« "In every Tokyo neighborhood, there's a Starbucks" | Main | You asked for it, you've got it: Another weekend open thread »

May 31, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Tall Drip

I think my advice would be to forget about the fat content of the milk and do something about the pastries...less fat and sugar. Not the fake-sweetness of Splenda, just less sugar.


That's great news! I think it's awesome to use healthier options whan we have them plus customers still have the option-it's a win-win!


Glad to hear it! Most people are watching their fat content and since coffee is the primary product of Starbucks, it makes sense to start there.


i fully support this decision, thanks Starbucks. :)


Questions for partners from test stores:

I'm assuming we'll get lowfat milk delivered now and we won't have to steam nonfat and whole seperate for every drink. Is that right?

What would the cup marking be for whole milk?


Umm... what about "w"?

I'm happy Starbucks is trying out healthier alternatives, but it really is just one more thing to shove in our already full fridges.

PDX Burbs Barista

I am a shift from Portland, OR and we were a test market-- it went over really, really well.

We are delievered whole, non-fat and 2% milk nightly-- we have like 7 2% and 6 non-fat, and 1 whole, 1 soy and 1 breve in the AM times.

The mark is the custom box and is WH-- we keep 6 2%, 6 non-fat and then on the other side just one gallon of whole- which we go through about one to two daily now.

pretty shifty

just curious (I'll check the BRM when I get to work) but what is the exact method for using whole and nonfat milk to make 2% milk for both iced and hot beverages?


I, for one, denounce this decision. People can already order % or N in their drink. I think this is about the cost of milk. A gallon of 2% milk is about 20 cents cheaper than whole. Multiply that by every gallon of whole milk used by Starbucks all year, and it's a lot of money- at the cost of prodcut quality. This, after the e-mail from Howard. I'm very dissapointed.

Fly Gemini

If people didn't insist on eating and drinking gigantic everything they wouldn't have to worry about the fat content in milk.

I would much rather have a rich 6 ounce cappucino than a watery 20 ounce one.

I'm just sayin' ... :-P


Multiply that by every gallon of whole milk used by Starbucks all year, and it's a lot of money- at the cost of prodcut quality.

How is that a question of quality if people would actually prefer 2% to whole milk? Yeah, we can mix whole and nonfat to make %, but are we getting the measurements right each time? It's all about supply and demand, we will still have whole milk, but it's about supplying customers with a choice. How again is that a BAD thing?


As a shareholder I think this decision is great. The stock price has been languishing for months and hopefully this will give it a boost.


I usually ask for nonfat of anything I order at Starbucks. That being said, I think the syrup shots are worse than whole milk. People are clueless as to why these drinks are so fattening. First of all, syrup is pure sugar which equals carbohydrates. Carbs and sugars cause the body to release insulin and the body stores fat. This is why the Atkins diet works - protein doesn't store fat. Second of all, no one better write that there is sugar-free syrup -it has been proven that artifical sweeteners make the body have the same reaction as sugar. So, it is better to have pure sugar or whole milk just at fewer quantities. People also tend to overeat if it is fat-free or sugar-free. Like everything else people want fat-free, sugar-free wholesale proportions.

To Barista Girl:
Start investing in diabetic anything because the yo-yo body cycle of large quantities of caffeine and sugar is a one way ticket to diabetes. Not to mention how obese people are becoming.


Actually, it's usually made a little light since whole milk is 3.8% and skim is zero. People do half of each, so it's a little under by volume. I think the success of 2% in test markets was do to two factors. The first, people not knowing/wanting to know and second, people not specifiying whole milk because they are used to just ordering their drink and getting whole.


Good to hear it.

I want to know how specifically, the stock price is going to be affected by now serving 2% milk. IMHO, I think adding breve into the drinks would be better, because it has like half the sugar of non-fat milk. Also, the 2% milk is only a small battle in the war against unhealthy eating habits in this country. Starbucks should perhaps do more to educate partners and customers about good eating habits. Starbucks is no longer just a coffee brand, its a lifestyle brand and making healthy choices in one's diet is important.


haha. And the compromises continue. This company is becoming so irrelevent so fast.

And I never even thought about it as a cost-cutting measure, but that wouldn't surprise me either.


The only people unhappy will be the Atkin's people...but it's a great decision overall!


Wow, people are still doing the Atkins thing?

Parting the Stars

drinks already have too many options for most people to figure out. This makes it slightly easier on our part - I mean, most people to some degree want to live a mildly healthy lifestyle. So they get lower fat by default. Personally, I find the taste of whole disgusting and always order percent. (I mean, how many people order nonfat or percent compared to breve?)

That aside, I think starbucks should really focus on the pasteries just a smidgeon more. Sure, eliminating all trans fat by the end of 2007 is grand, but what about making some stuff that doesn't glisten so artificially?

