Slashdot Mirror
Nestle Discovers 'Breakthrough' Method To Cut Sugar In Chocolate By 40% Without Affecting Taste (theguardian.com)
Nestle and its scientists have discovered how to "structure sugar differently" to reduce the amount of sugar in some of its products by 40%. What's more is that it can be done reportedly without compromising the taste. The Guardian reports: The new process is said to make sugar dissolve faster so that even when less is used, the tongue perceives an identical level of sweetness. It plans to patent the process, discovered by its scientists, which it says will enable it to significantly decrease the total sugar in its confectionery products. A four-finger milk chocolate Kit Kat currently contains 23.8g of sugar, a plain (milk chocolate) Yorkie contains 26.9g and a medium peppermint Aero has 24.9g of sugar. If the amount of sugar in each of these products was cut by 40% the new amounts would be 14.3g, 16.1g and 14.9g respectively.
Now I'll have to eat nearly twice as much to maintain my obesity.
People on slashdot would have a hard time multiplying a number by 0.4
of course they plan to patent.
at least with others looking at royalties to pay to make this fake low-sugar crap, "real" chocolate will still be available for baking, confections and other goodies where quality and composition of ingredients can matter a hell of a lot, and can make the difference between something turning out or being something the homeless won't even dig out of the trash.
Reduced by 40%.
Because that wouldn't cut Nestle's sugar costs by 40%?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Oh my God! They're eating DOGS!
Honestly I prefer european chocolate as it's not as overwhelmingly sweet. and anyone that actually likes chocolate likes a good dark chocolate that is already not as sweet.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
TFA says nothing about how they achieved the result.
Because the goal is to not make the chocolate taste like shit.
I don't know what this sugar configuration they've come up with tastes like so I can't compare but if it tastes the same as their regular sugar then that is a big improvement over splenda. Splenda is an excellent sugar substitute but it's doesn't taste like sugar.
Sorry, but Nestle "chocolate" already tastes awful. I'm not shocked that they can't ruin it further without taking over Palmer or Zacarey.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
ok maybe it does taste the same. Now, how does it affect the human body? Does it metabolize the same? Will it cause cancer?
Should this be classified as a new drug and put to thorough and strict testing?
Except price which you increase
?????
profit
Like all the others in America: H-igh F-ructose K-orn S-yrup. They gots to go to Mexico to get the real deal anymore.
Unexpected consequences don't have boundaries.
Why is Snark Required?
You're not a human, are you?
Please name it Mockolate! :D
In the mean time "real" dark chocolate already has 14g or less sugar per serving. They do this by using real cocoa instead of sugar and wax as a filler.
US chocolate brands are absolutely awful and sweet.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I don't know what this sugar configuration they've come up with tastes like so I can't compare but if it tastes the same as their regular sugar then that is a big improvement over splenda. Splenda is an excellent sugar substitute but it's doesn't taste like sugar.
It never ceases to amaze me how different people can be from each other. Something that tastes good to some people tastes awful to others. For you, Splenda "doesn't taste like sugar", yet for me it is the only artificial sweetener I will use because it takes just like sugar (to me).
... artificial. I can't taste anything but unpleasant chemicals.
Every other artificial sweetener tastes
I haven't seen an Aero bar outside Canada...
why is it necessary to eat sugar? why is it necessary to eat?
So they changed the chemical structure of the sugar molecules. It made it 40% sweeter by volume without otherwise changing the taste noticeably. What else did it change? Isn't anyone else even a little bit creeped out by this?
At the risk of being called sexist, consuming chocolate is necessary for people suffering from PMS.
Call me when they figure out how to take 40% of the insanity and irrelevance out of the Democrat party without affecting teh good feelz those SJW so desperately cling to.
A lot of chocolate candy has so much sugar in it, it practically burns my mouth.
A big part of the chocolate 'experience' is the texture. Sugar does more than just provide sweetness its also a 'wet' ingredient in most cooking. Its also highly soluble in saliva, what does this do the creaminess?
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Like all their other "no flavor change" changes to their chocolate over the decades. This will just cheapen it a little bit more. They used to have good chocolate (maybe I'm showing my age with that remark) but it's bilge now. “There is hardly anything in the world that someone cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper." John Ruskin
Fuck Nestle and fuck Nestle Chairman.
