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.
Even if it just replaces half the sugar ....
Reduced by 40%.
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.
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?
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 haven't seen an Aero bar outside Canada...
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?
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.
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.
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...
... then you don't need chocolate. Just say'in.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wonderin what they gonna use instead? Clay?
With this fantastic stride in culinary wizardry they can use more fat instead!
They sure as hell won't use more cocoa.
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.
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%
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'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.
...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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Hopefully, unlike substituting margarine for butter, the new process doesn't create something so horribly unhealthy we might as well just eaten the sugar....
Thanks :)
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
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.
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.