Good. Most people need less calories and fat, not more. Let those who WANT or those few who may actually need more ask for whole milk or cream. The rest of us should have 2 or skim.


I don't like this idea. I have tried ordering my drinks with lower fat milk and I don't like them. The only one that was OK with lower fat was a hot chocolate.

"I, for one, denounce this decision. People can already order % or N in their drink. I think this is about the cost of milk. A gallon of 2% milk is about 20 cents cheaper than whole. Multiply that by every gallon of whole milk used by Starbucks all year, and it's a lot of money- at the cost of prodcut quality. This, after the e-mail from Howard. I'm very dissapointed."

Dude, you're such a pessimist. Most people in the US BUY 2% in their homes...and its not like we're not going to still have whole milk. Quit yer bitchin'


I support the new decision of transitioning from whole milk to 2% milk (as the default dairy-if a customer does not specify when ordering his/her latte.) However, most people don't realize that IT'S what you add to that latte, mocha or whatever beverage that contributes to our health epidemics (i.e. obesity, diabetes etc.)

I have a regular customer who always orders a triple, venti caramel macchiato w/4pumps each of vanilla & caramel syrups, extra caramel sauce, 4SNL (Sweet & Low)and whipped cream!! Yuck!! Everything I just listed kills the drink as caramel macchiato (it virtually becomes an overloaded & sickenly sweet latte of some kind!!) I would honestly hate to see the woman's pancreas & arteries after drinking enough these drinks over a period of time. Mercy, mercy!:(

I wish we had better alternatives for pastries. I have looked over the nutritional information sheets on the pastries offered in my region. It opened my eyes to what is really in those pastries (plus reading the ingredients list was educational!) But like the old saying goes "Knowledge is power." Hopefully those people who are wanting to make changes to their daily dietary needs & modify their lifestyle choices will ask for the complete nutritional facts & information.

barista lane

geesh people relax. why do you think there were no complaints about 2% milk in the test markets (one of which i worked in, salem, oregon). its because you can't taste the difference. its not going to take up more room in the fridge there's no need for more than two gallons in there at any time.

oh, but of course, this was purely economic, and not because most people drink 2% in their homes...

Supposed Eric

Just call me Whole Milk Eric.

"I don't like this idea. I have tried ordering my drinks with lower fat milk and I don't like them. The only one that was OK with lower fat was a hot chocolate."
Yeah, well I don't like them with that fatty/creamy stuff. When I get a green tea mixed drink the last thing I want is a ton of cream. So you can do what the rest of us have done and modify your drink. Order it whole. Sorry, you're not special and you'll have to go with the mainstream now, not the other way around... 2% is better for most of us.

ALL Milk is bad for you. Period.

If Starbucks really wants to push their customers in a healthy direction, they should put the "short" size back on the menu board.


My question for the test stores is did you have to ask each customer what kind of milk they wanted if they did not say? Or did you just automatically do the 2%?

I like the idea myself. As a stockholder too, this is a great decision for any bottom line.
Way to move the bar and understand what your customers are telling you.


"it has been proven that artifical sweeteners make the body have the same reaction as sugar"

it's been proven? really? by whom Christine? by the same people who've "proven" all the other internet myths and rumors? different chemicals=different reactions. different body chemistry from person to person=different reactions.

i happen to like Splenda more than sugar. what the hell do you care?

and as far as the switching to 2%? i think it's great...and i doubt that 90% of customers won't notice.


suspected typo alert double negative: i doubt that 90% of the customers WILL notice. (i don't think that most casual latte drinkers have sophisticated enough taste buds...especially if they add tons of sugar/syrup/etc. i agree with you there.)


Wow ann you are really getting emotional about that splenda, maybe you should have a cocktail instead and calm down. It is'nt worth you getting so heated up about!


I persoanlly make % milk by just doing half whole half non-fat. 2% milk I do half whole half non-fat. Lets face it, 90% of the time the people getting drinks don't know what the heck they are drinking anyways, so its not like my not-so-exact method harms anyone.

I don't really care what we carry, myself, I always prefered non-fat just because I can't taste much of a difference so I go with the lighter stuff. Most customers have no idea what they are drinking, so I doubt this will change much -- even for those people who think they are drinking whole milk. I've had people walk off sipping a cup of hot water and a zen tea bag when they ordered a soy vanilla latte.


redundant much, zipy?


Ann get some education before you put something in your mouth. Here is further info on artificial sweeteners. And studies that dispute this are often as a result of corporate revolt. I have many family members who are physicians and they have been sayinh how misconstrued the sale of artificial sweeteners are - as result of years of observation of patients with extremely poor health. I eat less and mainly organic and don't eat alot of meats. After realizing how small of a percentage this country test for things such as mad-cow, etc. I stopped eating a lot of stuff. The dog food from China is another example of lack of testing.

