US candy makers collaborate to reduce calories

[USS Monitor]

The interesting problem with american candy is the only flavor they add tends to be sweetness. In most other countries I have been the sweetness is there to add to another base flavor.

I think thats the problem with almost all American food. It always amazes me just how much sugary processed stuff passes for food in America. (Of course most US brands I see are highly processed and come in a box or can so that might be a factor)

Do you actually live in the US, or are you just going off of the American brands that you find overseas? If you're going off of exported brand-name products, there are two reasons why these are not representative of American food as a whole.

First of all, some products do not get exported. Products with a short shelf life are less likely to be exported because you don't want them to go bad during shipping.

Secondly, products such as fresh meat, unprocessed grains, and raw fruits or vegetables are sometimes shipped internationally without any obtrusive branding. For example, the grocery store in my town sometimes has apples from New Zealand or Chile when they are out of season in the Northern hemisphere, but I doubt most people notice where the apples are from. Sometimes they aren't even labeled.

[Kanadorika]

I find it dumb. People don't eat candy to eat healthy, they do it to treat themselves to something nice. I'm sure if someone were truly concerned with their health, they would just skip candy altogether at the store.

[Randsbeik]

It could be a multitude of things, although likely it's an effort to cut costs on ingredients while being able to market it as "healthy"; that being said, I don't know if the average candy consumer really gives a damn about "health" in candy, and if the taste is too unsatisfactory it's most certainly going to backfire.

[Victorious Decepticons]

"US candy makers collude to reduce candy bar sizes"

That's how I read it.

Candy is not supposed to be healthy. If it even approaches that status, the taste has been destroyed and it's not worth buying as a form of candy. The only alternative is to shrink the amount in the package (while all-but-assuredly ripping people off by keeping the price the same).

That new manufacturing method that supposedly uses less sugar but produces a product that tastes the same sounds like complete wishful thinking on the company's part. I'm sure it'll "taste the same" about as much as saccharin does.

[Luziyca]

Probably a bit from all columns, except #6.

[Pope Joan]

It could be a multitude of things, although likely it's an effort to cut costs on ingredients while being able to market it as "healthy"; that being said, I don't know if the average candy consumer really gives a damn about "health" in candy, and if the taste is too unsatisfactory it's most certainly going to backfire.

Yeah, I think that is why there is already a downward sales trend. Now, we can all think of local shops that make great candy, right? I know I can, and if you would like, I can message you. I notice that none of these collaborators are family operations (not sure about Lindt). But I always made people happy on Mother's Day by going to our LOCAL chocolatier.

[USS Monitor]

It could be a multitude of things, although likely it's an effort to cut costs on ingredients while being able to market it as "healthy"; that being said, I don't know if the average candy consumer really gives a damn about "health" in candy, and if the taste is too unsatisfactory it's most certainly going to backfire.

Yeah, I think that is why there is already a downward sales trend. Now, we can all think of local shops that make great candy, right? I know I can, and if you would like, I can message you. I notice that none of these collaborators are family operations (not sure about Lindt). But I always made people happy on Mother's Day by going to our LOCAL chocolatier.

Lindt is the only one of these companies that makes great chocolate, and it would be a real loss if they changed their recipe.

The others, I might eat one of their candy bars now and then if I get a chocolate craving and that's what's available, but they're nothing special.

[Liriena]

It's a good idea, but I definitely don't think it's one they embraced out of genuine altruism. Tentative kudos to them.

[Outer Sparta]

Now if they can phase out artificial ingredients. Oh wait, they won't.

[Hardened Pyrokinetics]

Now if they can phase out artificial ingredients. Oh wait, they won't.

...

Now if they can phase out artificial ingredients.

In candy.

Son I don't think you understand what candy is.

[Risottia]

, products such as fresh meat, unprocessed grains, and raw fruits or vegetables are sometimes shipped internationally without any obtrusive branding. For example, the grocery store in my town sometimes has apples from New Zealand or Chile when they are out of season in the Northern hemisphere, but I doubt most people notice where the apples are from. Sometimes they aren't even labeled.

Wut wut? You don't have labels indicating where you foodstuffs were produced?

