Starbucks taps into health trends with protein coffee test
Why it matters: The world's largest coffee chain unveiled Tuesday that it is testing protein in its cold foam as part of its "Back to Starbucks" plan.
CEO Brian Niccol is trying to reverse a decline in foot traffic and sales by returning to its roots.
The big picture: Protein is hot and having a moment beyond social media influencers sharing order hacks.
Restaurant brands like Dutch Bros Coffee and Smoothie King have added more protein to their products to cater to changing consumer appetites.
Eating a high-protein diet is important to maintain muscle for people taking appetite-suppressing injectable treatments like Ozempic and Wegovy, research shows.
Nearly 18 million Americans are expected to be taking versions of GLP-1 drugs by 2029, according to investment bank UBS.
Zoom in: Niccol told Axios in an interview Tuesday that the protein cold foam being tested is for a number of different consumer groups including 20-year-old males, 50-year-old females and people taking GLP-1s.
"I was watching people coming to our stores, they would get three shots of espresso over ice," Niccol said. "And in some cases, they pull their own protein powder out of their bag, or in other cases, they have a protein drink, like a Fair Life and they'd pour that into their drink."
"I'm like, well, wait a second, we can make this experience better for them," he said. "The good news is now I think we're right on trend, and we can do it I think arguably better than anybody else."
Flashback: Starbucks had protein smoothies in the past and launched its Vivanno shakes in 2008. They were discontinued in 2018.
The company also launched a protein drink in the U.K. last year.
The intrigue: Starbucks said the protein powder should be able to be added to any of its cold foam flavors.
What's next: Starbucks is testing protein cold foam in five locations in the U.S. under its Starting Five model.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
Copycat Ozempic, Mounjaro proliferate even in postshortage era
Copycat versions of popular drugs like Ozempic and Mounjaro have continued to proliferate in a postshortage era, with some experts saying 'regulatory neglect' is allowing for potentially dangerous, unapproved drugs to reach consumers. When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) adds a drug to its official shortage list, compounding pharmacies can sell their own versions of that drug so patients can continue to access medications. This was the case when weight loss drugs like tirzepatide and semaglutide went into shortage due to high demand. Online companies like Hims & Hers and Ro entered the GLP-1 market with compounded versions of Wegovy and Zepbound. These medications contain the same active pharmaceutical ingredient as the branded version but are formulated slightly differently, such as altering a medication for a patient who can't swallow pills. Due to the often highly individualized nature of compounded drugs, they are not FDA-approved. But although the FDA has since removed these drugs from its shortage list, stakeholders say compounded drugs continue to be sold, and lawmakers in Congress have begun raising concerns with federal regulators. There are two types of compounding pharmacies, 503A and 503B. 503A compounding pharmacies fulfill personalized, patient-specific prescriptions. 503B compounding pharmacies can do the same while also fulfilling bulk orders for clients like hospitals. Prior to the end of the shortage, telehealth companies primarily relied on 503B compounders, but according to those in the drug space, online sellers are turning to 503A compounders to keep the lucrative business going. Novo Nordisk, the manufacturer of semaglutide, partnered with Hims & Hers to sell a low-cost version of its branded product Wegovy after the shortage officially ended. But that partnership was dissolved after Novo Nordisk accused Hims & Hers of illegally continuing to sell compounded versions of its drug 'under the false guise of personalization.' Experts in the field say the maneuver falls into a regulatory 'gray area.' 'I hesitate to even call these people compounders. Because what they really are are illegal pharmaceutical companies,' said Peter Pitts, former FDA associate commissioner and president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest. 'You don't compound for tens of millions of people, and you don't personalize for tens of millions of people. That's just kind of a fake brand extension.' In July, a bipartisan coalition of House lawmakers sent a letter to FDA Commissioner Marty Makary asking that he direct his agency to address the flow of illicit anti-obesity medications (AOM) into the country. While not specifically focused on compounded drugs, the letter did note the possibility for ambiguity between these medications and illicitly sourced drugs. 'We understand the distinction between legitimate compounded drugs prepared in state-licensed pharmacies and counterfeit or compounded drugs made from illicit ingredients obtained from illegitimate sources,' wrote the lawmakers. 'However, unapproved AOMs continue to be widely marketed online, in print, and on television.' Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission in July, calling for the agency's action on online advertising of compounded GLP-1s. She was reiterating warnings that a bipartisan group of state attorneys general had made. 