the number of potential customers, in practice, it might only have negatives
Not sure about France either. But I believe in UK and Germany it's less than 10%
If a cafe or restaurant is already extremely busy with long delays, serving other milk too could slow down service, and they might not even need the business.
I also know a dairy intolerant person who takes lacteze anyway, so its not an issue for them
And I know another who just ignores the intolerance, as it's only a small amount of milk
In Europe, dairy intolerance is actually extremely rare. It's Asia where intolerance is common
You can't use worldwide stats to represent a localised region
Seems like more a failure of you for not checking if they do oat milk. And they likely do lots of other types of vegan milk as alternatives
Honestly, the kind of person who gets pissy about this kind of thing, you're probably better off not having in your restaurant or cafe anyway. Because they've probably got a list of food requirements
I have a friend with actual gluten intolerance, and she stopped telling restaurants about it specifically because otherwise they'd freak out. She'd just order things like minimal gluten and only ask if she wasn't sure.
But she'd never ask for substitutions either
There is no way of knowing how busy this place is. They might be completely full and serving 10 different types of milk might simply slow things down and increase their risk if they accidentally mix the containers
They DO though. They sell the default search engine to Google for billions knowing they're profiting from the ads indirectly.. So, they're really just subcontracting it..
I was implying the fact that Apple doesn't need to though, because they monopolise things via the app store, and with other foul play (like requiring additional intervention if you want to run an app from outside the store on Mac). They have full control over monitoring what apps and what kind of apps are popular, so they can target them with their own competitors.
They also have some fairly hefty requirements from developers, and even try to get a cut of subscription fees despite doing nothing.
In the case of Pebble as an example, they delayed the pebble app, launched their own watch at the same time, and because they fucked Pebble over, they never stood a chance.
Just to further things, Republicans have a clear bias. When the head of google was in congress, they weren't really asking questions, but they were incorrectly stating things like Google was tracking their phone anywhere it moves
And yet, Apple seems to dodge every single case. They don't even allow IOS to run on other platforms. Whereas, there are Android phones which are completely degooglified.
Absolutely agree. Best to use real sounding names too
And yet, as per normal, Apple is innocent.. apparently
Won't stop them from saying they've got 10000 submissions already
No surprise from a guy who was convicted of tax fraud.
I'm sure he's gonna start blaming it for his tax issues soon
Put Trump and his family on the first boat then..
You probably know about it more than me..
I've been onsite plenty of times when they've been cutting that stuff up. Some owners argued better PPE would be enough for the Stonemasons, but it won't protect other people where its being cut.
Furthermore, nobody NEEDS engineered stone anyway, and people tend to take shortcuts when they are in a rush
And its mainly the workers affected. The people selling it are sometimes the ones who aren't even cutting it up (especially because they know there are risks).
Feel bad for my friend though who now has silicosis and no way to cure it.
Last I checked, it was more like 6-8% for UK.. So, 6-8 out of 100 customers in that case would slow down everyone's orders, would reduce the efficiency, increase the business risk and also require a whole bunch of extra procedures to avoid "poisoning" someone. If they're already overbusy, it's just costing money.
In practice, Lactose intolerant also doesn't mean what you think it does. It simply means they have some kind of negative reaction, and many people are lactose intolerant to a certain degree if you drink enough milk and eat enough cheese. I suspect I am somewhat dairy intolerant, and I still drink milk fairly regularly.. So, if those 6-8 percent who are actually considered intolerant, most of them probably don't care..
Most people who are considered lactose intolerant can still ingest milk in their coffee though, because its a small amount with no impact. They're not deathly allergic.. Some of them likely also take Enzymes to allow them to digest dairy.
So, if we're talking ACTUAL numbers who this affects, its fuck all really, except the ones who are genuinely allergic (and do you really want to be serving hundreds of drinks an hour which look EXACTLY the same to customers who might get seriously sick and sue?)
Disregarding that, the cafe has clearly calculated the business case, and determined serving oatmilk just isn't worth it..
Also, I have noticed at least 1 person in this post repeating brand names, so i almost wonder if some viral marketing is happening here..
I don't drink coffee though (it tastes like dogs arse), so I don't really care though to be honest. And I don't work in a cafe. The only info I'm working off is off people I know with IBS and dairy intolerance.
On the other hand, oat milk can be contaminated with gluten too. So, some people who are affected by Dairy, may also be affected by Oat milk too anyway..