Wednesday, March 7, 2007


In case you needed another excuse not to go to Starbucks--in case burned coffee and too-much-sugar drinks weren't enough reason--here's another one for ya:

The New York Times reports that since Starbucks has decided to become a No-Trans Fat shop, they are demanding that all their food vendors remove the evil substance from their baked goods. But the kick is that a small amount of natural trans-fat is found in butter--so the companies that bake for Starbucks are being forced to cook with margarine or palm oil instead. 'Cause you know, margarine and palm oil are so much better for ya.

This is just plain silly. You know what also has small amounts of naturally occurring trans-fat? Milk. How is Starbucks going to make all those fancy sugerfied grande double decaf caramel triple coconut frapichiato with a twist of lemon meringue drinks without milk.

Wait--I don't want to know the answer to that. I suspect it lies somewhere very close to Wendy's Frosty. Yuck. Now, I'm not saying that trans-fat is a good thing. Clearly, it's not. But there's a huge difference between gobbling down pounds of stale cookies filled with whipped trans-fat creme, and eating a delicious pastry that happens to have trace amounts of naturally occurring trans-fat in it.

I'm sorry, but a croissant made without butter is not really a croissant. It's an oily crescent shaped bread product, and should be legally obligated to be labeled as such.

Last time I was at the Wisconsin Historical Society, I saw a t-shirt that said: "No thanks, I'm having butter."

My sentiments exactly!

(Though I do have to admit that Starbuck's little breakfast sandwies are pretty good. And, if I have to choose between coffee from Dunkin Donuts and from Starbucks, I'll take the Starbucks anytime. But it's definitely the lesser of two evils choice...)

No comments: