Like your latte skinny? You may not even know it, but Starbucks Corporation (NASDAQ: SBUX) will soon replace the whole milk it pours into your coffee drinks by default with 2% low-fat milk in stores throughout the U.S. and Canada. Here in Oregon, where Starbucks had been testing the concept, I've been getting (ahem) skinnier for months already, and to be honest, I haven't noticed the difference in taste at all (when I'm in the mood for milk fat, I'll order a 'breve,' made with half-and-half instead of regular milk -- but I'm pregnant so you'll just have to indulge me and excuse my occasional luxury).

Starbucks is banking that customers won't notice the difference, and if they do, they'll thank the beverage giant for the savings in calories and fat. It's somewhat ironic, as although Starbucks has been conducting a health campaign of sorts these past several months; switching to trans-fat-free pastries, hormone-free milk, and offering a "light" version of the chain's popular Frappuccinos; Starbucks' beverages and treats are famous for being, often, higher in both fat and calories than many competing options (just check out That's Fit's "How Many Calories?" feature -- which often features Starbucks drinks). Even switching to 2% milk won't (for instance) negate the considerable caloric surge of three pumps of sweetened syrup -- the default for a grande beverage.

I think the switch is a smart one, both for the bottom line and the size of the average customer's bottom. It doesn't make sense to pour whole milk by default if most customers are used to drinking 2% in their homes (which seems to be the case). However, if I were consulting Starbucks on the overall health profile of its beverages, I'd suggest a switch to far less syrup in each beverage -- all that sugar has got to be worse for us than a little milk fat. What would you change about Starbucks' beverages if you were on the product development team?