[Randsbeik]

:shock:

, products such as fresh meat, unprocessed grains, and raw fruits or vegetables are sometimes shipped internationally without any obtrusive branding. For example, the grocery store in my town sometimes has apples from New Zealand or Chile when they are out of season in the Northern hemisphere, but I doubt most people notice where the apples are from. Sometimes they aren't even labeled.

Wut wut? You don't have labels indicating where you foodstuffs were produced?

I can't speak for everybody, but some food items in the U.S do. It's usually foods being marketed as "organic" or "local" that tend to give some information on where the ingredients come from. But AFAIK it isn't mandatory.

[Risottia]

:shock:
Wut wut? You don't have labels indicating where you foodstuffs were produced?

I can't speak for everybody, but some food items in the U.S do. It's usually foods being marketed as "organic" or "local" that tend to give some information on where the ingredients come from. But AFAIK it isn't mandatory.

In the EU we have a rather extensive system of mandatory labelling. Basically you can track fresh foodstuffs back to the single farm where it was produced - it's quite useful to locate the source of eventual problems.

[Great Minarchistan]

pls tell me they are replacing sugar with stevia or thaumatin



otherwise fuck off y tho

[Kubra]

pls tell me they are replacing sugar with stevia or thaumatin



otherwise fuck off y tho

Unless they're rebranding as hoity toity high cacao content candy bars, chances are something is taking up the sweetening slack
May as well be stevia, stevia and sugar sweetening blends are the most palable calorie-reduced candies/sodas on the market.

[Sarigen]

Good marketing move. I don't eat many candies at all any more, because a freaking chocolate bar has as many calories as my supper. If I eat too many calories, I gain weight, so I always have to be mindful. So disappointing. If calories are reduced in candies, many people like myself, will be a lot happier to buy them.

With consumers becoming extremely health conscious, more and more companies will introduce healthier options.

Plus, in many places, like my own province, it's mandatory for menus and food adverts to list the caloric contents of menu items. Hard to market a delicious looking smoothie to anyone that is health conscious/weight conscious, when an ugly old "1500 calories" is plastered next to it. No thanks, I'd like to eat something else today as well.

[Militant Costco]

Good marketing move. I don't eat many candies at all any more, because a freaking chocolate bar has as many calories as my supper. If I eat too many calories, I gain weight, so I always have to be mindful. So disappointing. If calories are reduced in candies, many people like myself, will be a lot happier to buy them.

With consumers becoming extremely health conscious, more and more companies will introduce healthier options.

Plus, in many places, like my own province, it's mandatory for menus and food adverts to list the caloric contents of menu items. Hard to market a delicious looking smoothie to anyone that is health conscious/weight conscious, when an ugly old "1500 calories" is plastered next to it. No thanks, I'd like to eat something else today as well.

I really hope you learn to have a better diet.

Calories aren't everything. A Subway sandwich and a McDonald burger might have the same calories, but I think its clear which is healthier.

[Sarigen]

Good marketing move. I don't eat many candies at all any more, because a freaking chocolate bar has as many calories as my supper. If I eat too many calories, I gain weight, so I always have to be mindful. So disappointing. If calories are reduced in candies, many people like myself, will be a lot happier to buy them.

With consumers becoming extremely health conscious, more and more companies will introduce healthier options.

Plus, in many places, like my own province, it's mandatory for menus and food adverts to list the caloric contents of menu items. Hard to market a delicious looking smoothie to anyone that is health conscious/weight conscious, when an ugly old "1500 calories" is plastered next to it. No thanks, I'd like to eat something else today as well.

I really hope you learn to have a better diet.

Calories aren't everything. A Subway sandwich and a McDonald burger might have the same calories, but I think its clear which is healthier.

My diet is fine, thank you for your concern, but is it unnecessary.

Weight is simply math.

There are 3 500 calories in a pound, so every 3 500 calories you maintain a deficit for, will be a pound lost. I need to track my calories, or I gain weight, because of a sedentary job. I can exercise, but it is still important to be wary of what you consume, since weight primarily is influenced by how you eat. For example, an hour jog is 400 calories. That's still not even a moderate meal (for most people).

