Coffee beverages have become a multi-billion dollar industry. Most of us support either a local roaster, Starbucks, Caribou, or for that matter any other regional coffee chain. If you’re a latte, cappuccino, espresso, mocha drinker you know the cost to indulge in your daily passion can get pretty expensive. I recently switched over to buying soy lattes, and am a bit up in arms over the extra cost that Starbucks and the other chains hit you up for when you order your coffee with soymilk. I’ve been thinking that soy might be better for me, and have been wondering if the extra cost is a result of lower demand for soy, or just the shops way of getting you because you’re trying to be a little healthier in your daily java intake. So I decided to check out the nutrition data on soy and milk lattes. I was surprised by what I found. Soy lattes have 162 calories, 43 from fat. Total fat is 5 grams or 7 percent of your daily value intake. There is 120mg of sodium and 17 grams of sugar. The sugar content caught me by surprise. There is 8 grams of protein, and you get 36 percent of your daily calcium requirement, 6 percent iron, and 12 percent vitamin C. Milk lattes have 180 calories, a little more than soy lattes, but they have a higher fat content of 9 grams. Milk lattes have 115mg of sodium, almost equal to soy, and they have less sugar in them than soy lattes, coming in at 13 grams of sugar. You get 30 percent of your calcium and 6 percent of your vitamin A requirements. Based on the data, soy comes out ahead on most attributes with the exception of sugar. I just don’t understand why they can’t make a soy or milk latte without the sugar? I guess I’ll stick with soy, how about you?