Unsmart cookie

First we find out that Double Stuf falls short of being truly Double. Now we’re getting an Oreo in which you can barely see the Stuf:

Oreos are getting a skinny new look, and its maker says the new cookie is a “sophisticated” snack for grown-ups that isn’t meant to be twisted or dunked.

Mondelēz International Inc. says it will add “Oreo Thins” to its permanent lineup in the U.S. starting next week. The cookies look like regular Oreos and have a similar cookie-to-filling ratio, except that they’re slimmer. That means four of the cookies contain 140 calories, compared with 160 calories for three regular Oreos.

For those who will sit there and eat half the package at a sitting, this is essentially meaningless.

And apparently the Thins are (quelle surprise!) fragile:

[I]t took months for the company to perfect manufacturing for the Thins. Early on … 60 percent of the cookies were breaking, but that the rate eventually came down to 3 percent.

Perhaps this could be alleviated with a Double Stuf Thin, though I suspect that isn’t happening. In the meantime:

You can twist the Oreo Thin, but three out of every four cracked when we tried — unlike the original, which as we all know, usually separates with ease.

So clearly the manufacturer is invoking the original first definition of “sophisticated”: “deprived of native or original simplicity.”





4 comments

  1. jsallison »

    7 July 2015 · 9:06 pm

    I’ll swipe the wife-unit’s oreos from time to time but the only commercial cookie suitable for dunking is Chips Ahoy. Now is that a throw-down for a comment war, or what?

    Also, the only doughnut suitable for dunking is plain cake.

    Heading for the Comment Shelter now.

  2. McGehee »

    7 July 2015 · 11:26 pm

    I’m convinced civilization began to unravel when Hydrox availability plummeted.

  3. fillyjonk »

    8 July 2015 · 5:24 am

    This is just…..they’re peeing on all of our legs and telling us it’s raining. Less of the stuff that makes Oreos Oreos; smaller bag, same price; the claim of “sophistication” to cover up “you’re getting less and paying the same….”

    I’m just surprised they didn’t call ’em “Oreos for Her” and play up the “these have fewer calories and look, they’re THIN” angle.

    I buy the mint Newman-Os when I am at a store that actually sells them. Oreo has lost its way in recent years with all the bizarre varieties.

  4. Brett »

    8 July 2015 · 9:59 am

    Who asked for these? And why haven’t they been given the professional help they so desperately need?

RSS feed for comments on this post