Make sure you are comparing to actual sugar and not corn syrup. Food and drink made with cane sugar tastes noticeably better to me than anything with corn syrup.
As far as artificial sweeteners go, Splenda is definitely the closest in taste to sugar, but I would never mistake it for sugar. I suppose if it were mixed with the right ingredients and compared against corn syrup, it might be more difficult to tell the difference, though.
Didn't they try this before when they tried to remove cocoa butter from "milk chocolate", given milk chocolate is gross enough. Can we please not make it more disgusting?
They say people can't tell, but they can. Also keep in mind that Nestle doesn't sell any chocolates in the US, Hershey sells the Kitkat, which is a completely different thing from the Canadian version.
It's simpler to eat dark chocolate like a civilised person.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
so people can eat (buy) more shit from them without caring about sugar, amazing
What does that mean, exactly? Is it going to change it enough where the end product is actually significantly worse for you health-wise than what it replaced - like hydrogenated vegetable oils?
#DeleteChrome
Many years ago I learned about 'left handed sugar'. This, apparently was a regular sugar molecule, except that it was a mirror image. The beauty of it was that it tasted exactly like sugar but the body didn't know what to do with it so it passed through without harm. Perfect for diabetics, fat people and those who want to preserve their brain cells!
Yeah, I really didn't want to look it up and you probably don't either, so the answer to your question is: it's very expensive to synthesize. The actual question may take some time to calculate.
...omphaloskepsis often...
why is it necessary to eat?
Choosing not to eat is a life and death choice. Choosing not to eat chocolate is not a life and death choice. They aren't equivalent considerations.
... then you don't need chocolate. Just say'in.
For most of human history humans have not eaten chocolate. I am most assuredly a human.
Because Splenda makes me fart like a horse.
I would argue that the first step in realizing that goal is to avoid Nestle products at all costs.
Years ago, I used to *love* Nestle's plain chocolate bars (the ones in red wrappers with white writing that were basically "Nestle Crunch, without the 'crunch' part".
At some point over the past 20 years, they silently vanished from the shelves of American stores (though Nestle Crunch remains), and Hershey's vomit-flavored chocolate was all that remained. Well, and Dove... Dove is better than Hershey's, but not as good as I remember Nestle chocolate being.
Hopefully, this will be the game-changer that gets Nestle back into American stores & breaks Hershey's hegemony.
It's simpler to eat dark chocolate like a civilised person.
You do know that has sugar too right? That is unless your eating the 100% bakers chocolate. I did that for awhile. I may even buy more, but the best I've found that is reasonably tasting is the Lindt 85% from Amazon or wherever.
Splenda by itself doesn't quite taste like sugar. Combining it with acesulfame potassium neutralizes the 'off' taste (Pepsi has a patent on it... it's why the semi-new Diet Pepsi without aspartame tastes so good, and why Diet Coke -- even with Splenda -- is still kind of gross.)
UNFORTUNATELY, AceK is even more unsuitable for baked, cooked, or melted foods than aspartame, so it's a one-trick pony that only works for cold beverages (but, combined with sucralose, works miracles).
or replace the sugar with something else? What?
This is something well-known to anyone with actual culinary experience. See sea salt vs table salt. Same principle applies to sugar - make if finer, you find that you actually end up using LESS because of more even distribution for same effect.
Nestle is literally trying to patent that which has been known for fucking centuries by any generally-knowledgeable housewife or cook or chef.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
So, which is it--
You're saying that the Mayas and the Aztecs weren't human?
Or are you saying that the last 3,000 years or so does not count as a significant portion of human history?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Or are you saying that the last 3,000 years or so does not count as a significant portion of human history?
Yes. 3,000 years is not "most of human history".
to get the same amount of sugar while consuming even more fat than before the change since that wasn't reduced. Therefore the total calories consumed will increase despite eating the same amount of sugar. Most importantly, though, Nestle will have higher sales volume.
The publics ability to neglect the reactions in active systems never ceases to amaze, but the corporate world's ability to take advantage of it is even more astonishing.
Learn something new every day! Now I know why I like diet pepsi better than diet coke.
I did say it was a great artificial sweetener. I use it a lot. It just doesn't taste the same as sugar.
Chocolate has lots of fat in it. Not impacted.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
For most of human history humans have not eaten chocolate. I am most assuredly a human.