'Amid the unprecedented demand for these miracle medicines, foreign criminals and con artists are defrauding and endangering Americans by selling and shipping counterfeit or deceptively-marketed GLP-1 drugs and active ingredients,' she wrote. A spokesperson for Ro said the company 'does not market or advertise compounded GLP-1s.' The Hill was able to find a half-dozen lower-profile companies still marketing compounded GLP-1s online. Hims & Hers, perhaps the most well-known of these online companies, disputed Pitt's characterization. 'Anyone claiming that we compound personalized medications for tens of millions of people is simply wrong and is mischaracterizing our business. We follow the carefully written compounding regulations and only offer access to compounded treatments when a licensed provider determines it is clinically necessary, in their independent judgment, for their individual patient,' the company said in a statement to The Hill. 'That's the future of healthcare: a system centered on the individual where providers have a way to treat the individual in front of them.' The Federal Trade Commission declined to comment as its investigations are nonpublic. The FDA did not respond to a request for comment. Pitts expressed incredulity that federal regulators hadn't stepped in already, saying, 'How long can the FDA permit kind of regulatory neglect, to allow this problem just to snowball until they get engaged?' Although the continued sale of compounded GLP-1s falls into a regulatory gray area, Pitts believes it goes against the 'spirit' of the regulations. He further cited the '5 percent rule' for compounding pharmacies, which dictates that the percentage of compounded drugs that a pharmacy distributes out of state not exceed 5 percent, saying online sellers have exceeded this rule by '10,000-fold.' According to recent polling, consumers are concerned about where compounded drugs originate from. A poll conducted by the firm Fabrizio Ward, run by President Trump's 2024 campaign pollster Tony Fabrizio, found that 64 percent of surveyed voters don't believe compounders should be able to continue to make drugs outside of the current legally permitted circumstances. Voters in the survey were split when asked how confident they were that online pharmacies sold safe, FDA-approved drugs, with 46 percent saying they were confident and 41 percent saying they were not. A majority of voters — 78 percent — said they had concerns about bulk, compounded versions of drugs like Wegovy and Zepbound coming into the U.S. from overseas sources. During the active shortage of GLP-1 products, questions were raised over where compounding pharmacies were sourcing the active pharmaceutical ingredients for their products. Telehealth companies have said their products come from FDA-regulated facilities. 'There's a difference between a product being made in an FDA-approved facility and a product being manufactured on an FDA-approved line for that product,' said Pitts. 'The FDA does not inspect production lines for illegal manufacturing, that just does not happen. So, it's an entirely fake proposition.'
Time Magazine
22 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
The AIDS Crisis Offers a Warning About Trump's Research Cuts
During a sweaty night in Houston 33 years ago, on Aug. 19, 1992, I spoke to the Republican National Convention and, via television, to millions of others. My speech, 'A Whisper of AIDS,' took 13 minutes of the four or five years I was told I had left. I had AIDS. Everyone said it would kill me. However, I did not die. Thanks to incredible medical research, AIDS was converted from certain death to possible life for those with access to new drugs. Today about 1.2 million Americans live with HIV/AIDS and 50,000 or so are added to this total each year. Thanks to drugs many people can't afford, an AIDs diagnosis is no longer a death sentence. Medicaid is redemptive. Federal resources save lives. And I am alive to bear witness to the danger that still lurks in our communities, to the enormous cost already paid in money and lives, and to the tremendous advancements we are making against this disease. If we're willing to learn, our experience with AIDS offers some lessons. For example: Science, if persistently supported, can generate miracles. Science has kept me alive all these years. Science has virtually eradicated vertical (mother-to-child) HIV transmission for a few pennies per person. The miracles are within reach. But if scientific funding is stopped, so are the miracles. The Trump Administration has gutted America's AIDS eradication program and HIV research initiatives. Republicans have simultaneously provided a historic tax cut for wealthy Americans. The unpleasant truth is that these policies are a reflection of a broader belief that some lives are more valuable than others. As the philosophy goes: Infants in, say, Sudan can be allowed to die because their lives aren't as important as American's. And funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which feeds hungry families and school kids, can be cut because their lives don't matter as much as wealthy Americans need a tax break. Burdening the poor with greater poverty while lightening the tax load of the most wealthy, to paraphrase Bill Gates, smacks of the richest people in the world killing the poorest children in the world. The dilemma we faced with the AIDS crisis, and we face again today with President Donald