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
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.
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.
Except price which you increase
?????
profit
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
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
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});
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Sugar is worse than fat. Fat doesn't spike your insulin making you hungry again shortly afterwards.
The start of the real obesity epidemic in the USA correlates strongly with the research that sugar companies paid for that painted fat as the enemy, and the frenzied replacement of fat in many food products with sugar. See "low fat!" on a label? They had to find something to replace it with, and that was usually sugar.
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.
Far too simplistic. And your point doesn't seem to be correct based on the article itself. The obesity epidemic didn't start in the USA until the 90's, and there were far more factors then just "fat and sugar." The 90's also had the "children should say in side" actors spouting off all the time, coupled with the "stranger danger" garbage painted by the media. The lack of actual exercise and all that has more to do with this.
Om, nomnomnom...
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.