Can you trust the nutrition information that Starbucks puts on its products? (Apparently not.)

Starbucks claimed its Peachy Apple Tart was only 120 calories, with 12 grams of fat. But at least one customer/blogger realized that was impossible -- and mentioned it to Starbucks. All of a sudden, the nutrition information page on Starbucks' website was changed -- and the Peachy Apple Tart was listed at 280 calories, not 120. Innocent mistake? Or an attempt to deceive weight-conscious customers? (Read the Ms. Bitch Cakes blog post)

Comments

[JC]

It's my view that anyone who's watching their weight shouldn't be eating pastries, period, at least not as regularly as she mentions doing in her blog post.

So now she's "boycotting" Starbucks. I'm betting more than one partner will be glad that one fewer crank will be showing up at the pastry counter.

[Blindsided]

ouch, caught Starbie's with the metaphorical pants down, eh?

I don't think that SB is completely honest with their nutritional information. It's something easily falsified, and just as easily fixed, as we see in the article. But to be fair, I don't think you can enter a Starbucks with an expectation of healthy food choices. We're a coffee shop, a luxury business, and that doesn't lend itself to health consciousness in our pastry selection.

Which is interesting given that we're moving towards a more "healthy" selection in our products. I can't help but suspect that it's going to be the same ol' kinda stuff, just wrapped up in pretty new wrapping paper and called healthy. It's like Vitamin Water, you think it's good for you, but you might as well have a coke for the same amount of sugar.

[carol]

Did you notice how at least 1/3 of the comments were complaints that she wasn't sent a gift card? Someone actually stated they were suprised because if you complain they usually at least send you a gift card.

[Tall Drip]

I don't care what they call them; there's nothing in that pastry case that is actually "good for you." Nothing. That stuff really isn't meant for daily consumption - more like an occasional indulgence.

[embean]

I hate it when people ask me for something low fat, low sugar, etc. Don't eat at starbucks, and don't eat pastries. I 100% believe this was deceptive. Because what does "reduced-fat" mean if it's not deceptive?

[stacy]

"I don't care what they call them; there's nothing in that pastry case that is actually "good for you." Nothing. That stuff really isn't meant for daily consumption - more like an occasional indulgence."

Co-sign. The No Sugar Added Banana Nut Coffee Cake is the most fattening item (480 cal, 28g fat!!!!) in our pastry case and by the name, you'd think it would be one of the "healthier" items.

I understand that she is upset but boycotting because of it is ridiculous. So is expecting a gift card or something else in return. Starbucks.com clearly has a disclaimer posted underneath the info for every pastry--
All nutrition information is provided by the food manufacturers for Starbucks Coffee Company, based on their recipes. Starbucks attempts to provide product information that is as complete as possible. Variations may exist due to periodic changes in formulations. Serving sizes may vary from those used to calculate nutrition information. New product introduction or product changes during the life of this publication may cause the information to be incomplete. All of our non-packaged food products are produced and stored in environments where known allergens are present. All data is rounded to meet current U.S. FDA NLEA guidelines. Percentage data for vitamins and minerals refers to percentage of U.S. Daily Values for a 2,000 calorie diet.

[beancounter101]

I agree with JC, Not to mention if you are on a calorie counting diet you should only be eating your square meals each day, snacking on veggies and drinking water, not stopping at Starbucks or any other fast food chain. Starbucks is luxury food / drink that should be enjoyed with as such.

[Ephlan]

I know its off topic but I'm just curious... did anyone else (Asm or Sm) have to listen to the "Rocky Theme" on the conference call today? wow. the whole thing was just a garbled zoo.

[P.R.I.D.E.]

This reminds be of a recent 20/20 show I saw, where they went around to 15 different restaurants and compared the advertised caloric and fat content, compared to what they got. They tested everything from fast food (Wendys and McDonalds) to casual restaurants (Applebees and Cheesecake Factory).

Guess what? 15 for 15 were off (as significantly as this example) on the caloric and fat content. I don't think this is any excuse or justification, but rather serves to demonstrate that unfortunately, when humans get involved in making the product, there is a certain point of error that can be expected. These days, unless you make it yourself, I wouldn't personally rely on caloric counts that come from test environments (produced by baker scientists specifically to test nutritional content)

I also don't think it is wrong for people to seek out options to keep them satisfied while trying to eat healthy. A lot of you are giving this lady a hard time, but for people like me, who only allow myself 1 single splurge per week outside of my strict diet, you better believe I'm going to be looking for alternatives that are healthier (not saying "healthy" completely) but at least a better choice than other options. I don't hate on her for her right to splurge once in awhile. Heck, if we didn't have these customers, than all we'd be left with are the super regulars who seem to REALLY drive us nuts sometimes...

