Good news for all of us who rely on the local Starbucks for our morning coffee and donut(s) and made some sort of resolution to eat healthier. Although the pastries in that beautiful glass case are still the most gastronomically insipid fare we've ever tasted, they are now free of this year's unhealthy buzzword(s), Trans Fats. Starbucks announced that they are cutting these hydrogenated fats, found in products like Crisco, from the food products in nearly fifty percent of all stores starting today, with Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Diego, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., and Portland leading the way.
That being said, the nutrition information is missing from many Starbucks stores and we get attitude when we ask the calorie content of some products. Starbucks also just started offering the Cinnamon Dolce in sugar-free format, sweetened with sucralose (the sugar-like sweetener found in the Splenda brand), but the flavor leaves a lot to be desired. So for the time being we'll keep eating our breakfast at home, and grab a cup of joe from "The Buck" only when nothing else is available.
Photo by Yvette Jorgens via Flickr
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
It's a very good thing when any major brand decides to cut Trans Fats in its food items, so let's hear it for Starbucks. But there's another issue at play, which I suspect may have motivated Starbucks far more than health.
In various places around the country lawmakers are considering passing legislation that requires restaurants or perhaps just chain restaurants to prominently post the calorie and fat content for each item on their menu. Starbucks may be eliminating Trans Fats from its corporate kitchen, but its food products are still loaded with sugar and other kinds of fats. What do you think would happen to sales of Grande Double Dolce Whipped Frappuccinos if there was a prominent note on the menu board informing people that the drink contained like 1200 calories, 600 of which came from fat? Sales would drop, and don't think Starbucks doesn't know this.
Voluntarily cutting Trans Fats is good, but it's mostly an attempt by Starbucks to stave off government regulation. It's like when the movie industry created its own "voluntary" rating system to circumvent a potential government one. If Starbucks, fast food chains, etc. can show they're willingly making their products healthier, then they can argue there's no need for them to post calorie and fat content. Move along, nothing to see here. Just go back to your double battered pastrami mozzarella Hollandaise burger and bacon-infused caramel milkshake.
I went to Starbucks today and - while serving the exact same food - they had a sign posted that said they were trans fat free. So could it be that it's not that they pulled trans fats? Maybe they never had them in the first place.