Starbucks, purveyors of expensive liquid energy, have begun the new year with the news that they will provide calorie information with their drinks so that customers can "make an informed decision at the counter". Proudly boasting 15 drinks under 150 calories - the equivalent of one average hot dog - Starbucks neglect to mention some of their less streamlined options, headed up by the gut-busting 555 calorie (think 11 Domino's chicken wings) Praline Mocha with Whipped Cream.
Comparatively, Caffe Nero's most calorie-packed hot drink is the Hot Chocolate Milano. Topped with whipped cream and Belgian chocolate, it comes in at 424 calories, the equivalent of a portion of curly fries. Their other main high street competitors all float around the same calorific mark, with Costa's Full Fat Mocha coming in at 379 calories (though any of the sickly syrup shots adds an extra 70-odd calories) and Pret a Manger's hot chocolate a relatively modest 309 calories prior to any embellishments.
The issue, of course, isn't a lack of data; with a bit of judicious Googling this information is readily available. Nor are the figures themselves surprising. You don't have to be a nutritionist to guess the most calorific hot drinks on offer are the ones mixed with sugary flavourings and topped with whipped cream. The fact is, marking calorie counts on the menu is, to put it indelicately, like pissing into a wind of avidity and addiction.
Coffee and hot drinks themselves, without embellishment or addition and in moderation, are not bad for you. Even a large latte made with skimmed milk won't exceed 200 calories - around the same as a bowl of plain porridge. The problems arise from the addictive nature of caffeine and the hard sell of all those flavourings and extras. In 2002, 71% of all adults were coffee drinkers, consuming an average of four cups a day. If any of those 71% decide that their drink of choice is the Praline Mocha with Whipped Cream, they're knocking back 2,220 calories a day just in coffee.
It's also worth noting that coffee from coffee chains is almost invariably more unhealthy than the kind you might make at home. A cup of black coffee of any kind contains just 2 calories, and the higher the quality of the coffee the fewer condiments it will need. The high calorie counts of chain coffee houses are due to the huge servings on offer and the slew of flavourings and additions available to those who want them.
Starbucks is hardly in illustrious company in printing their calorie counts on their menus, either. New York passed a law in 2009 forcing all chain restaurants with 15 or more outlets (including the coffee chain's New York establishments) to print the calorie count of each of their individual offerings in a font equal or larger in size to the name of the item, with a hefty $2,000 fine for any chain found to not be complying. In 2010, President Obama's healthcare legislation took the policy nationwide for any chain with 20 or more restaurants.
But how efficient is the provision of calorie information as a deterrent to eat and drink unhealthily? Early reports from New York indicated that it is a measure that works in the short-term, but only to encourage customers to buy more of the less calorific items. A 2009 study published in Health Affairs showed no change in overall calories purchased before and after the introduction of the labelling laws.
Does knowing the calorie count of a hot drink or meal put you off? If you're buying a cream- and syrup-topped mega bucket and adding sugar, do you really need to be told it's fattening? And to what extent are Starbucks fulfilling an ethical obligation as opposed to pulling a PR stunt?