[Torontodude]

Unless you order carefully, Starbucks can be a nutritional disaster. The only really healthy things to order are drip coffee or espresso drinks....with little or no milk or sugar. Anything with any kind of syrup is especially bad. Processed, refined white sugar loaded with additives -- well, it doesn't get much worse.

Remember: a venti frap and one of the more fattening cakes can easily total a staggeringly eye-popping, super horrendous, unbelievably shocking 1,000 calories. That's two thirds of what many women should consume for the whole day! (Or one third of what many men should consume.) And they are empty, junk calories -- among the very worst choices you can make.

Best Starbucks choices:
Drip coffee or espresso (no milk or sugar or just a drop of each)

Second best Starbucks choice:
Coffee-based drink with milk (cappacino, machiato, or latte) but no syrup. But watch the size. And easy on the sugar.

Horrible Choice:
Anything with syrup.

Super Horrible Choice:
Anything at all in the pastry case, including so-called low fat items and yogurt (which is packed with processed, refined, white sugar)

[CoffeeMaster33]

Just wait until the new roll-out July 14th. There's going to be the start of a healthy turnaround for Starbucks. They know their pastries aren't the healthiest, but they are what people want sometimes. If they were to take out all their pastries and replace them with healthier alternatives, half the visitors would be up in arms.

"No more lemon raspberry loaf!? But the icing's the best part!"

[Mistakes Happen]

It seems to me like a honest mistake - like they took the "Calories from Fat" and accidentally listed it as Total Calories. Does it suck, absolutely. As someone who is currently on Weight Watchers, I understand the frustration with being given false information, but I honestly don't think it was done on purpose. They are trying to make strides towards having a healthier menu, even if that means taking a loss (see: getting rid of breakfast sandwiches).

I'm sure many will disagree with me, but that's the way I see it.

[Marsha Barito]

Healthy turnaround for food in July? A Banana and a star-shaped whole grain cookie? Jeez! And a cup of Oatmeal in September?
There will be no healthy turnaround, only a healthy stock slide.

[truth]

Fast food is bad for you?!? Really?

Next you'll be telling me that Milk Duds aren't really dairy.

[latte lover]

"And a cup of Oatmeal in September?"

If the smell of breakfast sandwiches clashed with coffee, I can only imagine an oatmeal and coffee aroma.

[limey]

mmmmm, "Healthy Options", "Wellness"..!

If you look at these terms and their effectiveness and popularity at other chains in the past, they really spell out "Kiss of Death"

Starbucks should be focusing on good tasting coffee and quality offerings regardless of what the food police say. Do these things right and they might regain some credibility. I can get boring oatmeal and healthy Kashi cereal at home - duh! Why pay twice or three times the price for some boring healthy offerings at Starbucks? Offer something unique and innovative, and stay away from the me-too smoothies and Whole Foods fodder... These are only reactions to the media - stay true and be unique. Isn't this what started the whole business? Ahhhh, who's listening anyway...

[Justin]

I am sure it is an honest mistake and anyone who eats the food from Starbucks or gets the super sugar laced drinks have no right to complain that it is unhealthy. Duh. Get a coffee/tea non fat latte without sugar if you are that worried. I love the Maple Oat scones. I know how bad they are. So I get them maybe once a month - its not rocket science to eat well it just takes the will power to do it.

[Kelly]

at my store, we have the 'low fat turkey adn artichoke sandwich' which is listed as being only 200 calories. i reallyyyyy don't see how that's possible, with the delicious ciabatta bread that it comes on.

[Susan]

Uh, duh. Maybe your first hint would have been when they listed the same number of calories for three different sized coffees.

[Reduced Fat]

Torontodude, you'll notice nothing in the Starbucks pastry case is listed as "Low Fat". The reasoning behind that is simple - "Low Fat" is an officially recognised term by the U.S. FDA. Food items have to meet certain qualifications to be considered "Low Fat."