For most of human history humans did not have indoor plumbing, but I'm sure they would have wanted it. Same goes with chocolate.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
If you're going to go all pedantic on me, let's talk about that little difference between history and prehistory of which you appear to be blissfully unaware.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
How the hell do you raise your tail?
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
The weakness of your argument is tedious. But I find your childish bitterness entertaining.
Wonderin what they gonna use instead? Clay?
I don't eat persons - civilized or not.
Same goes with chocolate.
But I don't want chocolate. Your reasoning is unsound.
With this fantastic stride in culinary wizardry they can use more fat instead!
They sure as hell won't use more cocoa.
Yes, but the problem I see is that sugar is then replaced by what? Kit Kat and the likes where already filled with low quality fat. So they will replace carbohydrates with more fat? There's an earlier report by slashdot that some artificial sweeteners also contribute largely to obesity. I hope the war on sugar lessens, except where it benefits those that can't take sugar. But otherwise, if people want less sugar the best thing is to eat less chocolate and more brown rice and vegetables.
Because Splenda (sucralose) has a horrible taste.
you can use honey or orange concentrate, or whatever. This so called "Chocolate obsession" of some people is *imho* more or less a sugar obsession.
It's a win-win for them. Like those air bubbles in some chocolate bars. Offering less for more
isn't this still a thing?
and... cutting sugar from chocolate smacks a bit of when Thatcher worked out how to introduce air to ice cream.
sag
Parent post is inaccurate and shouldn't be modded informative.
Dark chocolate still has sugar in. It doesn't have milk in like milk chocolate.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I do. Lindt Excellence 85% FTW!
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Its a shame they are so evil.
Use Palm Oil (a major contributor of deforestation )
Buying up Land and water wells in developing countries, then selling their own water back to them.
and then there was the Infant Formula fiasco.
https://unlatched.wordpress.co...
Nestle care about people ? I think not.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
With this new method, they should be able to reduce the actual amount of sugar by 80%
To you. You seem to be assuming that you experience the world the same way as everyone else.
And here I thought one eats those kind of candy bars for the burning sensation down your throat, the sugar high soon afterwards, and then the nice lethargic lull - and not for the sweetness. Because by golly, they sure tend to nuke one's taste buds into oblivion.
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
We'll have a similar headline reading that this new breakthrough discovery leads to cancer and aspergers syndrome. Way to go Nestle!
So you're saying I can have my cake and eat it too?
A Kitkat bar has 518.4 kcal per 100 grams according to Google. Sugar has 386.7 kcal per 100 grams.
By reducing sugar, the calories per 100 grams of Kitkat will actually go up, not down. Total calories does go down though due to reduced mass, unless they decide to keep the mass the same.
Dissolve sucrose into acidic catalyst solution, disaccharide of glucose and fructose splits and rotates left when illuminated with polarized light measured with two polarized lenses.
The rotated chiral of sucrose is sweeter.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
I was thinking Noir Infini, but sure.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Yay, another chocolate snob. Dark chocolate is horribly bitter with a disgusting aftertaste that can only be washed away with bourbon.
I'm a European chocoloate snob who came here only to proclaim my love for dark chocolate and of course that anything Americans like is trash. The only down side to dark chocolate is that when I want some I have to buy two bars: one to eat and one to shove up my smug ass.
Because the goal is to not make the chocolate taste like shit.
I used to love Sierra Mist but then then they replaced some of the HFCS with stevia and now the soda tastes horrible. I sent back two glasses of it before asking for a different drink thinking that something was really wrong with the soda fountain, it was days later that someone mentioned to me that the formula had recently changed.
Some people appear to be "lucky" in that they somehow can't tell the difference. To me all of the artificial sweeteners taste terrible compared to regular sugar and corn syrup (which I don't consider artificial as it's still made of actual sugar molecules).
...to talk about how MY tastes are uniquely tuned to the finer EUROPEAN chocolate, and not that VOMIT you common American CLODS call chocolate.
Oh, dammit, I'm too late. 50 posts on this already.
Why do you think people eat it?
Now if only Nestle could make chocolate that people like. In the U.S. you won't find Nestle's chocolate bars for sale in stores because it sucks. Sure, You may have had a Nestle's crunch bar but not a pure chocolate bar in its red wrapper. Well, I bought a box a few months ago thinking I'd relive a golden moment from years gone by only to remember why the chocolate isn't for sale. It tasted so bad that after 6 months I still have half of a box which may last another year or more.
I apologize dude. Didn't mean to offend you.
Every other artificial sweetener tastes ... artificial. I can't taste anything but unpleasant chemicals.
I suspect what you're tasting isn't 'artficiality'. For example, if you taste glucose, sucrose, and stevia, they taste remarkably different, even though they are natural sweeteners. On the other hand, if you compare items sweetened with Aspartame and those sweetened with stevia, you'll find that they taste similar. It seems that the 'very sweet' sweeteners have that kind of cloying sweetness that you can taste all down your throat and that leaves an unpleasant aftertaste, even when they are diluted so the sweetness is equivalent to that of sucrose.
There's a whole science and a lot of experimentation behind sweetness profiles in things like soft drinks. Whatever Coca-Cola did with Coke Zero makes it enjoyable for me to drink, although I can still immediately tell that it's not sweetened with regular sugar. But I still can't drink Diet Coke - the taste makes me wince, and the aftertaste is worse.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Yep. In certain people, the process by which their body breaks down Splenda releases nitrogen.
On the other hand, if you compare items sweetened with Aspartame and those sweetened with stevia, you'll find that they taste similar.
Not at all. I can tolerate aspartame but stevia tastes bitter to me like black coffee bitter. Stevia has a horrible aftertaste to me. Splenda is my favorite, the pink stuff is overly sweet to me, and aspartame is somewhere in the middle. I can easily tell which sweetener is used in which diet soda with a single sip. None of them taste the same to me especially stevia. I'm always amazed how anyone can tolerate stevia at all. It's like someone added cleaning chemicals to my sugar. Of all of them, I would probably have the hardest time telling splenda and real sugar apart so no, it's not the artificiality, it's that everyone tastes them a little bit different or in some cases a lot different.
I did say it was a great artificial sweetener. I use it a lot. It just doesn't taste the same as sugar.
There's a reason there are several different types of artificial sweetener's out there. Splenda doesn't taste like much of anything to me. Other people like it. I like Equal myself. Some other people can't even tolerate that.
Strangest thing is that the sweetener I don't like at all is table sugar.
A side note is that we have entered a terminal age of sweetener war insanity now that some companies are touting that they use the healthy sucrose instead of that killer fructose. And people go for it! Financial interests tapping into people's believe that if they only do special things, they will live forever.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
People can now eat 4 times as much Nestle products without guilt, which will coincidentally sell for 4 times as much as the original products.
Win - Win for Nestle.
I prefer the american versions of Kit Kat, Reese, etc because they taste more chocolatey somehow and less sweet. I visited family in Canada and tried some Hershey bars there, too overly sweet and missing vanilla... I also tried Cadbury and found that to be too sweet again, and also lacking that vanilla twist. I brought some real Hershey bars more recently and everyone agreed it was much better! Some said it's what Hershey Kisses used to taste like in Canada until they started making them different (presumably to be cheaper), so I tried Canada Kisses and yeah, again missing the vanilla and too sweet.
I do like coffee crisp though which we don't have, but that's about it.
Twinstiq, game news
One thing I'm wondering then is why it took Nestle so long to figure out what everyone else already knows.... Are there no chefs or engineers working there?
combined with sucralose
Sucralose is quite possibly one of the most disgusting things I've ever tasted. It makes things taste sort of like they've been overwhelmed with a massive pile of chalk dust and icing sugar, then left out in the sun to rot for a few days. No idea why people think putting that crap in their mouths is a good idea.
AFAICT, different people react to different sweeteners differently. Some people think saccharin tastes just fine, for instance, while others think it tastes like shit. Stevia seems to be especially controversial; to me it tastes really nasty.
It's not just sweeteners: some people like the taste of cilantro, but other people think it tastes like soap. This is actually controlled by a gene, which has been identified IIRC.