A Mars Snackfood Bar is 550 Calories. I have to eat about 2000 calories a day, because I aim to very slowly lose weight, and in my case, my body only burns about 2300 calories a day. It is a small deficit, but small enough that I don't risk any nutritional deficiencies (if anyone reading this cares, I would strongly advise against something crazy, like limiting yourself to 500 calories a day, because your body will simply extract calories (energy!) from your muscle mass, which includes your heart, and some of this damage can't be healed).I would still be hungry if I ate that, yet have eaten more calories than if I could eat something moderately healthy, such as an egg sandwich instead, for about 400 calories.

Obviously if you measure your calories based on pretzels, you will have many nutritional deficits, but when it comes to weight, calories are the biggest component involved.

From a marketing perspective, if you reduce a 500 calorie candy bar to 50 calories by simply using a sugar substitute, you're going to have tons of people who keep track of their calories, a lot more interested, but now that's an easy snack to include in your day, without going over. Nope ---- still not a 'healthy' snack, but it's not quite as bad, if you're concerned mostly about weight. In my case (and for many like myself), I am very healthy, but I became concerned with calories after I noticed I was slowly gaining weight, and did a lot of research to find out why. I was simply eating too much.

Low calorie snacks are super great for me, and for many people who care about this. I gravitate normally towards things like fruits and occasionally popcorn, just because eating (most) types of candy would take away from my daily budget so much. I get super happy with foods that have a small amount of calories, cause I can eat them between meals. Most vegetables, oatmeal, apples, bananas, a decent amount of fruit, popcorn, etc., just to list examples. Currently, things like muffins are advertised as snacks, but sometimes they have like 500+ calories. For me that's really annoying to work into my day.

Many people are becoming aware of what causes weight, and this will make them more likely to buy candy. Also! Sugar is becoming very demonized by society right now - people blame it on everything. So it will also be a good marketing move because of that.

For some basic information, the Mayo Clinic goes over calories, fad diet myths, and gives some general evidence based tips,
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifes ... t-20048065

[Militant Costco]

I really hope you learn to have a better diet.

Calories aren't everything. A Subway sandwich and a McDonald burger might have the same calories, but I think its clear which is healthier.

My diet is fine, thank you for your concern, but is it unnecessary.

Weight is simply math.

There are 3 500 calories in a pound, so every 3 500 calories you maintain a deficit for, will be a pound lost. I need to track my calories, or I gain weight, because of a sedentary job. I can exercise, but it is still important to be wary of what you consume, since weight primarily is influenced by how you eat. For example, an hour jog is 400 calories. That's still not even a moderate meal (for most people).

A Mars Snackfood Bar is 550 Calories. I have to eat about 2000 calories a day, because I aim to very slowly lose weight, and in my case, my body only burns about 2300 calories a day. It is a small deficit, but small enough that I don't risk any nutritional deficiencies (if anyone reading this cares, I would strongly advise against something crazy, like limiting yourself to 500 calories a day, because your body will simply extract calories (energy!) from your muscle mass, which includes your heart, and some of this damage can't be healed).I would still be hungry if I ate that, yet have eaten more calories than if I could eat something moderately healthy, such as an egg sandwich instead, for about 400 calories.

Obviously if you measure your calories based on pretzels, you will have many nutritional deficits, but when it comes to weight, calories are the biggest component involved.

From a marketing perspective, if you reduce a 500 calorie candy bar to 50 calories by simply using a sugar substitute, you're going to have tons of people who keep track of their calories, a lot more interested, but now that's an easy snack to include in your day, without going over. Nope ---- still not a 'healthy' snack, but it's not quite as bad, if you're concerned mostly about weight. In my case (and for many like myself), I am very healthy, but I became concerned with calories after I noticed I was slowly gaining weight, and did a lot of research to find out why. I was simply eating too much.

Low calorie snacks are super great for me, and for many people who care about this. I gravitate normally towards things like fruits and occasionally popcorn, just because eating (most) types of candy would take away from my daily budget so much. I get super happy with foods that have a small amount of calories, cause I can eat them between meals. Most vegetables, oatmeal, apples, bananas, a decent amount of fruit, popcorn, etc., just to list examples. Currently, things like muffins are advertised as snacks, but sometimes they have like 500+ calories. For me that's really annoying to work into my day.