What you are thinking of is one of Starbucks best - and most deceptive - marketing tactics. By labeling something as "reduced fat" they trick customers into thinking the product is somehow more healthful or low in fat. Not the case. "Reduced Fat" is not a term with any dietary meaning. Anything and everything can be considered reduced fat... regardless of the fat content.

Beware - this marketing technique is very effective - and very deceptive.

[Torontodude]

You're right about the deceptive reduced fat trick.

Fat equals bad in most people's minds. But it's much more complicated. Certain types of fat are good. There's nothing wrong with a latte as part of a well balanced diet. (But do you REALLY need a venti?)

In general, low fat and reduced fat foods should be avoided. They are often packed with sugar and/or flour -- the real nutritional bad guys. So have your latte with whole milk. But make it a tall or grande. Use just one sugar (but not white sugar). Avoid pastry altogether.

Don't make the mistake of ordering a frap with skim milk. It's not the the fat in the milk that's the really bad stuff. It's the sugar in the syrup.

[stacy]

My area carries low fat blueberry muffins. Everything else is labeled reduced fat.

If I remember correctly, for something to be labeled "low fat" it was to have 4g or less of fat per serving.

[trixi]

I understand the calorie/fat dilemma. Why not offer almonds or cashews as an option? Those watching weight and sugar may be open to new food groups.

[Herman M.]

Trixi, if you go to a Starbucks you will see this is already offered.

[Torontodude]

Re: low fat blueberry muffins

Whether a muffin has 4, 8 or 12 grams of fat is only marginally relevant in answering the question: "should I eat it?"

Far more important is the amount of sugar and flour. That information is not readily available in stores. But chances are, the Starbucks low fat muffin is packed with processed, refined white sugar; processed, refined, white flour; and loads of additives.

As I said earlier, there are NO healthy choices in a Starbucks pastry case. Avoid them all.

[Borat]

Yep, Starbucks does that. I remember that the blueberry muffins this summer were listed as having 18 grams of protein and no fat. Now its the other way around (pretty much). If your are reading this Mr. Schultz, please note that your company is run by a bunch of retards(corporate employees). I loved it how they mislabeled Hanukkah on the holiday event calendar.

[Kat]

Anyone that goes into Starbucks (or just about any similar type of business) and thinks they are getting 'healthy, low calorie' items is deluding themselves. You might be able to get something *lower* fat than normal, but it's not exactly health food. They want health food, they should go by the produce store and picks up some oranges or something.

[Kat]

That should be 'pick up some oranges', not 'picks up'. Still early here.

[thatgirl]

I always loved how the "reduced fat" blueberry/cinnamon coffee cakes were still 9g of fat. It might be "reduced" but it's not low. so yes, avoid the pastries like the plague, or split one and realize that it is an *indulgence*.

still, if you get a skim latte/cappuccino, that's not bad for you. especially without syrup or mocha. skim milk has plenty of protein and some good vitamins and no fat. which is why i stick to double-tall two-pump skim toffee nut lattes (hey, i put two teaspoons of sugar in my drip coffee, it can't be that much worse for me).

[Lou Sussler]

Innocent Mistake or Deception?

In one sense it doesn't matter as they corrected the problem immediately according to the original complainer.

Of more import is that how could anyone look at that tart and believe it contains only 120 calories. It's bigger than a large fist for goodness sake. Particularly someone who claims to watch what they eat carefully and checks labels, etc.

That person should have known after eating only one of those monsters that it wasn't 120 calories regardless of the signage.

It's an ostrichlike way of being. Inside I know this thing has a lot of calories but the sign says 120 so WHOOPIE, I'm having one every day.

[stacy]

No one was suggesting that just because something is labeled as low fat that it is in fact, healthy. I was simply saying that some areas do carry low fat items, since it was suggested that nothing Starbucks carries is labeled as such.

I love when people don't read in context.

[StLouieDrip]

Shoot the messenger, anyone? [sigh]

Since I'm a stickler for CORRECT and ACCURATE nutritional informatioin, I have no complaints about the blogger. I've always been suspicious of those pastries, but now even more so.

As to whether it was "innocent"... that's truly not a word I associate with sbux.

[Pixie]

Check the nutrition information and serving size on the fruits and nuts they offer at the register. Its disgusting.

[Torontodude]

At the risk of belaboring a point....

1) A tall cappucinno with whole milk is probably a better
choice than a venti cappucinno with skim milk.

2) Portion control is key. Want to lose weight? Eat less. All other advice pales in comparison.

3) Be very suspicious of anything labelled low fat or reduced fat. Chances are, it's fattening! (That's because it's likely packed with sugar and/or flour, the real bad guys.)

4) Fat doesn't make you fat. Fat is an important component of a healthy diet. Sugar and flour make you fat.

5) Pastry is always and everywhere a bad choice. Starbucks pastries are especially bad. Don't eat them.

[:)]

Thanx Borat for mentioning they got Chanukah wrong on the holiday calander!

I remeber mentioning that to my manager and mentioning how the CEO (Schultz) is Jewish and how odd it was this happened. Of course I'm the only Jewish employee in the store and the manager told me I was just being too sensative.

Anyways I think it's twice as hard to avoid these horibble pastries and drinks when you work around them everyday. Since I've started working @ Sbux I've gained 10 lbs. With free drinks and promotional drinks we need to try, we all get hooked. Let alone when I'm hungry @ work and I only have a 10 min break, I break down and have a pastry. I need to have more will power.

One more thing... I love it when people ask which pastries are reduced fat or sugar free and they think that they've done their part to eat healthy. Usually I'll list off all of those pastries, and they'll decide they want something like Lemon Loaf (over 500 calories!!!)

Thanks for letting me vent.

[:)]

Thanx Borat for mentioning they got Chanukah wrong on the holiday calander!

I remeber mentioning that to my manager and mentioning how the CEO (Schultz) is Jewish and how odd it was this happened. Of course I'm the only Jewish employee in the store and the manager told me I was just being too sensative.

Anyways I think it's twice as hard to avoid these horibble pastries and drinks when you work around them everyday. Since I've started working @ Sbux I've gained 10 lbs. With free drinks and promotional drinks we need to try, we all get hooked. Let alone when I'm hungry @ work and I only have a 10 min break, I break down and have a pastry. I need to have more will power.

One more thing... I love it when people ask which pastries are reduced fat or sugar free and they think that they've done their part to eat healthy. Usually I'll list off all of those pastries, and they'll decide they want something like Lemon Loaf (over 500 calories!!!)

Thanks for letting me vent.

[StLouieDrip]

I've been reading more about Bitch Cakes. From her blog I'm guessing she probably helped make quite a few more sales for sbux. But now a significant customer is on boycott (and boy, do I know that feeling). I don't see why she deserves to be slammed just for calling sbux on their inaccuracies, so they(you) can make appropriate corrections, and so all people can be better informed. Geez. She even once made starbucks customer of the week. (and why don't we have those in this city???) And she's a COFFEE lover too! And sassy! And fun! And spirited! And by diligently watching her diet she's recently lost over 50 pounds! And she dislikes PPR, yeah!!! IOW a woman after my own heart. >_<

Ah, I should probably move to NY. [sigh]

@Torontodude, I usually agree with your posts, but I think fat does also make people fat. Two organs that most help metabolize fat are the liver and gallbladder. If they aren't working at their peak a person is more likely to not metabolize fats so well. I also think all our bodies respond differently to different foods, so we can't say that what works for one person will also work for another. We need to also know how each of our individual bodies are deficient in breaking down our foods before we can know what particular diet will give us the desired results. Weight-loss diets are definitely not one-size-fits-all.

[Torontodude]

re: fat

I didn't mean to grant everyone absolution to eat unlimited amounts of fat -- especially to the exclusion of other components of a balanced diet.

My only point was that focussing exclusively on fat and calories is a mistake. And the whole idea of "good foods" and "bad foods" is simple-minded. Call it kindergarten nutrition.

Eating the right kinds of fat is important. But these won't be found at Starbucks, in foods that are loaded with sugar and flour.

Sugar and flour make you fat.

Fat does not make you fat -- if it's the right kind, not in foods loaded with sugar and flour, and it's eaten in the right balance with carbs and protein.

[watery tart]

I'm amazed, though I probably shouldn't be, by the comments that are saying that people on a diet shouldn't eat pastries.

First, you don't know that they don't plan to eat half and save half or whatever. Second, they may have budgeted for it in their daily diet log.

Third, they may have another reason for needing valid dietary information. For example, diabetics can eat a limited amount of sugar/starches if they know what they are eating.

Something that was so wildly off in nutritional information could really hurt someone who is counting on Starbucks doing the right thing and posting the correct information..

FInally, if as a few people have pointed out, the pastry is so big that the person eating it should have automatically known the information had to be wrong, that goes triple for the "professionals" who serve it. How is it that the company gets a pass but the customer is supposed to "know"?

Tell the truth and have accurate signage and there won't be a problem.

[James]

I worked for the Corporate Offices for about a year dealing with all types of concerns from SB Customers.

One of the largest complaints that customers had was that SB didn't offer more "healthy" alternative beverage or pastries.

People should realize that Starbucks will never have a spokesperson like Jarod, claiming to have lost 200lbs by only consuming their overpriced food products and high-calorie coffee drinks.

As other's have mentioned, anything they serve, besides regular brewed coffee, should really only be consumed occasionally.

When I worked for the Company, we had full kitchens with all the products available in the stores. I promptly gained about 30 pounds.

What further outraged me, was that when customers called in to make nutritional inquiries that we were instructed to be as less forthcoming about the products as we should be.

The thing I learned the most about Starbucks? "Tell the customer anything they want so they will continue coming back into our stores." Many times Nutritional Info is made up, on the spot. Many of the representatives have no real product knowledge, which is not their fault. Management makes little or no effort to ensure that their customers are treated with respect and honesty.

I am glad that I no longer work for them, as the experience definitely took it's toll on what was left of my soul.

[Bossman]

It also cracks me up when customers order a venti 10-pump, extra whip, 2 splenda white mocha, as if the splenda somehow makes it less bad for you...

[missmisto]

well said bossman.

if you want to eat healthy you eat healthy. starbucks will never equal "healthy". just becuase one drink has less sugar and fat than another doesn't mean one is healthier, it means its just not quite as bad, same rule applies to food. if you're a fattie, keep your paws off the pastry case. its pretty simple.

however, on the health conscious subject, i think there should be an age limit on what we serve. 4 year olds don't need venti java chip faps. or white mocha espressos. especially when the stand on the counter and shout that they want their coffee.

[YouKnowwhoIam]

guess what? her boycott didn't last long... she went to SBUX on the 26th of June...
http://msbitchcakes.blogspot.com/2008/06/day-on-plan-my-food-journal-and_26.html

her boycott "started" on the 14th of June...

[EUROTRASHBARISTA]

Well, she still had the strength to stay away from the slightly fattening food for 12 days. Or was she supposed to boycott Starbucks totally?

[StLouieDrip]

From reading her blog it's obvious she was really a very devoted sbux customer. And I can totally relate because I also broke my own self-imposed sbux boycott. Yeah, I lasted only about 2 weeks before caving.

HOWEVER... that still doesn't mean sbux is right to provide misinformation on its products.

Now I'm just on semi-boycott, about once a week (instead of 3-4 times a week).... baby steps. :P

[YouKnowwhoIam]

I do not think that SBUX purposely gives wrong nutritional information.

I am currently in the weight-loss process and I tend to stay away from anything remotely pastry-like, but I can understand being upset at wrong information being presented. I think anything labeled "low-fat/low-sugar/low-carbs" etc should be taken with a grain of salt.

If I could give ms. bitch-cakes a coupon I would, but sadly I have no power or control in that area of decision-making. She spends a BUTT-load of money there for sure and should be compensated IMHO.

[StLouieDrip]

I wasn't saying it was purposeful either. More like incompetent, or irresponsible, but definitely not innocent.

And yeah, I agree it should have been handled better. I guess the person who ignored Bitch Cakes just didn't realize she had a popular blog where she had been touting the wonderfulness of sbux products.

[what?]

are we seriously getting oatmeal?

[Redd]

Ok...so she pointed out the error...

Starbucks listened and changed it...

And we're still complaining?

And she is the kind of customer that irks me...the kind that complains about something legitimate, but when the problem is fixed, they still want something free.

[Shanee]

I happen to like Starbucks coffee and some of their muffins, I could care less about the nutritional value, but what bothers me is the fact that when you ask for a bag to place your cofee (I am one of those that can't drink and walk at the same time)They hand you a HUGE shopping bag to put it in.Can't you see that the coffee cup is too small for the bag and will spill out? The workers have no common sense-especially the Starbucks on Spring Street.The clerks will stand and have a 5 minute discussion with one customer regarding the free coffees, at 7:30 in the morning while a line of 10 customers are waiting to be served. Their service is horrible.