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?

Starbucks Corporation's (NASDAQ:SBUX) overall trends have experts like Cramer in buy mode. One reason the stock remains strong is its continued push for improvement. A good example is its current test in Portland of replacing the default whole milk with 2%, rather than wait for customers to request it.

And with good reason, I think. Browsing through the Starbucks nutrition information uncovered some startling numbers:

• 380- calories in a Venti (24 oz.) Caramel Macchiato Espresso
• 580 – calories in a Venti White Chocolate Mocha Frappuccino Blended Coffee
• 640- calories in a Venti Tazo Chai Frappuccino Blended Créme
• 750- calories in a Venti Strawberries & Créme Frappuccino Blended Créme, with 140 calories from fat, or 15 grams

Starbucks does offer its customers a number of under-200 calorie choices, listed on its web site. Among them is... coffee! Remember coffee?

How about a nosh with your java? Since it buys baked goods locally, Starbucks doesn't list an across-the-board calorie count, but does offer breakouts for each location. My nearby Starbucks offers these tasty items:

• 480- calories in a Banana Nut Cake
• 500- calories in one Peanut Butter Cookie
• 510- calories in a Maple Coffee Cake Muffin

While we're talking nutrition, Starbucks still doesn't list caffeine content of its coffee on its web site. According to The Caffeine Database, though, a Starbucks Grande coffee packs a whopping 372 mg. A Coke Classic has 34 mg, an espresso 77 mg, and a Red Bull 88 mg. So who are you going to turn to to jumpstart your morning?

Am I bashing Starbucks? Not at all. It sells what sells, the stuff that the increasingly buoyant American public asks for. I wonder how a pat of butter would taste in my next Double Chocolate Chip Frappuccino?

Coffee served at Starbucks Corp. (NASDAQ: SBUX) locations in the American West and Northeast will soon lack a certain something -- no, it's not caffeine, thank God! -- but you won't be able to detect the loss by taste. That something will be recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), a Monsanto (NYSE: MON) product. The hormone is given to about a third of the country's dairy herd in order to increase per-cow milk production.

Seattlepi.com quotes a spokesman of the Washington Dairy Products Commission as saying that the move will increase production costs for the farmers, which will be passed along to Starbucks, thereby putting pressure on drink prices. In the same report, Starbucks spokesman Sanja Gould states that this is the first phase of a nationwide program to eliminate rBGH at all Starbucks.

Monsanto markets rBGH, the top-selling dairy herd drug, under the name Posilac. Advocacy groups have suggested a link between rBGH and cancer in humans, although studies have not proven such. Nonetheless, many consumers prefer to avoid milk produced with the drug, which is no doubt the driving factor in Starbucks' decision.

Monsanto has compiled a number of articles supporting their claim that Posilac is a safe product of vital importance to the milk industry. The implication of the cited articles is that the Starbucks decision is market-driven, by a market convinced of a health threat that doesn't exist.