Many people are becoming aware of what causes weight, and this will make them more likely to buy candy. Also! Sugar is becoming very demonized by society right now - people blame it on everything. So it will also be a good marketing move because of that.

For some basic information, the Mayo Clinic goes over calories, fad diet myths, and gives some general evidence based tips,
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifes ... t-20048065

Ok first of all you don't need to throw your entire daily meal schedule at me to prove calories aren't everything. This just makes your statement all muddled and everything.

You also proceed to then throw a bunch of calorie statements that don't prove anything. The biggest problem though is your idea that low-calorie snacks are fine. It doesn't matter if your Doritos only have 250 calories or your Coke has zero calories, you are still ingesting food that is nutritionally lacking and provides nothing. Skip the popcorn and candy and go for actual food like fruits and vegetables. It's a lot better for you to exceed your daily calorie limit eating all natural and healthy food than meeting your calorie limit with artificial crap.

[Aromanticism]

Now if they can phase out artificial ingredients.

They should do this instead, imo.

[Sarigen]

My diet is fine, thank you for your concern, but is it unnecessary.

Weight is simply math.

There are 3 500 calories in a pound, so every 3 500 calories you maintain a deficit for, will be a pound lost. I need to track my calories, or I gain weight, because of a sedentary job. I can exercise, but it is still important to be wary of what you consume, since weight primarily is influenced by how you eat. For example, an hour jog is 400 calories. That's still not even a moderate meal (for most people).

A Mars Snackfood Bar is 550 Calories. I have to eat about 2000 calories a day, because I aim to very slowly lose weight, and in my case, my body only burns about 2300 calories a day. It is a small deficit, but small enough that I don't risk any nutritional deficiencies (if anyone reading this cares, I would strongly advise against something crazy, like limiting yourself to 500 calories a day, because your body will simply extract calories (energy!) from your muscle mass, which includes your heart, and some of this damage can't be healed).I would still be hungry if I ate that, yet have eaten more calories than if I could eat something moderately healthy, such as an egg sandwich instead, for about 400 calories.

Obviously if you measure your calories based on pretzels, you will have many nutritional deficits, but when it comes to weight, calories are the biggest component involved.

From a marketing perspective, if you reduce a 500 calorie candy bar to 50 calories by simply using a sugar substitute, you're going to have tons of people who keep track of their calories, a lot more interested, but now that's an easy snack to include in your day, without going over. Nope ---- still not a 'healthy' snack, but it's not quite as bad, if you're concerned mostly about weight. In my case (and for many like myself), I am very healthy, but I became concerned with calories after I noticed I was slowly gaining weight, and did a lot of research to find out why. I was simply eating too much.

Low calorie snacks are super great for me, and for many people who care about this. I gravitate normally towards things like fruits and occasionally popcorn, just because eating (most) types of candy would take away from my daily budget so much. I get super happy with foods that have a small amount of calories, cause I can eat them between meals. Most vegetables, oatmeal, apples, bananas, a decent amount of fruit, popcorn, etc., just to list examples. Currently, things like muffins are advertised as snacks, but sometimes they have like 500+ calories. For me that's really annoying to work into my day.

Many people are becoming aware of what causes weight, and this will make them more likely to buy candy. Also! Sugar is becoming very demonized by society right now - people blame it on everything. So it will also be a good marketing move because of that.

For some basic information, the Mayo Clinic goes over calories, fad diet myths, and gives some general evidence based tips,
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifes ... t-20048065

Ok first of all you don't need to throw your entire daily meal schedule at me to prove calories aren't everything. This just makes your statement all muddled and everything.

You also proceed to then throw a bunch of calorie statements that don't prove anything. The biggest problem though is your idea that low-calorie snacks are fine. It doesn't matter if your Doritos only have 250 calories or your Coke has zero calories, you are still ingesting food that is nutritionally lacking and provides nothing. Skip the popcorn and candy and go for actual food like fruits and vegetables. It's a lot better for you to exceed your daily calorie limit eating all natural and healthy food than meeting your calorie limit with artificial crap.

Ok.

You are arguing against a point that isn't in my post.


OP: Perhaps you have a better theory? If so, please share.

I think their profits are down so they are looking to put a good face on the cheapening of their product.

My post: Weight is influenced by energy which can be stored in the body as fat. Calories are a measurement of that energy. If you want to maintain your weight, you may watch your calories. This makes the food more enticing, thus this decision is a good marketing decision (I am agreeing with the OP).

Your post: If you want to ensure that you maintain your recommended nutritional intake, this is a related but separate topic, and I didn't mention this. You are right! Obviously if you limit yourself to junk food, you won't maintain that. It's just that I'm not talking about that, and you are also being really rude to me about this, and I'm not sure why.

It seems that while I have been discussing an apple, you have been discussing an orange, and while they are similar in that they are both fruits, they are different fruits.

Please see where I said: Obviously if you measure your calories based on pretzels, you will have many nutritional deficits, but when it comes to weight, calories are the biggest component involved.
. I understand that a low calorie snack =/= a healthy snack. However, I am human, and enjoy partaking in the occasional consumption of a snack food, and lower calorie snacks are easier to work into my day. This is true for many people.

I covered that. Read my posts, they take time to write. Don't be so rude. You were rude in both your posts, and it makes people not want to talk to you. Also, OP of thread asked for the reasoning as to why these companies may be taking these steps, which is also why I outlined why the market exists for lower calorie foods.

I'm not responding to you anymore or returning to this thread. Unlike many discussions on this thread, this is not opinion based and is factual in nature. If anyone reads this, please know that the scientific basis of weight is established and is well studied, and that if you want to lose weight, the mayo link clinic in my previous post is a good place to start, since many people succumb to fad diets. As Militant Costco points out, who shall now forever be referred to as militant nutritional intake specialist, please never focus so much on calories, that you forget your nutrients, lest you end up in the hospital with an irregular heart rhythm from a potassium deficiency.

[Militant Costco]

Ok first of all you don't need to throw your entire daily meal schedule at me to prove calories aren't everything. This just makes your statement all muddled and everything.

You also proceed to then throw a bunch of calorie statements that don't prove anything. The biggest problem though is your idea that low-calorie snacks are fine. It doesn't matter if your Doritos only have 250 calories or your Coke has zero calories, you are still ingesting food that is nutritionally lacking and provides nothing. Skip the popcorn and candy and go for actual food like fruits and vegetables. It's a lot better for you to exceed your daily calorie limit eating all natural and healthy food than meeting your calorie limit with artificial crap.

Ok.

You are arguing against a point that isn't in my post.


OP: Perhaps you have a better theory? If so, please share.

I think their profits are down so they are looking to put a good face on the cheapening of their product.

My post: Weight is influenced by energy which can be stored in the body as fat. Calories are a measurement of that energy. If you want to maintain your weight, you may watch your calories. This makes the food more enticing, thus this decision is a good marketing decision (I am agreeing with the OP).

Your post: If you want to ensure that you maintain your recommended nutritional intake, this is a related but separate topic, and I didn't mention this. You are right! Obviously if you limit yourself to junk food, you won't maintain that. It's just that I'm not talking about that, and you are also being really rude to me about this, and I'm not sure why.

It seems that while I have been discussing an apple, you have been discussing an orange, and while they are similar in that they are both fruits, they are different fruits.

Please see where I said: Obviously if you measure your calories based on pretzels, you will have many nutritional deficits, but when it comes to weight, calories are the biggest component involved.
. I understand that a low calorie snack =/= a healthy snack. However, I am human, and enjoy partaking in the occasional consumption of a snack food, and lower calorie snacks are easier to work into my day. This is true for many people.

I covered that. Read my posts, they take time to write. Don't be so rude. You were rude in both your posts, and it makes people not want to talk to you. Also, OP of thread asked for the reasoning as to why these companies may be taking these steps, which is also why I outlined why the market exists for lower calorie foods.

I'm not responding to you anymore or returning to this thread. Unlike many discussions on this thread, this is not opinion based and is factual in nature. If anyone reads this, please know that the scientific basis of weight is established and is well studied, and that if you want to lose weight, the mayo link clinic in my previous post is a good place to start, since many people succumb to fad diets. As Militant Costco points out, who shall now forever be referred to as militant nutritional intake specialist, please never focus so much on calories, that you forget your nutrients, lest you end up in the hospital with an irregular heart rhythm from a potassium deficiency.