I'm like you: I think all the artificial sweeteners taste terrible. However, I also think HFCS tastes terrible. Corn syrup (and its close relative HFCS) isn't just pure glucose and fructose; it still retains molecules from its corn source which affects its flavor. There's a reason that Coca-Cola made south of the border with real sugar has a certain popularity here: it really does taste different than the HFCS version. There's even a conspiracy theory that the whole "New Coke" thing in the 80s was a plot to switch the public from sugar to HFCS, since the "old Coke" was made with sugar, and then the "Coke Classic" was made with HFCS: by the time Coke Classic finally came out, everyone had forgotten what the old Coke tasted like and was just happy to have something similar-tasting back.
What's insane about that? Fructose is a poison. Of course, sucrose has fructose in it (after it's broken down by sucrase enzyme in your body), but that's better than pure fructose. Fructose is like alcohol: it has to be processed by your liver. It's OK in fruits because the total amount of it isn't that much (whole fruits are mostly fiber), but in large, concentrated amounts it's not good for you. And of course, sucrose isn't "healthy" either, but it's better than pure fructose.
No. What you're missing is that different people taste these things differently.
As an example, what do you think of cilantro? Do you like it, or does it taste like soap to you? There's a genetic difference in people who think it tastes like soap, and those people are a significant minority of the population, not just a few mutants. It's very likely the same thing is going on with these artificial sweeteners.
I used to love Sierra Mist but then then they replaced some of the HFCS with stevia and now the soda tastes horrible. I sent back two glasses of it before asking for a different drink thinking that something was really wrong with the soda fountain, it was days later that someone mentioned to me that the formula had recently changed.
Some people appear to be "lucky" in that they somehow can't tell the difference. To me all of the artificial sweeteners taste terrible compared to regular sugar and corn syrup (which I don't consider artificial as it's still made of actual sugar molecules).
Stevia leaves a bitter metallic aftertaste in my mouth. Indeed, most sugar substitutes have a weird aftertaste. To combat this, on the rare occasion I drink soda, I will get a diet soda with a finger or two of the real deal (cane sugar if possible). I like the 10 calorie version of sodas more than the "zero" calorie ones.
It should be easy to do this without unacceptably affecting the taste of the chocolate, since Nestle chocolate is mediocre at best to begin with.
No. What you're missing is that different people taste these things differently.
As an example, what do you think of cilantro? Do you like it, or does it taste like soap to you? There's a genetic difference in people who think it tastes like soap, and those people are a significant minority of the population, not just a few mutants. It's very likely the same thing is going on with these artificial sweeteners.
I have the "super taster" gene. Raw broccoli florets are bitter (I love the stems raw and the florets cooked). Stevia has a bitter metallic taste. Cilantro tastes like soap to me.
I do. Lindt Excellence 85% FTW!
My personal preference is 75-80% if plain. 85% is good with fruit, cheese, or salt.
Perhaps because Splenda tastes nasty?
Yay, another chocolate snob. Dark chocolate is horribly bitter with a disgusting aftertaste that can only be washed away with bourbon.
Maybe I'm weird, but I like white chocolate, milk chocolate, and dark chocolate. 75-80% is my personal preference because darker can be bitter unless paired with another flavoring (ever try it with extra sharp white cheddar?).
That's interesting. I find all the non-sugar sweeteners to taste bad to varying degrees, but Stevia is the least bad of them all. Splenda is terrible, and Sweet 'n Low is even worse.
There is no quicker way to render good food inedible than by adding cilantro, even in small amounts, to it.
Same goes with chocolate.
But I don't want chocolate. Your reasoning is unsound.
Which is why the other AC questioned your humanity. I'm not sure the no true Scotsman fallacy applies to monsters who don't like chocolate. ;-)
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Yep. You can also blend aspartame and AceK (and in fact, that was what Pepsi did with first-generation Pepsi ONE, now reintroduced as "Diet Pepsi with aspartame"), but then you end up with a worse shelf life than aspartame alone.
Basically, aspartame breaks down over time, loses its sweetness, and eventually decays further into formaldehyde. I'm not sure what AceK breaks down into, but its half-life is comparable to aspartame's.
The main advantage of sucralose + AceK over aspartame + aceK is that aceK's taste-neutralization lasts longer than its sweetness. So, with sucralose + aceK, Pepsi can use enough Splenda to maintain acceptable sweetness long after the aceK has started breaking down, and use the aceK purely for taste-neutralization (nobody really minds if it's "too sweet" when fresh). With aspartame + aceK, you still get the flavor-smoothing effect, but after 3-6 months, it tastes almost as bad as pure decayed aspartame.
