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?

Okay, let me think here for a moment, I have had a tough week in the stock market; something about issues in China that started it all. Oh well, people saw a dip in their savings and net worth this week... but hey, I feel good. After all I have no plans to go to China or even eat Chinese tonight. I actually feel great because let's see... Monday , I ate organically-raised salmon with a few raw vegetables!! Tuesday and Wednesday I had different variations of broiled chicken with a couple of different sauces... I am so wicked. The fresh veggies were accompanied with rice -- healthy brown rice of course. Man, I am good... following this health regime like a trooper. My doctor is going to be so proud of me! I've lost 4 pounds in 3 weeks... gimme more veggies, green, yellow, red... love em all!!

I snacked on carrot sticks Tuesday and Wednesday evening and feeling a bit naughty, I even added an herb dip on Wednesday... man, I am going to become patient-of-the-week. Thursday was the coup de gras or whatever it is the French say -- I had baked trout, with lemon juice on the side, of course, and a baked potato, no butter, no chives, just low-fat sour cream. I had a high-fiber breakfast cereal every day this week... so who cares about the stock market's bad week, I had fantastic returns from eating right and feeling good. Those old jeans aren't so snug anymore!!

Friday evening... let's see, the chicken looks boring, the trout and salmon look and taste like cardboard -- I have had it!! I am going to splurge and the doctors and nurses can kiss my $%^&&... off I go to "Heart Attack Grill"!!

Investing in organics has been a hot trend in the past few years. Demand for organic products is so high that some companies, like Stonyfield Farms, can't find enough organic milk to deliver on its organic yogurt orders. Organic farmers are doing well and news that even Wal-Mart would offer organic produce has inspired headlines that queried, will organics soon be everywhere?

In a word, no. And what's more, it's looking like betting on organics is bad for you, financially. Whole Foods Market, Inc. (NASDAQ:WFMI), long the darling of healthy-minded investors, isn't growing fast enough. The stock is down 27% since last week. This, coupled with news that Wal-Mart might be struggling with its organics goals, has us all wondering if we should just embrace pesticides after all.

As Alyce Lomax points out and we've mentioned a number of times here on BloggingStocks, the true irony about all this is that truly faithful organics fans are almost angrily opposed to large, industrial farms. So that, by embracing this positive, healthy movement -- by making organic Rice Krispies, of all things -- in the blindly optimistic American way, which is by standardizing, industrializing, making really really big ... American businesses are perverting everything that is organic. [The Onion made hilarious fun of this trend in a satire here.] It's just not "sustainable" if it's done in tons for the Kellogg Company (NYSE:K). As BusinessWeek says so eloquently, it's "the organic paradox: The movement's adherents have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, but success has imperiled their ideals."

Not only have ideals been imperiled, but also: profit. See here's the thing.

We parents of young children love to rail and rant at Disney and its Princesses, going so far as to hail the New York Times when it did an exposé of sorts on the cult of princess. Not only do the princesses create all kinds of stereotypical, feminine-victim role models, goes the theory, but also they promote unhealthy products! The scourge of every grocery store shopping trip is the begging for Disney Princess cereal, or fruit snacks, or (as I encountered last week at Walgreen's, and I don't even have a little girl): Disney Princess gummy bracelets. I do not lie. In fact, I even ate one.

Well, I may have to begrudgingly thank The Walt Disney Company (NYSE:DIS), who has finally decided to be a little more circumspect about the products its princesses, and the rest of the company's characters, push like so many barely nutritional drugs over the supermarket counter. According to the Wall Street Journal today [subscription required], Disney's CEO, Robert Iger, introduced guidelines to ensure that "its name and characters only will be used on kid-focused products that meet certain guidelines in terms of calories, fat, saturated fat and sugar."

Hurray! Parents of little girls (and princess-loving boys, like mine) can finally venture into the grocery stores again. Well, not so fast: Disney will be bound by its existing contractual agreements for as long as two years, and the campaign will take "several years" to roll out internationally. As PR moves go, it's wonderful and I honor Iger for his foresight. Incredibles instant oatmeal? Incredible!

However. The impact of this move will be slow and the brand damage has already been done. I mean! Disney Princess gummy bracelets! Can Disney recover?

I sat next to a guy named "Trent" at my first real job. He took sick days about once a week, and we all laughed about it; but secretly resented him for taking advantage of the rest of us working stiffs, who actually worked every day. And dared not to take sick days for fear our bosses would think badly of us; that we were lazy, or hypochondriacs, or unhealthy.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE:WMT) is cracking down on the Trents in its workforce, according to the Wall Street Journal this morning [subscription required]. The company has enacted a new attendance policy. Now, if you have the sniffles, or chronic back pain, or a hangover, or mono, you have to call an 800-number; obtain a code; and give that code to your manager. The system will track sick time and whether or not your absence is authorized; those employees who get too many unauthorized absences will be terminated.

Even more ominous, employees with too many sick days will be encouraged to apply for an unpaid leave of absence. Critics naturally are attacking Wal-Mart from every direction, wondering if the company is trying to shuck the unhealthy workers from its roles. Whether or not this is true, it's certainly an icky process for Wal-Mart to enact, and seems a bad move for a company already under fire for overworking its employees.

When my b-school buddy, Jaime, started working in the corporate strategy group at PepsiCo, Inc. (NYSE:PEP), I knew the time had come: soon she'd somehow convince the company to change its ways and become healthy! Starting with that high fructose corn syrup that fills so many of the company's sodas and is (I insist) one of the leading causes of childhood obesity.

Imagine my surprise when I saw one of the front-page headlines for the Wall Street Journal today [subscription required]: "Pepsi Sales Force Tries to Push 'Healthier' Snacks in Inner City." No, it wasn't that scourge of sweetener, HFCS: it was chips. Especially those preservative- and saturated fat-packed Flamin' Hot Cheetos and Nacho Cheese Doritos. I can just see the orange fingers all over Chicago, now.

Company executives are using top-down tactics to push Baked Lays and other lower-fat options in the inner city. Already Pepsi is on my good list for having removed trans-fats (i.e. partially hydrogenated vegetable oils) from the company's chips. Chicagoans, though, are skeptical and the convenience stores where PepsiCo sales efforts are focused are reacting with the speed of dinosaur bones fossilizing. Or thereabouts.

Maybe customers aren't jumping all over themselves for Baked Lays. [And it's interesting to note that these efforts are all the work of outgoing CEO Steve Reinemund, who was relieved of leadership by Indra Nooyi earlier this week -- there's no telling what her plans regarding the healthy sales will be.] But I have an idea, Pepsi! Take out that high fructose corn syrup and replace it with some nice cane syrup, or something else far less chemically altered. Your customers won't notice. And boy will I buy your stock then.

As it is, nice effort. Keep up the good work Pepsi, I'd much rather have corporate efforts wasted (if indeed they are, as the WSJ suggests, beating the corporate head against the inner-city Chicago wall) on trying to convince customers to eat my healthier options than on, I don't know, spying on one another, or padding the pockets of tainted lobbyists. Ya know?

I may be the only one, though. Despite the mention, shares of PEP were down 13 cents today, to $64.78. It's worth mentioning that the stock is only a dollar or so from its 52-week high, and the three-year trend is nuthin' but up. Healthy just may be good for increasing the wealth in your pockets, as well as the pants that hold them.