I simply stated that calories aren't the only thing to count in a diet. If that isn't what you're responding to, why are you replying to me? Again this goes back to the "condense your statement part".

If you find me rude, that's not my problem. I haven't personally insulted you in anyways and if you can't take criticism then I don't know why you're in a chat forum.

In the case that you read this, let me say this. Replacing nutrition for low-calories might help you loose weight, but the only real reason you would lose weight is to become more healthy, so by eating less-nutritionally healthy foods to loose weight, you're actually just taking the longer route to success when you can take the shortcut and eat little amounts of very nutritionally-healthy foods, thus losing weight AND becoming more healthier.

[Uxupox]

My diet is fine, thank you for your concern, but is it unnecessary.

Weight is simply math.

There are 3 500 calories in a pound, so every 3 500 calories you maintain a deficit for, will be a pound lost. I need to track my calories, or I gain weight, because of a sedentary job. I can exercise, but it is still important to be wary of what you consume, since weight primarily is influenced by how you eat. For example, an hour jog is 400 calories. That's still not even a moderate meal (for most people).

A Mars Snackfood Bar is 550 Calories. I have to eat about 2000 calories a day, because I aim to very slowly lose weight, and in my case, my body only burns about 2300 calories a day. It is a small deficit, but small enough that I don't risk any nutritional deficiencies (if anyone reading this cares, I would strongly advise against something crazy, like limiting yourself to 500 calories a day, because your body will simply extract calories (energy!) from your muscle mass, which includes your heart, and some of this damage can't be healed).I would still be hungry if I ate that, yet have eaten more calories than if I could eat something moderately healthy, such as an egg sandwich instead, for about 400 calories.

Obviously if you measure your calories based on pretzels, you will have many nutritional deficits, but when it comes to weight, calories are the biggest component involved.

From a marketing perspective, if you reduce a 500 calorie candy bar to 50 calories by simply using a sugar substitute, you're going to have tons of people who keep track of their calories, a lot more interested, but now that's an easy snack to include in your day, without going over. Nope ---- still not a 'healthy' snack, but it's not quite as bad, if you're concerned mostly about weight. In my case (and for many like myself), I am very healthy, but I became concerned with calories after I noticed I was slowly gaining weight, and did a lot of research to find out why. I was simply eating too much.

Low calorie snacks are super great for me, and for many people who care about this. I gravitate normally towards things like fruits and occasionally popcorn, just because eating (most) types of candy would take away from my daily budget so much. I get super happy with foods that have a small amount of calories, cause I can eat them between meals. Most vegetables, oatmeal, apples, bananas, a decent amount of fruit, popcorn, etc., just to list examples. Currently, things like muffins are advertised as snacks, but sometimes they have like 500+ calories. For me that's really annoying to work into my day.

Many people are becoming aware of what causes weight, and this will make them more likely to buy candy. Also! Sugar is becoming very demonized by society right now - people blame it on everything. So it will also be a good marketing move because of that.

For some basic information, the Mayo Clinic goes over calories, fad diet myths, and gives some general evidence based tips,
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifes ... t-20048065

Ok first of all you don't need to throw your entire daily meal schedule at me to prove calories aren't everything. This just makes your statement all muddled and everything.

You also proceed to then throw a bunch of calorie statements that don't prove anything. The biggest problem though is your idea that low-calorie snacks are fine. It doesn't matter if your Doritos only have 250 calories or your Coke has zero calories, you are still ingesting food that is nutritionally lacking and provides nothing. Skip the popcorn and candy and go for actual food like fruits and vegetables. It's a lot better for you to exceed your daily calorie limit eating all natural and healthy food than meeting your calorie limit with artificial crap.

fruits suck.

[Ashkera]

1. I thought sugar labeling was already required.
2. I am going with fear of government regulation..

Yeah, long game #2.

[Cetacea]

Now if they can phase out artificial ingredients.

In candy.

Son I don't think you understand what candy is.

Honey, fruit juice, vinegar and nuts can be used to make entirely organic candy with no artificial ingredients