Tip: if you have diet soda that's ~3 to 12 months old, try adding a packet or two of aspartame or sucralose per 12oz before drinking... assuming you didn't store it in a hot Florida garage (causing more formaldehyde), this trick can resurrect an otherwise-ruined can/bottle of diet soda.
you can use honey or orange concentrate, or whatever. This so called "Chocolate obsession" of some people is *imho* more or less a sugar obsession.
I hate to break it to you, but all those things also have sugar in them, just not table sugar.
Like Olestra.
Nestle: Melts in your mouth, hands, wrapping, on the shelf, in the truck... Actually, by the time you taste it, it's like 10 year-old molten chocolate mixed with paper and foil.
Actually, the Mayas and Aztecs didn't really eat chocolate. They made a drink out of cocoa; solid chocolate bars were developed in 1847's Great Britain. Milk chocolate and the modern creamy texture were both developed in Switzerland in 1875 and 1879, respectively. Solid chocolate only became popular after that; the original bars were gritty and bitter (and if you've ever get the chance to try unconched chocolate you'll understand why nobody wanted that shit).
Oh, and you forgot about the Olmecs who first cultivated cocoa well before the Mayas and Aztecs were relevant.
(BTW, I recommend visiting a chocolate museum if you get the chance, especially if you can get a guided tour. Interesting stuff. The Imhoff Chocolate Museum in Cologne is pretty good.)
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Hopefully, unlike substituting margarine for butter, the new process doesn't create something so horribly unhealthy we might as well just eaten the sugar....
You contract your gluteus buttus coccyx muscle. Obviously!
Thanks :)
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
With a 1 horsepower burst of gas!
Man, you really need that seminar!
What's insane about that? Fructose is a poison.
The insane part is its like arguing that arsenic is better for you than lead.
I just love it when someone brags about only drinking Mexican Coca Cola like they are all concerned about healthy eating.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
How about artificial sweeteners (stevia isn't artificial to my knowledge, it comes from some plant in South America I think)? Saccharin, aspartame, sucralose?
I think I might have that gene too; cilantro seems to taste a little soapy, and I really have stevia. I like broccoli though, but only steamed like in Chinese food.
And I find you quite boring.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
What a zinger.
Great. Can now Nestle do the same with cocoa, so that children in Africa do not have to work 16 hours daily for $2 in order for the company to make the chocolate? Google's AI promos are plain stupid, but this is gross. This science-for-marketing thing has gone too far.
"Abashed the Devil stood, and felt how awful goodness is..."
Did they say anything about the amount of cacao, or other ingredients, they will be removing along with the sugar?
If you just reduce the overall portion size by 40%, you will be reducing the sugar content by 40%, too. That may sound cynical, but given the way marketers think, it's an entirely reasonable possibility. They could just be taking a page from Toblerone's playbook.
It never ceases to amaze me how different people can be from each other. Something that tastes good to some people tastes awful to others. For you, Splenda "doesn't taste like sugar", yet for me it is the only artificial sweetener I will use because it takes just like sugar (to me). ...
That's true, even the same person's tastes can change over time, sometimes just a few minutes is enough.
To me "Splenda" tases like used motor oil and sugar is almost as bad, maybe because I eat so little of it now.
Artificial sweetners also tend to upset my stomach. It seems to be related to type 2 diabetes. So be careful giving stuff with artificial sweetners to anyone who has that...
They'll find out years from now it does something terrible to us. Usually cancer. Really hard to beat Mother Nature. Just eat what she gives you and stop with all the processed crap.
Well of course unless you don't care about yourself. Go ahead, eat up. Get as big as a house. It's gluttony. Eat more, less nutrition, die early.
Dark chocolate is horribly bitter with a disgusting aftertaste that can only be washed away with bourbon.
I'm guessing you're also the kind of person who can only drink coffee that's loaded up with flavourings and sweeteners to make it not taste like coffee any more.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
How about artificial sweeteners (stevia isn't artificial to my knowledge, it comes from some plant in South America I think)? Saccharin, aspartame, sucralose?
Artificial sweeteners in general leave a bad aftertaste. I can mostly overcome that by adding a little real sugar. That's why I like the 10 calorie sodas more than the so-called zero calorie ones.