Trump's reckless dismantling of domestic and international programs, is that those setting the rules believe they themselves will not be impacted. What it will take to change minds, as we learned in the AIDS epidemic, is a personal encounter with the truth—and with the repercussions of their actions. When a Republican Congressman who voted for Trump's budget learns that his mother's rural nursing home has been closed, and there's no other one within a hundred miles, then he may care. When his eight-year-old daughter is given a terminal diagnosis, and his prayers for a miracle are not answered because research has been starved of needed funds, then he may care. When the consequences are close enough, personal enough, painful enough, we begin to care. When we care enough about hunger, we can and will solve it—just like when we cared enough about AIDS, we were able to make huge strides. But right now, we simply do not care enough. The AIDS epidemic taught us that until we are personally touched by the truth, we're not likely to care; and until we care, we'll stand by, hands in pockets, looking the other way. Cuts in USAID programs alone will result in the deaths of 14 million people, maybe more, who might have otherwise lived. But if their deaths are in another place, somewhere we won't be bothered by seeing them, we just don't care. If we wait until we care enough, we'll learn the lesson of Pastor Niemoeller who said of Nazi Germany: 'They came after the Jews and I was not a Jew, so I did not protest. They came after the trade unionists and I was not a trade unionist, so I did not protest. They came after the Roman Catholics and I was not a Roman Catholic, so I did not protest. Then they came after me, and there was no one left to protest.' It's an old warning, one I cited in a speech to Republicans 33 years ago. If we wait too long, and if we refuse to care about the lives of others, we will all eventually feel the consequences. Then we will care.
Newsweek
22 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Apple Users Get Update on How Their Private Data is Being Used
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Apple will no longer be required to provide international law enforcement access to private data after the U.K. agreed to rescind an investigatory power mandate. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said that the U.K. would drop its mandate for Apple to provide an encrypted data "back door," after the policy came under criticism from the tech industry. Newsweek contacted Apple for more information on the agreement via email. Why It Matters The reported withdrawal touches on core questions about cross-border law enforcement powers, the security of encrypted personal data stored in cloud backups, and the potential for government access to private communications and photos of U.S. citizens. Apple has publicly framed its approach to user privacy around on-device processing and end-to-end encryption for many services, which the company said limited its ability to access the contents of messages and certain stored data. What To Know In a statement on Tuesday, Gabbard said that the White House had negotiated an agreement with the U.K. that means the "back door" would no longer be necessary. "Over the past few months, I've been working closely with our partners in the U.K, alongside @POTUS and @VP, to ensure Americans' private data remains private and our Constitutional rights and civil liberties are protected," Gabbard wrote on X. "As a result, the U.K. has agreed to drop its mandate for Apple to provide a 'back door' that would have enabled access to the protected encrypted data of American citizens and encroached on our civil liberties." Stock Image: The Apple logo. Stock Image: The Apple logo. Getty Images The U.K. government's order sought a technical capability that would have allowed access to encrypted iPhone backups, potentially including photos and messages that users stored in cloud services. Apple said it built privacy controls into its devices, including on-device processing, App Tracking Transparency, App Privacy Report, and end-to-end encryption for Messages, and described Advanced Data Protection as a user-enabled setting that expanded encryption for iCloud data. Apple also provided guidance about App Store privacy details and the Privacy Nutrition Labels that developers must disclose on app product pages to show what data apps may collect and whether it is linked to users. What People Are Saying Apple said in a February statement: "ADP protects iCloud data with end-to-end encryption, which means the data can only be decrypted by the user who owns it, and only on their trusted devices. We are gravely disappointed that the protections provided by ADP will not be available to our customers in the U.K. given the continuing rise of data breaches and other threats to customer privacy. Enhancing the security of cloud storage with end-to-end encryption is more urgent than ever before. "Apple remains committed to offering our users the highest level of security for their personal data and are hopeful that we will be able to do so in the future in the United Kingdom. As we have said many times before, we have never built a backdoor or master key to any of our products or services and we never will." What Happens Next The White House will continue to work with international partners and tech companies to resolve disputes of this nature.