Professor Terry Davidson and associate professor Susan Swithers, both in the Department of Psychological Sciences, found that artificial sweeteners may disrupt the body's natural ability to "count" calories based on foods' sweetness. This finding may explain why increasing numbers of people in the United States lack the natural ability to regulate food intake and body weight. The researchers also found that thick liquids aren't as satisfying – calorie for calorie – as are more solid foods.
Based on the research, Davidson and Swithers suggest paying more attention to calories consumed and engaging in regular exercise to battle the bulge.

Sucralose, which is manufactured by adding chlorine to sugar, is not destroyed by heat and is widely used as a sweetener in packaged foods that have been baked or otherwise heated during their processing. About 600 times sweeter than sugar, it was first synthesized in 1976.


"i happen to like Splenda more than sugar"

My husband worked at the Splenda plant for a few years where it's made, and after hearing and seeing how it's done we avoid Splenda as much as possible. I can't believe that stuff is good for anyone.


sorry for the intensity of my words. i just can't stand internet rumoring. :)

here's the main problem i have with the "education" you offered:
"may disrupt the body's natural ability to 'count' calories"

operative word there being MAY.
how in the world would she measure this? who was in the sample group? how long did she do this research? why was the final conclusion that something "may" be true? i could say something is maybe true without actually doing any research.

there is no way on God's green earth that i buy that a major contributing factor to people not being able to put down their forks is the use of artificial sweetener. that arguement is at the same end of the spectrum as any corporate revolt theories. the researchers' suggestion to pay attention to what you eat and exercise...uh...did she need a dr. degree to come to that conclusion? did she believe that that statement was going to be news to people? yikes.

and Of Course solid calories are going to be more satisfying than liquid calories. if liquid calories made people happy, we'd all be living on liquid protein and fresh veggie juice. (i sort of wish sometimes!!)

pretty shifty

arguing about splenda and milk? many of you are as catty and intolerable as some of my worst customers. do me a favour and never visit my store, you little brats.

barista lane


we automatically make drinks with 2%. There's a little notice on the menu board that says we switched (not that anyone reads the menu that closely). Whenever anyone asked for 2% milk, I would let them know that we're using that as the default. But other than that, its business as usual. I never had any complaints from customers.


Breve has less sugar than whole milk? Great...it's still insanely higher in fat.

As for the Atkins crowd, if they even exist, they usually were buying a whipping cream latte back in the day. If not that, breve...it was never whole milk.

chi-town's best/angriest barista

i've heard somewhere that using artificial sweeteners can make you crave sugary-tasting things more, and can lead to indulging in them, but that's a far cry from saying that things like splenda and such make you fat. lack of personal responsibility makes you fat. it's not my fault you choose to order the venti extra caramel extra whip caramel mocha frappuccino. if it was up to me, that wouldn't even be an option, but i don't make the rules, i just make the drinks you order.
bring on the 2%!


I agree that most people are not fussy and won't complain. They complained about yucky, bitter, sour coffee only when we were out of Urnex for about two months and the urns were coated black inside.

What nobody has mentioned is: the more fat, the less of that bitter coffee taste. This is why the half-n-half on the condiment bar gets used up way way quicker than the skim milk.


just wondering...
what exactly is wrong with the company saving money?
in the end, it is better for your health and your shares of starbucks stock, so I support the decision!



Nothing wrong with saving money, unless you are worried about product quality.

To the others talking about Atkins- I don't think there are many left, there may be a few, but I think most people on Atkins had their heartattacks or blood posioning. I can't believe so many people fell for it though.


well, as a shareholder, a 15 year partner, and a whole milk drinker, I am not sure how this product reduces the quality of the beverage. It will still be available to those who want it, and the 2% tested very well.

Are there product issues I am missing here?
I mean, if we allow nonfat milk, and it has a DEFINITE taste difference... I just don't see the issue... help me out here:)


(The Original) BNbarista

At Barnes & Noble we've been making our lattes with 2% since March. The only person to complain is one of the bookfloor managers who gripes everytime he orders his tall mocha that 2% "changes the flavor profile". Get over yourself! Most people are happy &/or don't even notice. (I guess it doesn't change the flavor profile that much, eh?)


I find it rather interesting that some stores already get 2% milk delivered. Not us here in TN. Just Whole & N.

It's quite surprising with as fat as everyone in TN is, we get quite a few orders for N. Maybe the change to 2% will help slim down some of the fat pigs out here.

Can you tell I'm NOT a TN native? LOL!



Having been raised in TN, I find your comments a tad offensive. You're very judgemental, and should try visiting other areas of the country. TN is not the exception, I can tell you that much.

I am sorry those comments hurt Burntoutshift. According, to CDC information, obesity in TN is not above the national average.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search Site

Ads (2)