Why doesn’t Starbucks make low-fat ice cream?

In the great scheme of things, this doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. Coffee beans, that is. But since life is made up of little things, here’s my gripe of the day.

I just received an e-mail coupon good for $1 off a pint of Starbucks’ new “coffee-house-inspired” ice cream. The line features four new flavors – caramel macchiato, mocha frappuccino, java chip frappuccino, and plain-old coffee (my favorite all-time flavor, hands down), based on several of the most popular drinks sold by the chain. But you can’t order the ice cream, made by Unilever, from your neighborhood barista. It’s sold mostly through grocery and drug stores.

Since I enjoy cup of Starbucks’ Sumatra every once in a while, I was intrigued by the new flavors, but when I checked out the nutritional information on the label – hats off to Starbucks for making the information readily accessibly on its Web site – I got sticker shock. Regular coffee, for instance, packs 210 calories and 13 grams of fat in a meager half-cup serving.

So why doesn’t Starbucks offer a low- or reduced-fat version for guilt-ridden ice cream lovers like me? I contacted the chain for an explanation, and got a quick – on hopeful -- answer. 

“You may be pleased to know that other consumers have asked for the same product as well,” a customer-service representative said in a written response. “Consumer comments are taken into consideration when planning changes to existing products, as well as introduction of new products. We will share your comments with the Brand Manager.”

That’s encouraging. Consider this the beginning of my grassroots campaign. Until a reformulation is available, I’ll continue to consult our taste experts here at Consumer Reports for the lowdown on the best low-fat ice cream. Subscribers can access the full Ratings. If you’re not a subscriber, here’s how to sign up.

Comments

[Rick Talcott]

Not to get too strident about it, but it might be appropriate to take a look at the lack of any scientific basis (other than politically correct hysteria) for thinking that "low fat" is a healthy or even beneficial choice in foods. (My 2¢, but thanks for listening.)

[Elijah Meyer]

Low fat ice cream rarely tastes anywhere near as good as its full fat counterpart. Because it is less satisfying, you are likely to eat more of it. The most common fat substitutes often take the form of ultra-refined carbohydrates, which make you feel more hungry shortly after you've eaten (meaning that once again, you are likely to eat more). Worst of all, many fat substitutes carry long term health effects that are far more harmful than the fat itself.

Fat, on the other hand, makes you feel full, so it's a lot easier to stop eating when you've had a small yet satisfying serving of it. Why not just enjoy the full fat version in moderation? If the smaller serving doesn't satisfy you, perhaps the ice cream wasn't that good to begin with.

[TheFactor]

I'm in agreement with both previous posters. People still talk about fat like it is the nutrient that actually makes you fat. Fat contributes less to weight gain than carbohydrates due in no small part to the significantly reduced insulin response that fat creates. Additionally, while carbohydrate is only useful to the body as energy, unsaturated fats improve your cholesterol profile.

Enough with the low fat dogma already.

[Kristen@TheFrugalGirl]

I concur with all the previous posters. It's not like ice cream is a health food when the fat is taken out, and I feel like the main problem with ice cream is the sugar, not the fat. Fat can be beneficial, whereas sugar really isn't.

I say eat a small portion of your favorite ice cream on a semi-regular basis, and savor the creamy goodness. As long as you don't eat too much of it, you'll be fine.