Krackel: Confirmed to be chocolate

IMG_3534So, I know that I promised something potentially revelatory and/or lascivious Monday in my post about Whatchamacallits, contingent upon my consumption of a Krackel bar Tuesday.

And I still have something for you that’s potentially revelatory and/or lascivious!

Just leave Krackel out of it.

The thing that upset me so upon doing research on Whatchamacallits: In 2008, the candy bar was one of few subject to a formula change by Hershey’s, in a cost-cutting move. The change? Reducing the amount of cocoa butter and introducing vegetable oil, relegating the once-allowed-to-be-called-milk-chocolate-by-the-FDA status of its chocolate to a not-allowed-to-be-called-milk-chocolate-by-the-FDA one.

Which is kind of, in a word, gross. There are other words, too, but I don’t think they are actually real words and I’m just going to leave them alone in lieu of not-actually-real words of my own.

I’m not about to get on a pedestal and say I have never eaten a processed food that wasn’t actually made of the food it represented: Any child who’s spread the “cheez” with that weird rectangle wand that comes inside a Handi-Snacks knows what I’m talking about. I also don’t contend that I won’t eat another candy bar made from “chocolate candy” this year, and I don’t contend that I won’t maybe even like it. (Ed. note: Yes, that’s four negatives. We’re going to try to avoid that in the future.)

Still, though. It’s a bummer.

Also alleged to be among the group of fakers: Krackel, a candy bar whose claim to fame before this little dust up was that it wasn’t the Special Dark and thus was never available in the candy dish two desks over at work.

SO, I had set out to eat a Krackel and come back to report my observations. But then I bought the damn thing and realized that it was actually milk chocolate and this was all a case of mistaken identity. (For the record, Whatchamacallit is still made with the imitation.)

I still ate it, of course. And it was … mediocre. Perhaps my opinion was influenced by the fact that I thought it was a fraud, but I have concluded that a two-postage-stamp sized serving of Krackel is as much as I need.

Sorry for almost libeling you, Krackel. My bad.

Tasting Notes (This is a new section. You will begin to see this here a lot more.)

– It was kind of dull.
– The chocolate wasn’t particularly smooth, nor was the rice particularly crispy.
– There were little to no actual crackles involved in the consumption of this candy bar.

Advertisements
Tagged , , ,

2 thoughts on “Krackel: Confirmed to be chocolate

  1. Dan Moore says:

    I’m just amazed to see what appears to be a larger-than-Halloween-sized Krackel bar. (I’m also dismayed to learn that OS X wants to autocorrect that to Crackle no matter how many times I type it.)

    Like

  2. […] – Carlos V is a “milk chocolate style bar” which sounds like a lot of the silliness that happened with Whatchamacallit. – The Carlos V contains a riddle in Spanish, with two options for breaking off. I […]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: