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?

I remember the first time I tasted a gingerbread latte. It was the winter of 2000, and Starbucks Corporation (NASDAQ:SBUX) had just opened a new outlet a block away from my suburban condo. I hated the suburbs! But I loved those gingerbread lattes, they made me feel like home for the holidays. And let's face it: ginger and spice are delicious. I could eat them year-round.

But, alas, in January the gingerbread latte disappeared, preceded by the eggnog latte and closely followed by the peppermint mocha. Every season we await their return, their appearance on the specials board a better harbinger of the season than the weather, or the opening of the "Christmas" display at your local grocery store. And every season we mourn their passing.

While I'm not about to suggest Starbucks move the eggnog latte to its permanent menu, serving it alongside tangerine Frappuccinos this summer, I think the company would receive dividends in customer goodwill and extra sales if it extended the holiday beverage season through at least March. Let's put it this way: I love the peppermint mochas so much I'll go to Starbucks to buy them, even though I like the service and the coffee at my neighborhood alternative indy coffee shop better.

And I still love them in March. Surprisingly enough, my tastes don't change between December 26th and February 15th! And I'm not the only one. According to Starbucks Drinks Simplified, the eggnog latte is so popular "People start asking about it in September, but on average these aren't sold until mid-November sometime."

Here's something to read while sipping your morning coffee! Coca-Cola simply refuses to be KO'd. The company got a bit of good press recently when an Indian newspaper reported pesticide levels in Pepsi products three times over the limit, while Coca-Cola passed the tests. I'm still dizzy from wondering why pesticides were found in the first place! This may be the nail in the coffin for some faithful consumers out there.

But, maybe Coca-Cola doesn't want you drinking carbonated beverages anymore. As my colleague Michael Canfield covered Sept 1, as baby boomers move towards healthier choices, Coca-Cola is eying Starbuck's lucrative territory. Coca-Cola is going premium with high-end retail outlets offering a variety of freshly brewed espressos, chai teas, cappuccinos and lattes. A recent press release announced the launching of the "Far Coast" brand to fill this niche market. After all, if you're willing to hand over $4, $5 to buy a plastic cup (my theory), why not hand it over to Coca-Cola? Are the coffees really that different?

Coca-Cola chose the multicultural city of Toronto, Canada (where I currently live) to be the launching pad for its "concept store" on Bloor Street yesterday. In a country fanatical about its Tim Horton's coffee, the premium market place has seen much competition. Starbucks has been able to carve out a very respectable market share. Therefore, Far Coast will have to do some serious catching up! Coca-Cola revealed that more stores will be opening soon in Oslo and Singapore (coincidently my birth country!).

Writing for Slate magazine, Daniel Gross has a history of making sweeping generalizations based on the fortunes of the latte. This week, he's analyzing the same reports we agonized over last week: that Starbucks same-store sales were falling, because (Howard Schulz said) customers were tired of waiting in line for frappuccinos. Gross' theory is an interesting one, and he has charts to back it up: he says that Starbucks, like Whole Foods, P.F. Chang's, and Williams-Sonoma, are going through a trough thanks to the decline in the "ability and willingness" of high-income consumers to pay top dollar for a venti coconut latte; organic, farm-raised salmon; $8 lettuce wraps; and an Emile Henry pie plate in a different color for every holiday meal.

Instead, he says, these consumers are trading down to Burger King (and, one would imagine, Dunkin Donuts for coffee; Trader Joe's for slabs of frozen salmon; and Dollar General for 2/$1 pie plates). Of course, I can make charts, too, and when I add DG (Dollar General) and BKC (Burger King) to the mix, I discover that their boats are falling with the same tide that's bringing down the luxe choices. It's harder to sell things to the poor, too!

Gross' theory is this: "the cost of living well is rising more rapidly than the overall cost of living." My theory is more like, "people are getting cheaper, and that goes for all of y'all."

An organization called The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) issued a press release last week objecting that the Starbucks Corporation [SBUX] is still serving milk containing Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH --a.k.a. Bovine somatotropin), despite what OCA claims is a five-year old commitment by the coffee company to offer alternatives to consumers. The OCA now believes that earlier promise was a "ploy" by the corporation to grab a feel-good headline.

The same press release also says Starbucks does offer alternatives upon request but makes no effort to inform customers or employees of the choice. Not sure I follow that, what do the employees think that rBGH free organic milk is for, if they in fact have it on hand? This is same hormone that folks like Ben & Jerry's (scroll down to the bottom of the link) won't allow to touch their own fat and sugar-laden treats and is said to cause udder-inflamation in dairy cows and leaves antibiotic residue in the milk that is then consumed by humans.

There are so many health alerts issued, studies done, boycotts called for, on a seemingly increasing variety of issues every day, that I cannot see this one as a major factor for investors. Featuring "organic milk" on the menu board, however, couldn't hurt. Who doesn't like choice? I like to believe I do, at least. That's assuming I can find the new choice among the several hundred possible drink combinations already on offer.