was thinking a lot about the recent flooding of those “100 calories” packs of your favorite snacks. they’ve gone into frito-lay land, offering 100-calorie packs of cheetos and doritos and other favorites.
it’s a curiosity whether the foods themselves are altered, or if it’s the same product packaged with less of the product equalling approximately 100 calories per package. basically, a reduction of serving-size.
the other thought is possibly the reason McDonald’s is claiming to not yet be trans-fat free
it’s the company’s alternate method, but will not replace the existing product. a sort of eat-at-your-own-risk thing.
I’ve only tried the goldfish, chips-ahoy, oreo and wheat thin ones. Haven’t tried the newer chip-based varities. They’ve even recruited pringles — but in their case, it’s only a 30 calorie reduction from the original serving size.
what’s next? 99 calories?
we are sincerely becoming a calorie-obsessed society, and the fact that trans-fat was recently exposed as a bad type of fat has encouraged the re-packaging and re-thinking of previous favorites.
the thing that’s most apparent, though, is they’re likely re-packaging the same thing, or slightly modified versions of the same thing, doing so in smaller amounts and actually charging MORE for LESS.
Interesting how that turned out.
I remember when the cheetos bags started looking smaller.
Now they’re trying to sneak it under our noses under the pretense of “it’s healthier”
personally, I don’t mind, but the fact that they’re again charging more for less is pretty much annoying.
in any case, since I’m a consumer and prefer less at the expense of the less costing more, if only for the fact that I don’t have to think about how many to eat to get 100 calories.
alas, I am a calorie-obsessed kitty.
le sigh!
