Cookies at Starbucks

I'm sitting at Starbucks reading a book this afternoon when four kids, who I estimate to be about 7 years old, sit down next to me at the window counter. Each child has a Starbucks chocolate chip cookie (which measures roughly 3 inches in diameter) in front of them. As soon as I finish my chapter, I'm outta there - don't want to be in the same room when the sugar enters their bloodstream.

My first reaction is: "What responsible suburban mother allows her children to eat an oversized cookie at 4:30pm in the afternoon when she should be preparing a well-balanced Sunday supper for her family?" However, my outrage is quelled by another observation. In addition to the cookie, each child has a single-serve Horizon organic milk. So even if the kids don't end up eating their dinner, at least they will have gotten a serving of calcium and some protein. I am also impressed that the children are encouraged to sit and settle down while they eat their treat. Even if it is Starbucks, mom is at least teaching the kids some etiquette. She's earned my respect back.

'Cause I'm a nutrition geek, I decided to look up the cookie's nutrition info on the Starbucks website when I got home. It revealed that each "large, buttery chewy cookie loaded with premium chocolate chunks" contains 360 calories and 17 grams of fat, not to mention 31 grams of sugar. As horrific as the numbers sound, I would not report this particular mom to the nutrition police. Since Starbucks removed trans fats from all its baked goods a couple years ago, the cookie's ingredient list is not as scary as the numbers imply. There's nothing wrong with flour, sugar, butter, eggs and chocolate chips. That's what I would put into a batch of cookie dough.

What is scary, is the shit that kids who don't eat at Starbucks put into their mouths. This scene I described took place in a relatively affluent suburb of Boston. The kids were all skinny and looked pretty healthy. Yeah, they eat sugary food but they're not malnourished and probably very active.

Now imagine another family, living in the city with two working parents struggling to make ends meet. Their afternoon snack would likely be purchased at 7-Eleven or a gas station on the nearest corner. The kids would get to choose from a variety of brands - Famous Amos, Mrs. Fields, Little Debbie and Hostess. Unfortunately, having more options is not necessarily better and actually exacerbates the nutritional disadvantage of the disadvantaged. Kids who opt for the Famous Amos cookies get a dose of "soybean, palm and palm kernel oil with TBHQ for freshness," artificial flavor and whey protein concentrate - ingredients you certainly won't find in the kitchen cupboard. As yucky as it sounds, Amos' recipe is not as gross as the one used for Little Debbies' soft creme-filled confections (there is no actual cream in the airy "creme" filling). She still bakes with partially hydrogenated oil and resorts to artificial colors and corn syrup to keep her prices down.

What I find most ironic is the fact that the Starbucks cookie contains more calories and fat than the convenience store alternative (assuming you eat a single serving) but does less damage to a child's waistline. Processed foods are chemically enhanced to make them more irresistible than their natural, old-fashioned counterparts. In his book, The end of overeating, David Kessler describes how the food industry engineers products to make them "hyperpalatable." While ignorance around serving sizes is certainly to blame, manufacturers are also responsible for the overeating epidemic. Artificial flavors and additives stimulate the appetite making it more difficult for consumers to eat proper portions. Exposing children's palates to artificially flavored "edible food-like substances", as Michael Pollan would classify most snacks for sale at the gas station, predisposes them to uncontrolled eating and disastrous health as adults.

I'll pay more for the wholesome ingredients - and extra calories - in a Starbucks cookie next time the childish craving strikes...